Leica S (007) starts career at significantly lower price...

[Shashin]

What is it with people's interest in high ISO these days? - just don't get it. I mean seriously??? Who cares what the noise level is at 800 let alone 3200 :loco: I've got the original S2 I think I have used it one stop above baseline ...maybe once - and please MR Reichmann of the ex Phase One marketing brigade and now Pentax (oops scratch that) now Sony marketing brigade - give it a rest mate- and concentrate on making dollar shop postcard landscape snaps.

Hows that for a Leica shooter bare knuckle response - eh?

I don't understand how people think there is just one way to do photography--their way. I have done documentary photography with medium-format camera for most of my career, both film and digital. Having high ISOs are really important as the work is mostly handheld. You need the best you can get with those ISOs. It might not be important for you, but photography is not a one-size-fits-all discipline.

 

[jonoslack]

What is it with people's interest in high ISO these days? - just don't get it. I mean seriously??? Who cares what the noise level is at 800 let alone 3200 :loco: I've got the original S2 I think I have used it one stop above baseline ...maybe once - and please MR Reichmann of the ex Phase One marketing brigade and now Pentax (oops scratch that) now Sony marketing brigade - give it a rest mate- and concentrate on making dollar shop postcard landscape snaps.

Hows that for a Leica shooter bare knuckle response - eh?

Hi Peter. I was going to press Like (I do) and possibly even Thanks (after a suitable wait) then I realised that people who live in glass houses ........

:chug::facesmack::ROTFL:

 

[peterv]

I've had exactly the same impulses as Jono, that said, I'm starting to think that LuLa isn't what it used to be. Not the MF forum, and not the 'reviews' or whatever they call their write-ups nowadays.

Why bother making a 'non scientific' ISO test/comparison with beta firmware and whitout proper Lr support? What's the agenda here?

The video chat with Mr Raber - who has nothing to add as usual - is a Muppet show, all shot in backlight like a vacation-video. What were they thinking?

 

[Shashin]

I've had exactly the same impulses as Jono, that said, I'm starting to think that LuLa isn't what it used to be. Not the MF forum, and not the 'reviews' or whatever they call their write-ups nowadays.

Why bother making a 'non scientific' ISO test/comparison with beta firmware and whitout proper Lr support? What's the agenda here?

The video chat with Mr Raber - who has nothing to add as usual - is a Muppet show, all shot in backlight like a vacation-video. What were they thinking?

I found that no one was making me go to Luminous Landscapes, so I stopped. I don't read Ken Rockwell's reviews either. That is kind of the nest thing about choice--everyone gets their own to make...

 

[T.Dascalos]

I've had exactly the same impulses as Jono, that said, I'm starting to think that LuLa isn't what it used to be. Not the MF forum, and not the 'reviews' or whatever they call their write-ups nowadays.

Why bother making a 'non scientific' ISO test/comparison with beta firmware and whitout proper Lr support? What's the agenda here?

The video chat with Mr Raber - who has nothing to add as usual - is a Muppet show, all shot in backlight like a vacation-video. What were they thinking?

Indeed... I still wonder about the same... why would one bother to compare things when the product under examination isn't supported properly or finished yet? ...that's a real mystery!

 

[Shashin]

Indeed... I still wonder about the same... why would one bother to compare things when the product under examination isn't supported properly or finished yet? ...that's a real mystery!

The camera he has many not be the final version, but it is as close to final where you probably will not see a difference in the images--Leica would not have sent it out otherwise. The LR support will probably have little effect on the actual files.

 

[Vivek]

The camera he has many not be the final version, but it is as close to final where you probably will not see a difference in the images--Leica would not have sent it out otherwise. The LR support will probably have little effect on the actual files.

Not sure I agree with that. Perhaps you are not familiar with Leica's digital cameras.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I don't understand this. How did photographers do weddings with manual focus film cameras? I would easily do a wedding with my 645D, I am sure there would be no problem with the Z. The Leica would be fine as well.

