I just posted the first part of my review of the Leica S2 on my blog - Everything Photo. This first part is on the impressive ergonomics of the camera. I'll post more as I get more familiar with the camera.
Last edited:
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Multi-part Leica S2 review
- Thread starter aboudd
- Start date
Shashin
Well-known member
That explains you selling your 645D. Looking forward to seeing more. And I agree, the Pentax could use a vertical grip.
BTW, one thought on the comparison for the Leica and Pentax 120mm macro, I think the Pentax is an f/4 because it goes up to 1X reproduction where the Leica is 0.5X. (Naturally, the prices are not a one stop difference either.)
BTW, one thought on the comparison for the Leica and Pentax 120mm macro, I think the Pentax is an f/4 because it goes up to 1X reproduction where the Leica is 0.5X. (Naturally, the prices are not a one stop difference either.)
richardman
Well-known member
Is there any evidence that they are the same sensor? Both may be from (ex-)Kodak, but the dimensions are different. I can imagine that they use the same sensor tech, but even there, is there any actual evidence?
Does the S2 sensor have microlens, similar to the M9?
Does the S2 sensor have microlens, similar to the M9?
Shashin
Well-known member
Kodak removed the specs of the sensor when the S2 was released so customers could not get the information, but supposedly the sensors in the two cameras are from the same generation and share the same technology. It is definitely a Kodak sensor--KAF 37500.
http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Image..._New_Cameras_for_Professional_Photography.htm
http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Image..._New_Cameras_for_Professional_Photography.htm
Stuart Richardson
Active member
That sounds like a bit of a logical leap. What is the evidence of that?
Even then, sharing a sensor technology does not mean that the cameras are "twins". Phase One, Hasselblad, Leaf and Sinar have all been using pretty much the same sensors as a group, either from Kodak or Dalsa almost since day one. The sensor will determine certain characteristics, but the heavy lifting in terms of image quality is more from the company's proprietary signal processing algorithms, their lenses and how they decide they want their "house look" to be. It's really no different than the film days...you can put a roll of Kodachrome in your Canon and your Nikon and take a picture and they will not be the same. It is more of a difference now than then, but it is still pretty much the same issue.
Shashin
Well-known member
Do a search for the specs for the KAF-37500, you will not find them. However, the KAF-40000 data sheet seems easily available.
Naturally, I am not sure of your point. On one hand, you are suggesting they are different, and, on the other, you are saying they are the same with different processing. And perhaps they are different. Pentax has a 100-1600 ISO range where the S2 is 80-1250 and the Pentax has unlimited bulb where the S2 is limited to 32s. But then that could be the processing. Perhaps Pentax processing is just better with the same sensor technology.
However, I don't think I said the cameras were twins. The question was simply about the sensor technology. They seem to be cut from the same cloth.
BTW, they had better processing control in the film days--you would not be able to tell which Kodakchrome was shot in a Nikon or Canon. Only Kodak or Kodak approved labs could process Kodachrome. And when running an E-6 line, I could be consistent in my film processing as well. Perhaps a better analogy would be comparing Kodachrome with Ektachrome or Fujichrome or Agfachrome.
Stuart Richardson
Active member
I only meant that just because you can't find information on it does not mean they are hiding it from the customers. That to me seems like a rather large deductive leap...there could be any number of reasons why you cannot find a data sheet for that particular sensor.
Anyway, I am sorry if my point was not clear. Here it is more clearly: Even if two cameras share a sensor, it does not make sense to expect them to output the same, or even similar results.
I am not saying you said this, the quotation marks around the word twins were not meant to be attributive.
As for Nikon and Canon, perhaps you are right. But I clearly could tell the difference between Leica and Canon, or at least the Canon F1 with a 50/1.2L and a Leica MP with a 50/2 summicron. I am sure you would be able to tell too...it was not subtle. But you are right that Kodachrome vs. Fujichrome etc would likely be a better comparison -- the companies have their own house flavor, and that affects the color palette, treatment of noise etc.
