Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Exactly my thinking . The S can do high enough res for any commercial project. Good enough in my book. I would happily retire with a M and a S. heck I could actively work with them now. Lol
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!
A New MFD Strategy: Your Thoughts Appreciated.
- Thread starter fotografz
- Start date
Indeed, as a location only photographer, that's where I'm headed now. Moving from Hasselblad to S & M (!) as my two systems, using H glass because of the HTS, but will add some S lenses in time. Really no need for more Mpx for what I do, but would be happy to see an S with 50mp some day.
Richard
The ability to work tethered (in a professional workflow manner) while in a studio is definitely a benefit not to be casually tossed aside. And therein the benefit of the 50MS will come into play as well. The real question is how much of that will Marc really do, meaning a "want to do" versus actually "need to do?" My gut says it's a lot more of the former, and why I reco'd the rental route for when it does present as a need ;-)
A few additional thought on all this.
Yes, it is quite difficult creatively to let go even in the rational face of diminishing needs ... not to mention means.
While none of us (except perhaps a few big print sellers) rationally needs more than many cameras can provide today in terms of capturing interesting subject matter or to make a creative statement ... (i.e., it is the photographer, not the gear), I have to say that one grows accustomed to a certain level of quality or qualities in presenting that subject matter or creative statement ... especially if you have been doing it for along time and recognize the differences that MFD provides at any final size.
It is the depth, roundness, fullness, richness ... or whatever term you want to use, that dignifies and defines images from MFD tools. Of course, this is an endless topic of discussion and debate even amongst MFD users, but is NOT a debate to me. This is precisely what I am contemplating giving up ... and to be perfectly clear, the Leica S is not a substitute. As good as it is, as wonderful as the lenses are, it ain't no H4D/60 (not that it hurts all that much to "settle" for a Leica S:ROTFL
.
So, while it is highly likely that I will give it up ... I do so sadly, and with the full knowledge that something IS being lost. My hat is off to those who also see the difference, and have the purpose and means to continue on.
-Marc
Yes, it is quite difficult creatively to let go even in the rational face of diminishing needs ... not to mention means.
While none of us (except perhaps a few big print sellers) rationally needs more than many cameras can provide today in terms of capturing interesting subject matter or to make a creative statement ... (i.e., it is the photographer, not the gear), I have to say that one grows accustomed to a certain level of quality or qualities in presenting that subject matter or creative statement ... especially if you have been doing it for along time and recognize the differences that MFD provides at any final size.
It is the depth, roundness, fullness, richness ... or whatever term you want to use, that dignifies and defines images from MFD tools. Of course, this is an endless topic of discussion and debate even amongst MFD users, but is NOT a debate to me. This is precisely what I am contemplating giving up ... and to be perfectly clear, the Leica S is not a substitute. As good as it is, as wonderful as the lenses are, it ain't no H4D/60 (not that it hurts all that much to "settle" for a Leica S:ROTFL
. So, while it is highly likely that I will give it up ... I do so sadly, and with the full knowledge that something IS being lost. My hat is off to those who also see the difference, and have the purpose and means to continue on.
-Marc
Compared to a H4D/40 there is little difference, I tested it, along with a HCD35-90. On a H4D/60 you can see a difference in the characteristics I mentioned above (depth, roundness, etc.).
The 100/2.2 shows some CA and a touch of fringing when shot wide-open in certain conditions. The 50-II is also very good and hard to tell from the S lenses in terms of acuity and lack of CA or fringing even at max aperture.
The S lenses do have a consistent character that is different, albeit subtile at times.
-Marc
Hi Marc,
if the S is no subsitute for MF in your mind (In my mind the S is a MF camera) -then why mess with the S2?
Then why not sell the S2 and keep the Hassy set for MF work and a Leica M for more spontanious work or if you need a smaller camera.
My recommendation would be to decide for either the S or the Hassy.
For what would you want to use a multishot back???
For my private photography I even find the "S" 36MP to be a luxury overkill, I really cant see for which personal application one needs/wants more than that.
Kind regards, Tom
if the S is no subsitute for MF in your mind (In my mind the S is a MF camera) -then why mess with the S2?
Then why not sell the S2 and keep the Hassy set for MF work and a Leica M for more spontanious work or if you need a smaller camera.
My recommendation would be to decide for either the S or the Hassy.
For what would you want to use a multishot back???
For my private photography I even find the "S" 36MP to be a luxury overkill, I really cant see for which personal application one needs/wants more than that.
Kind regards, Tom
Full disclosure -- I had to let go of my IQ180 and DF kit last Fall because of TWO college tuition payments simultaneously this year. I kept my Arca tech cam and rent a back as needed. It's not an ideal situation for me as I don't have the MF kit at hand for every single occasion I want it, but it is a workable one for the occasions I need it
. The rest of the time I make do with my Nikon kit, but it is NOT a replacement for MF precisely because of the image characteristics you mention. So a bit of a sour pill to swallow I'm afraid. Know that you are not alone in this...I agree, the Leica S is MFD ... in a 35mm DSLR form ... which is its attraction. I've used the S quite a bit now for pre-planed conceptual portrait work using diagramed lighting and all that (some of which I've posted in the "Lighting" section here ... but it doesn't pay well enough to consider it Pro level activity (break-even at best, with little to no profit). I will continue that as more of the personal creative endeavor it really is. The S should be, and has been, enough for that sort of work especially now that the CS lenses are becoming available. However, it is NOT Leica M type stuff IMHO.
On the other hand, I also have an in-home studio armed to the teeth with an array of lighting tools for doing table-top stuff while tethered to the computer. I did a lot of commercial work of this type, but I also like doing personal table top. The reduced H system notion was to "maybe" preserve that ... and trust me, full 645 ratio 60 meg MFD shot at base ISO 50 with studio lighting trumps a smaller sensor 37 meg @ base ISO 160 no matter how good the S lenses are ... and Muti-Shot trumps the 60 meg back.
All that said, if something totally goes, it will NOT be the S2 ... so the H must go and I'll adjust to it.
-Marc