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!

So, where is the Leica S2?

LJL

New member
You guys are forcing me to go to PMA and actually get the S2 demo presentation. LOL

Keep twisting my arm , BTW I am putting everything on Black this time.
Finally getting the hints!!!:clap: Seriously, if there is any way to start prying more real and useful information from the folks at Leica about the S2, and even the R10, it would be very nice to have and share some of that. We may all be surprised with an announcement, and that could settle things quickly, but it would also be nice for another trusted hands-on look, see what other lenses besides the 70mm are ready to rock, take a few snaps to let folks know what seems to be working or not. You now have enough experience with your Phase/Mamiya to make some fair comparisons.

If you have the time, it could be worth the trip to either placate your own curiosity, and/or to "take one for the team" and let the rest of us know if we should start saving lots of pennies, or start looking elsewhere. Come on, Guy, you KNOW you want to go :D:D:D

LJ

Taking donations for the craps table. LOL

I am curious
 

Forrest Black

New member
... let the rest of us know if we should start saving lots of pennies, or start looking elsewhere...
Well, LJ, the tanking stock market has put paid my savings plan for the S2. :bugeyes: :eek: :thumbdown: :angry: :cussing:
 
One last thing:

I had this discussion before on another place, somehow the relationship between Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss was damaged and we will propably never find out why (I suspect the usual stuff: cutting costs, not willing to pay for new developements...) and they switched to Fuji.

After seeing their (Zeiss) production facility (the most sophisticated in the world)....
Carl Zeiss simply could not offer what we wanted on a technical level, so we chose the partner who could, Fujinon. If you don't wish to believe so, that is your wish.

I too hope Leica has a success with the S2. It would be sad to see the brand disappear.

Best,



David
 

LJL

New member
Forrest,
I hear you on that!! Part of the brewing "problem" I am wrestling with right now is that I am needing to update gear. No matter which route I may go....stick wih Canon 1-series for all the things I now need to do, or move to S2 or whatever and make adjustments accordingly in both business and shooting....it is going to be very expensive. Not looking forward to that part either way. However, if Leica is able to bring the S2 out at a manageable price point, and it delivers what is promised, it might be worth finding the way to get there for me. I really do not want to keep dealing with the Canons, but the new 17mm f4 TS-E lens they just popped out is looking interesting to fill some gaping holes in shooting needs. Sigh....

LJ
 
O

Oxide Blu

Guest
Carl Zeiss simply could not offer what we wanted on a technical level, so we chose the partner who could, Fujinon.
The suggestion that Zeiss could not offer what 'blad wanted; the suggestion that Nikon could not offer what 'blad needed, the suggestion that only Fujinon could impresses me as someone talking out of their arse. All of those companies, and Canon included, produce phenomenally high-quality optics; optics well beyond the lower quality of optics that is the realm of our photography needs. All of those guys can produce optics of a quality acceptable to Hasselblad's needs.

The fact is the world is shrinking; a world-class education is available to more people from every corner of the planet. Extremely talented people are now everywhere. Cutting edge technology is studied and shared around the world overnight via the internet. The best raw materials from country A are shipped to manufacturing in country B and refined into final product in country C, happens all day, every day, in every segment of every industry. And it is all done IN THE NAME OR CORPORATE PROFITABILITY, nothing else. Any suggestion otherwise is stupidity beyond belief.

'blad hooked up with Fujinon because Fuji offered the PRICE that 'blau could work with, Zeiss couldn't/wouldn't. Zeiss could just as easily provided the quality optics 'blad wanted, and would have lent the Zeiss name to the 'blad product, a huge marketing plus realized by anyone except the genuinely stupid. How would 'blad's marketing been affected by promoting new optics by Canon? You can bet the farm someone at Hasselblad weighed that consideration and decided, for whatever reason, Fijinon offered a better profit margin for where 'blad wanted to go.

You want to try and convince me this isn't all about money, you got yourself an uphill battle.
 