I'm not sure you understood, in that example if a person wants a fast DSLR and a film camera, an in-between system may not really make sense as an all-in one replacement. You should try and specialize.

Also, as times change different things are expected. Just because people could do something 20, 50 or 150 years ago, doesn't mean that you should do it today, photographers had always used the most advanced technology available to them at any point in time. Long ago people had no choice but to shoot manual film cameras, but they were the most advanced of their kind at the time, one day people will look back at what we have now and say "how did they ever get anything done with that junk?".

 

[jonoslack]

I found that no one was making me go to Luminous Landscapes, so I stopped. I don't read Ken Rockwell's reviews either. That is kind of the nest thing about choice--everyone gets their own to make...

it's an interesting problem - When the image quality of all the modern digital cameras is so great, it seems kind of beside the point to do detailed analysis of the image quality - but it's how it's done.

I like the way Ming Thein approaches things - ie differently for each camera.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't know. Let's put it this way, the MTF data that Hasselblad publishes for their lenses is much more relevant for my shooting experience than Ming Thein's findings. Let's put it this way, mostly the images are really good enough. But, once you go to the limits, Hasselblad's published MTF is far more relevant than any of Ming Thein's findings.

Now, let us be ware that the MTF published by Hasselblad is just a simple point of near optimal performance. Optical designers study hundreds of MTF curves for any design.

I have been trough something like a dozen of Hasselblad lenses and I see little correlation between mine findings and Ming Tain's. I think we look at stuff from a different perspective.


Best regards
Erik

it's an interesting problem - When the image quality of all the modern digital cameras is so great, it seems kind of beside the point to do detailed analysis of the image quality - but it's how it's done.

I like the way Ming Thein approaches things - ie differently for each camera.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

it's an interesting problem - When the image quality of all the modern digital cameras is so great, it seems kind of beside the point to do detailed analysis of the image quality - but it's how it's done.

It's been that way from the start, only to a greater degree, because every camera had the same selection of film. Also, we don't know what great image quality is, in 20 years it'll all be considered terrible, what we have today is what's good enough for us today.

 

[Shashin]

I'm not sure you understood, in that example if a person wants a fast DSLR and a film camera, an in-between system may not really make sense as an all-in one replacement. You should try and specialize.

Also, as times change different things are expected. Just because people could do something 20, 50 or 150 years ago, doesn't mean that you should do it today, photographers had always used the most advanced technology available to them at any point in time. Long ago people had no choice but to shoot manual film cameras, but they were the most advanced of their kind at the time, one day people will look back at what we have now and say "how did they ever get anything done with that junk?".

And yet, you can still buy 4x5 view cameras. There are successful photographers today using wet plate. Yes, photographers have always used the latest technology, but the inverse it true as well--photographers have always not used the latest equipment. Some people want the latest technology. Some don't. Being able to carry out a task is a combination technology and skill. It seems that people confuse those two. I think skill is always better to have. Personally, I think technology is overrated as a solution for a lack of skill.

 

[Shashin]

it's an interesting problem - When the image quality of all the modern digital cameras is so great, it seems kind of beside the point to do detailed analysis of the image quality - but it's how it's done.

I like the way Ming Thein approaches things - ie differently for each camera.

I am not sure I would not want not to know about the performance of a camera if I am thinking about buying, and sometimes out of interest (cameras are interesting things). But it seems more like a sport and tribalism--my (insert brand here) is beating yours (maybe we should paint our faces and wear the scarfs of our local team).

People are always going to play. I think we can look at the LuLa review for what it is. It has some information, but it is ambiguous. And people enjoying doing that stuff. I am not sure why the frustration--although spreading misinformation get up my nose.

But you are right, cameras are great. They do what they do well. I think there is a confusion about what the numbers mean and their significance, at least in terms of what they mean for an image. From time to time, someone here will buy an "old" medium format back and wax poetic over it. And they are coming from a technically "better" camera. What gives? Number don't represent perception and skill will always trump specs.

 

[T.Dascalos]

The camera he has many not be the final version, but it is as close to final where you probably will not see a difference in the images--Leica would not have sent it out otherwise. The LR support will probably have little effect on the actual files.