On a side note, Pentax may well have better signal processing, but I suspect it has more to do with the corporate culture and what is considered "acceptable" with regards to file quality. I would sure be impressed if the files were better than those from the S2. My own suspicion is that Leica is overly conservative in what they let customers have. For example, ISO 1250 in the S2 is really not bad at all, at least from my perspective. I am quite sure it could do a totally acceptable ISO 1600, at least for me. Furthermore, the long exposure time was upped to 120s a year or two ago...I have exposed it that long and it still has incredibly low noise and no signs of battery drain. I wish they would give me a longer exposure, but someone probably decided it might no longer be perfect, and therefore best not to allow it.
Anyway, I am sorry if my point was not clear. Here it is more clearly: Even if two cameras share a sensor, it does not make sense to expect them to output the same, or even similar results.
I am not saying you said this, the quotation marks around the word twins were not meant to be attributive.
As for Nikon and Canon, perhaps you are right. But I clearly could tell the difference between Leica and Canon, or at least the Canon F1 with a 50/1.2L and a Leica MP with a 50/2 summicron. I am sure you would be able to tell too...it was not subtle. But you are right that Kodachrome vs. Fujichrome etc would likely be a better comparison -- the companies have their own house flavor, and that affects the color palette, treatment of noise etc.
On a side note, Pentax may well have better signal processing, but I suspect it has more to do with the corporate culture and what is considered "acceptable" with regards to file quality. I would sure be impressed if the files were better than those from the S2. My own suspicion is that Leica is overly conservative in what they let customers have. For example, ISO 1250 in the S2 is really not bad at all, at least from my perspective. I am quite sure it could do a totally acceptable ISO 1600, at least for me. Furthermore, the long exposure time was upped to 120s a year or two ago...I have exposed it that long and it still has incredibly low noise and no signs of battery drain. I wish they would give me a longer exposure, but someone probably decided it might no longer be perfect, and therefore best not to allow it.
craigrudlin
New member
Whether true or not, whether present in both the pentax and leica, I have been told the following. Both use micro-lenses to "focus" or direct the photons into the wells of the sensor. However, one difference, I was told, was that most such lens arrays have equally spaced and equally "strong" lenses over each photo site. Leica, on the other hand, varies the lens "strength" or correction based on the distance away from the center, so that as the angle of the incident photons increases, so does the power or refractive ability of the lens over that particular photo site (well). This is suppose to better "focus" the photons improving sensitivity and perhaps decreasing noise. I am not a physicist,
and certainly do not have a degree in optics. The concept makes sense,
whether it makes a difference in the "real world" is another story.
What I can say, is that the Leica S2 with Leica lenses produces a remarkable image, even in low light, that appears to have more contrast, more micro-contrast and better "sharpness" than I was able to attain with a HD-50 or a IQ140 back on their respective cameras. I was not able to compare directly to the pentax so I won't comment on that camera.
and certainly do not have a degree in optics. The concept makes sense,
whether it makes a difference in the "real world" is another story.
What I can say, is that the Leica S2 with Leica lenses produces a remarkable image, even in low light, that appears to have more contrast, more micro-contrast and better "sharpness" than I was able to attain with a HD-50 or a IQ140 back on their respective cameras. I was not able to compare directly to the pentax so I won't comment on that camera.
Shashin
Well-known member
The lack of information does not prove anything, but it is strange that that data sheet could not be found. Perhaps Leica want exclusivity to the sensor and that is one reason for the price--I don't think it beyond reason that Leica would want to have a unique format for the S2.
Certainly you can say all these sensors shared the same pedigree. That does not mean the output will not be the same, but they are all starting with the same engine, the transmission will vary. And the signal processing can effect the look of an image considerably.
The difference in performance can be simply company policy. Leica is a conservative company. Personally, I am not a great fan of engineers telling me what I can and cannot do with my cameras. But cameras need limits.
Craig, the difference could simply be down to the optics and processing than anything special with the sensor. The S2 lenses don't seem to have a particularly short image-side distance where you would need to do much with the micro lensing.
Certainly you can say all these sensors shared the same pedigree. That does not mean the output will not be the same, but they are all starting with the same engine, the transmission will vary. And the signal processing can effect the look of an image considerably.