H

Howard Cubell

Guest
The suggestion that Zeiss could not offer what 'blad wanted; the suggestion that Nikon could not offer what 'blad needed, the suggestion that only Fujinon could impresses me as someone talking out of their arse. All of those companies, and Canon included, produce phenomenally high-quality optics; optics well beyond the lower quality of optics that is the realm of our photography needs. All of those guys can produce optics of a quality acceptable to Hasselblad's needs.
It's never a good idea to insult someone over such nonsense, but it's particularly bad form when you don't know what the facts are. Could the H series lenses have been Zeiss? Could they have been Nikon? Canon? Who cares? They are what they are, and you either like the system and buy them or you don't.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
It is ALWAYS about the money. Over the last 10 years MFD back makers and all the associated suppliers have been able ( like everyone else) to make a lot of 'easy' money. Sure, no one wants to say it was easy money - after all one had to get out of bed and go to work - but the money was 'easy'.

Now?

Just try selling something at 2007 prices in a 2009 world - good luck and best wishes. Try to sell somethign with 2007 prices and 2007 technology at 2009 prices - hahahahahhahaha

Looking forward to all the glossy brochures and internet chatter from self proclaimed pro shootin gun totin rubber on the road pro shooters, dealers, quasi dealers, friends of dealers and other insightful commentators...

The ONLY way to see if something works for you is to rent it or buy it and suck the lemon yourself. The worst advice you can get is from the person who has bought something, consiedring buying somethign , pretending they have something, and is carrying that bias - with a very scarce number of exceptions to this rule.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The suggestion that Zeiss could not offer what 'blad wanted; the suggestion that Nikon could not offer what 'blad needed, the suggestion that only Fujinon could impresses me as someone talking out of their arse. All of those companies, and Canon included, produce phenomenally high-quality optics; optics well beyond the lower quality of optics that is the realm of our photography needs. All of those guys can produce optics of a quality acceptable to Hasselblad's needs.

The fact is the world is shrinking; a world-class education is available to more people from every corner of the planet. Extremely talented people are now everywhere. Cutting edge technology is studied and shared around the world overnight via the internet. The best raw materials from country A are shipped to manufacturing in country B and refined into final product in country C, happens all day, every day, in every segment of every industry. And it is all done IN THE NAME OR CORPORATE PROFITABILITY, nothing else. Any suggestion otherwise is stupidity beyond belief.

'blad hooked up with Fujinon because Fuji offered the PRICE that 'blau could work with, Zeiss couldn't/wouldn't. Zeiss could just as easily provided the quality optics 'blad wanted, and would have lent the Zeiss name to the 'blad product, a huge marketing plus realized by anyone except the genuinely stupid. How would 'blad's marketing been affected by promoting new optics by Canon? You can bet the farm someone at Hasselblad weighed that consideration and decided, for whatever reason, Fijinon offered a better profit margin for where 'blad wanted to go.

You want to try and convince me this isn't all about money, you got yourself an uphill battle.
Why would anyone what to convince you of anything?

Your arguement makes absolutely no sense. You say all these different companies can make excellent optics then imply Fuji can't. It's a mental circle jerk. This wasn't the first partnership with Fuji, look to the XPan and it's lenses :thumbs:

Even though I have a lifelong passion for photography and the tools of photography, I'm pretty pragmatic about all this. :salute:

I do not give a flying (you know what) how they got there or who they did it with ... the Hasselbald tools work, and continue to work.:)

Most of the rest of these pronouncements sound like fairy tales to me. Not of the real world I live and work in.

Leica has stiffed me one two many times to entrust them with upwards of 30K for a new MFD system at the expense of one I KNOW works ... Leica has given me a cheapened "flagship" rangefinder with a focusing patch that whited out (money saving move); the interesting, but ill fated DMR which they abandoned almost immediately; a couple of $2K+ R lenses that had really rough spots in the focusing; and the M8 fiasco which almost drove me insane... and is a camera I STILL will not trust my livelyhood to ... not to mention 5 out of 9 M lenses that needed focus calibration ... some as many as 3 trips to fix. Who has the time and energy to deal with such nonsense concerning their tools? :wtf:

In short, Leica has worked my last nerve.

So, I'll let all you folks beta test this stuff for me this time around. And I sure as hell won't listen to internet chatter by people supporting their purchase decisions ... I will talk to people who are as pragmatic as I am when it comes to stuff that you can trust your career to.

Meanwhile, my trusted Hassey Hs keep on truckin' ... cranking out job, after job, after job :thumbs:... and not one client has said "Whoa there Marc, you aren't using Zeiss lenses, I gotta have Zeiss lenses or I'll go elsewhere." :ROTFL:
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
If anyone is interested in getting a hands-on demo of the S2 at PMA, I have set up a time with Christian from Leica USA (a good friend to many here). He will make sure that we can get a private audience with the several key S2 team members including the product manager. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, March 5th at 10:30 AM.

Christian said that they will give an in-depth demo, then hold a Q&A session regarding the S2 and other Leica products in the pipeline. This is a really great opportunity to get first-hand info.

If you are interested in joining us, please let me know ASAP so I can give Christian some numbers.

Thanks,

David
 
O

Oxide Blu

Guest
Your arguement makes absolutely no sense. You say all these different companies can make excellent optics then imply Fuji can't. It's a mental circle jerk. ...

You could benefit from re-reading what I wrote.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
You could benefit from re-reading what I wrote.
I did. Let's let go at "we see things differently" and agree to disagree.

BTW, I admire Zeiss products very much. I currently have and use a substantial arsenal of Zeiss lenses ... ten CFE/CFi/CF lenses on a 503CW; six ZF lenses on my Nikons; five FE lenses on my 203FE; and four ZA AF lenses on my Sony A900s)

I'd say that using 25 Zeiss lenses currently (and a bunch more previously on my Contax 645 and 35mm cameras), proves that I admire their products and voted with my hard earned money. However, I admire some of the Hasselblad optics, and some of the Nikon lenses just as much.

With that all said, my current over-all favorite MF lens is the Hasselblad 100/2.2, and in 35mm AF some of my favorites are the Nikon 200/2VR, and the Minolta/Sony 70-200/2.8 APO; none of which Zeiss made.

I will readily admit that had Hasselblad continued it's relationship with Zeiss for the H camera, I would have still selected them for my MFD solution ... as long as the AF was substantially better than what I experienced with my Contax 645 and the price tag wasn't in the territory of the lenses for the Hy6 since I have a business to run and a bottom line to feed.

The Leica S2 will have the optics I have no doubt in my mind what-so-ever.

The two issues that have not been fully addressed is price and service. Both of which Leica has a history to over-come. How they do that will be the measure of the camera's eventual success IMHO.
 

carstenw

Active member
I don't quite understand why this thread got so poisonous. FTR, I am with Oxide Blu in my disbelief that Zeiss was rejected by Hasselblad due to technical flaws or lacks. I however in no way believe that David, who seems to be an upstanding citizen, is lying. Rather, I think that the real reason has gotten long lost in the mists of time, and no true accounts exist any more. I have, for example, heard that Zeiss rejected the request, since they do not market two lines of lenses in the same market at any given point in time, and the H lenses would have competed against the Contax 645 lineup. I have also heard other accounts, all wildly different.

I know that Zeiss makes great lenses, but they have also made some less spectacular ones, and I don't adore Zeiss the way some people do. I love my Contax 645 35/3.5 and 120/4 Macro lenses, and the 80/2 is nice too. I also adore my 110/2. I have no experience with Fuji lenses, but know that they have good reputations. I am skeptical that I would like them as much as my Zeiss lenses, but admit that the possibility is there.

Perhaps we could all return to facts and personal preferences, and to the S2?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I don't quite understand why this thread got so poisonous. FTR, I am with Oxide Blu in my disbelief that Zeiss was rejected by Hasselblad due to technical flaws or lacks. I however in no way believe that David, who seems to be an upstanding citizen, is lying. Rather, I think that the real reason has gotten long lost in the mists of time, and no true accounts exist any more. I have, for example, heard that Zeiss rejected the request, since they do not market two lines of lenses in the same market at any given point in time, and the H lenses would have competed against the Contax 645 lineup. I have also heard other accounts, all wildly different.

I know that Zeiss makes great lenses, but they have also made some less spectacular ones, and I don't adore Zeiss the way some people do. I love my Contax 645 35/3.5 and 120/4 Macro lenses, and the 80/2 is nice too. I also adore my 110/2. I have no experience with Fuji lenses, but know that they have good reputations. I am skeptical that I would like them as much as my Zeiss lenses, but admit that the possibility is there.