The difference in performance can be simply company policy. Leica is a conservative company. Personally, I am not a great fan of engineers telling me what I can and cannot do with my cameras. But cameras need limits.
Craig, the difference could simply be down to the optics and processing than anything special with the sensor. The S2 lenses don't seem to have a particularly short image-side distance where you would need to do much with the micro lensing.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
I could be wrong, and I am making some assumptions - and I do not have un-fettered access to every CCD schematic made by Kodak/Dalsa, I have to search it out (and frankly do not expend a lot of energy in doing so, as my clients are more often interested in the results than the specifications). So no proof, but my supposition is based on my experience with the KAF-37500, KAF-40000, and KAF-50100 sensors and my feeling that the results from the 37MP Sensor from the Leica are closer in character to the 50MP KAF50100 than the KAF-40000. Results from the KAF-40000 are more similar to the KAF-31600 (found in P30+/H3D-31/eSprit 65).
Further, the below Kodak PR states the 37500 and 50100 originate from the same CCD platform, but does not mention the 40000. Also, the data sheet from the KAF-50100 stipulates there are no microlenses, which are certainly present on the KAF-40000. I could not locate a data sheet for the KA-37500.
Kodak PR on KAF-37500 & KAF-50100
KAF-31600 Datasheet
KAF-40000
KAF-50100 Datasheet
Steve Hendrix
Further, the below Kodak PR states the 37500 and 50100 originate from the same CCD platform, but does not mention the 40000. Also, the data sheet from the KAF-50100 stipulates there are no microlenses, which are certainly present on the KAF-40000. I could not locate a data sheet for the KA-37500.
Kodak PR on KAF-37500 & KAF-50100
KAF-31600 Datasheet
KAF-40000
KAF-50100 Datasheet
Steve Hendrix
Last edited:
Shashin
Well-known member
Thanks for the links Steve. From Kodak about the 37500 and 50100:
From the KAF-40000 data sheet:
The KAF-31600 sensor does not mention "KODAK TRUESENSE" and has 6.8um pixels:
I wonder what you mean by the results of the KAF-40000 and KAF-31600 being similar. I doubt I could identify a sensor simply by a file.
Steve, that seems to correspond to Leica's initial indication that the sensor in the S2 coupled with the ground-up lens designs and proprietary Maestro processor would be competing with a 50 meg sensor. Before I committed to the Leica, I did test the S2 extensively against my H4D/40, and the S2 decidedly had the edge ... but it was probably splitting hairs. I just like the S lenses, so the body had be come with them
The DPReview on the S2 states that the image sensor was developed especially for Leica by Kodak.
-Marc
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Sometimes the differences are rather extreme, based on the hardware. If you captured images at 800 ISO and full resolution from the 31MP, 40MP, 50MP, 60MP, 80MP sensors (Dalsa and Kodak), regardless of what digital back they came from, I'm pretty sure I could at least tell you which did not come from a digital back that contained the KAF-31600/KAF-40000 sensor as opposed to the others.
Steve Hendrix
Could it be that when Leica said the sensor was developed specifically for them by Kodak, it was?
-Marc
Shashin
Well-known member
But the KAF-31600 and KAF-40000 sensors are not related. The 40000 is related to the 37500/50100.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
I spotted an error on the PR link (corrected), I meant to say KAF-37500 and KAF-50100 in the title of the link. The PR refers to both sensors as part of the same platform. That doesn't mean they're the exact same architecture, but it is likely that the core architecture is very similar. And that is quite different from the KAF-40000.
Steve Hendrix
Shashin
Well-known member
So when Kodak states that the 37500 and 50100 is based on the KODAK TRUESENSE 6.0 micron Full Frame CCD Platform, that means the 40000, which kodak states is based on the KODAK TRUESENSE 6.0 micron Full Frame CCD Platform, is different? And when you compare the spec sheets for the 50100 and the 40000, the spec are very similar, but the 40000 is actually related to the 31600 which has very different specs and is not based on the KODAK TRUESENSE 6.0 micron Full Frame CCD Platform. Interesting.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Please see attached.