Perhaps we could all return to facts and personal preferences, and to the S2?
I think it doesn't matter why any of this happened, which was Peter's point and also mine. Who cares? Can't change history. It is what it is, no matter why.

And in my experience, history is exactly what Leica needs to address with the S2.

Preserve the long history of excellent optical performance while migrating to MFD.

Correct a recent history of poor service, less than stellar manufacturing QC, and design hiccups ... and swiftly rebuild the trust that took generations to build, and a few short years to unravel.

All the luck and good fortune to them in doing that.
 

LJL

New member
Marc,
I am a bit more aligned with you on the S2 vs. anything else. While I am maybe wishfully hoping that Leica has finally had that lightbulb go back on about quality build and service, I am also being realistic and will wait to see how things shake out a bit myself. I do not want to relive the early adopter M8 fiasco, and if there is any hint the S2 may have similar teething problems, I will write Leica off and probably get onto Hassy for MFD.

With respect to all the static and chatter over who sleeps with whom on the lens lines, etc......all I can say is that from what I have seen Hasselblad is doing just fine with nice Fujinon glass, and Zeiss is doing its own thing with offering lenses of same design to several others as third party stuff. As Peter said....it is what it is, and all the speculation for why or why not really matter very little.

As for Oxide Blu's comments about vertical integration and manufacturing.....I actually think it is more company dependent than anything. If a company is well run, has the capability and resources to control all the parts, good for them. Few can do that today, especially with costs and build deadlines being all over the map. So, my perspective is that it does not really matter who builds what parts for whom, and under what arrangements, as long as the stuff works the way I need, and the price is competitive for the quality. Fujinon glass in Hassy lenses is NOT a shortfall from what I have seen, and Zeiss glass is very good, but not always perfect either.

LJ
 

arashm

Member
well it's the 20th of February,
maybe we'll get a bit more news today.
I (like most people here) think more than anything, Price will determine the faith of this system.
I'm in a position to upgrade, so looking forward to more info.
Thanks for the good read, 114 posts, I guess lots of us are interested in the S2 :)
am
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
I'll be watching the roll-out of the S2 carefully for several simple reasons. I'm sucker for great glass ... I spent quite a bit of time with R and M lens kits ... using and trying a large variety of the lenses offered in each group. I have always liked the way Leica glass draws and am confident that the new S2 lenses will probably live up to the fanfare. I didn't realize how much I missed using a bag full of lenses with great character until I recently picked up a Hasselblad 110/2 to use on my Phase body via adapter. While Phase/Mamiya lenses are workman-like in their ability to get the job done, the 110/2 rocks the house. Not all clients seem to notice the differences in lens characteristics ... but I do. And, for me, that's all that matters as I have a need to see what those few extra percentage points of image clarity, intangibles or whatever are going to do for me.

The second reason that I'll watching the S2 is to see what the images coming out of the system look like. Leica, in my opinion, hasn't been praised enough for the job they have done in delivering excellent digital image quality. Maybe it's the lack of AA filter or combination of other bits of voodoo, but the images from the DMR and M8 have been gorgeous and easy to work with in post processing.

I understand all the rest of the caveats (M8 introduction, IR problem, price, support, etc.) But, lens quality and the image quality coming out of the camera are a potentially potent combination of the things that matter most to me.

Kurt
 

stephengilbert

Active member
Leica needs to "swiftly rebuild the trust that took generations to build?"

Is that not an oxymoron, or like one? I don't know what went wrong at Leica, but I've seen no evidence that it was based on their deciding to cut back here or there. I think there were unforeseen consequences of decisions they made. Maybe these consequences taught Leica how to avoid similar hiccups in the production of the S2 and maybe not. But I think the very high cost of the system (combined with the M8's history) will make many people cautious.

If someone asked me (I know: who would?) I'd advise waiting until the camera proves that it doesn't have hidden problems, and that it offers a degree of reliability that allows it to be trusted. I don't think Leica can "swiftly" meet those criteria.

Admittedly, I'm not likely to buy an S2 because I don't want such a large heavy camera, but I am a Leica fan and have defended them in the past over the service I've received. Of course, before the M8 I never needed service, but I can get over that.

Steve
 

carstenw

Active member
I think that what went wrong for Leica was that the tolerances of film were masking a number of simmering inaccuracies in their designs.

The mechanical rangefinder system is clearly beyond its "best before" date, and in a recent interview, Herr Doktor Kaufmann has discussed some alternative directions there.

Leica's lens designs are highly stressed, meaning that the smallest error will lead to visible flaws. Tim found this out the hard way when he took what is perhaps the most stressed of the current M lineup, the 35 Lux ASPH, to Venice, and found it focus-shifting when stopped down. The DMR delivery problems and the Imacon fiasco has also been a separate school of hard knocks.

IMO, after this debacle, Leica has learned 1) to design less stressed lenses whose tolerances are realistic with digital, 2) to be more forthcoming with the existence of problems, and quicker with solutions, and perhaps more crucially 3) to evaluate the quality of a system as a whole, and not assume the sufficiency of any part.

I also do think that Leica is taking the whole service-for-pros problem very seriously, and the agreement with Phase is presumably all about this. Whether all of this translates into success is not a given, but I feel mildly optimistic that the S2 will end up establishing a firm third pillar in Leica's photographic foundation. I doubt it will knock anyone else out of business though. It will just steal away some D3x/1Ds3 sales (people who are frustrated with the limitations on quality), as well as a few MF sales (those for whom most MF systems are too slow, or who want higher quality from certain lenses). These sales will not be many, but then, the market for the S2 is small, so probably enough.
 

LCT

Member
...The R10 will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 18-21MP (depending on 6um or 6.8um pixel size) on a FF 35mm CCD with no AA filter and 16-bit capture. Basically, a baby S2...
So the S2 would be 16-bit as well? I thought that LFI said 14-bit about the latter. Could you please elaborate?
 

georgl

New member
The S2 is a 16bit-system, just like the other MFDBs but the A/D-converters always have 14bit in these systems - the sensors don't have enough DR to justify more bits.

The DMR (I'm talking about the digital/electronics/firmware) was manufactured/developed by Imacon, the M8 by Jenoptik (Sinarbacks) - the S2 (I think the S1, too?) was developed by Leica (using some ordinary ICs) - this S2 is quite different to DMR/M8.

We will never find out why Hasselblad chose Fuji - propably even Zeiss didn't want to work on the consumer-sector anymore?
Zeiss has many older or conserative (many elements, big, no asphericals...) designs which are manufactured by Cosina, some were also manufactured by Kyocera (for Contax) or now by Sony (I think they use their manufacturing sites?). This is not truly Carl Zeiss!

Going back to this topic one last time:

Zeiss has unique know-how in designing (even the software isn't given to anyone), manufacturing, assembling, testing (with many exclusive Zeiss-machines) - they even own the biggest and most advanced glass-manufacturer (Schott). When Zeiss designs to their limits (which they done rarely in their photography-business lately) they reach are a standard, which cannot be reached by others - they don't have serious competition for their Master Primes in the film-industry or their optical devices for lithographics.

This is a very complex topic, which cannot be explained with a few lines (especially not with my English...) but just let me say, that even the company I've worked for showed the problems of outsourcing/off-shoring and the different characteristics of different production sites (different experience, education, wages...) - we even had to use different manufacturing devices for the same products, because the more complex devices couldn't be handled by less experienced/educated workforces (why give them a certain education which takes 3 years for 100.000€ when I'll only pay the worker 5000€ a year and I will fire him the next chance i get and move to workers which only cost 1000€ a year?)!

Fuji doesn't produce Hasselblad-lenses in low-wage-countries (at least I hope so) but it isn't Zeiss either - we're not talking about comparing old Zeiss or Kyocery-manufactured lenses with the Fuji-lenses, but state-of-the-art new designs which Zeiss could have made for Hasselblad (300SA and 40IF may give an idea)?

Leica also has many unique factors (also their well educated, skilled and experienced workforce) and I don't think Hasselblad will be able to match the S-quality with Fuji-lenses.

Do they come up with new infos on the PMA? They wanted to tell more about their pro-service in January... Well, marketing and communication never was their strength...
 
Top