This is far from making sense... Does any MFDB performs the same when the files are processed from any random software than the dedicated one? ...my experience says that it's not anywhere near! :toocool:

PS: Even an old P25+ performs much better with the latest version of C1 than it did when it was first introduced... m:bugeyes:

 

[erlingmm]

Reidreviews (paid site) is out with first chapter of a rolling review.

 

[Shashin]

This is far from making sense... Does any MFDB performs the same when the files are processed from any random software than the dedicated one? ...my experience says that it's not anywhere near! :toocool:

PS: Even an old P25+ performs much better with the latest version of C1 than it did when it was first introduced... m:bugeyes:

Well, just look at the images MR posted. They are all very similar--you could say identical. So it would seem that the files were all processed in the same application to the same results. That is not the same as my p25+ files processed in C1 and then Photoshop, which create different results because they are different applications. As far as manufacturers putting in secret sauce, it does not change the basic information contained in the files.

 

[PeterA]

I don't understand how people think there is just one way to do photography--their way. I have done documentary photography with medium-format camera for most of my career, both film and digital. Having high ISOs are really important as the work is mostly handheld. You need the best you can get with those ISOs. It might not be important for you, but photography is not a one-size-fits-all discipline.

Sorry - where exactly did I say that there is only one way to do photography - I can't see how you could extract that from what I typed?

I have many camera systems and I choose whatever is best suited for the job that needs to be done - precisely because photography is not a one size fits all system to quote your vernacular. All I am saying is that as far as the S series camera goes - I have no interest in high ISO performance - I wouldn't use it for that. The S system sings in fat light and Studio work - and that is what I use it for. I guess I am also saying that I have little to no interest in reviewer's opines about systems that they don't use the way I use them I care nothing for their criticisms about factors which are irrelevant to me- just like I care nothing for the opines of people who don't shoot with the gear I shoot with - but seem to have to have a say about things they do not know or understand.

Now if YOU have a a need for high ISO performance from your Pentax and you get it - well that is just fine and dandy my friend - I am happy for your wise choice and the superior performance of your system etc etc ...

-Pete

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter. I was going to press Like (I do) and possibly even Thanks (after a suitable wait) then I realised that people who live in glass houses ........

:chug::facesmack::ROTFL:

You make me laugh Jono..Show some shots you made with the big boy.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Well, just look at the images MR posted. They are all very similar--you could say identical. So it would seem that the files were all processed in the same application to the same results. That is not the same as my p25+ files processed in C1 and then Photoshop, which create different results because they are different applications. As far as manufacturers putting in secret sauce, it does not change the basic information contained in the files.

It still doesn't make sense... what are you saying? ...is it that if one develops (say) P45+ files (and compare it with other cameras) with LR they will be up to same quality as if they would have been developed with C1? ...one that has made the comparison would laugh with such a statement... :banghead:

Don't forget MR himself states clearly that "he expects the difference NOT to be there" when the files will be developed with dedicated software... in fact you are the only one that insists to state (without solidly supporting your position) that this camera is different than any other and dedicated software won't work on it as it does with every other camera... :thumbdown:

 

[docmoore]

Wow,

This forum is changing....seems like any attempt at congeniality is lost as the Lord of the Flies boys wax
eloquently upon their respective biases.

Get a grip guys ....

You want High ISO at bargain prices from lenses that vary across the spectrum ...

You want great lenses that across the board are stellar at largest aperture ...

On a budget ...

All of it works if you define your parameters and live within them ...

S Leica has always defined the top 10% ... something most folks do not want to finance.

The other 90% is captivating gorgeous compelling wonderful stunning etc etc blah blah blah.....

Leica is the outlier ... driven to a different message.

You get it great ... you don't great.

Bottom line ... Pinhole photography is compelling ... as much so as 80 MP MF captures or 8x10 LF prints.

Choose your format ... make it work and for GOD's sake quite trying to convert the pagan outliers.

So

Confused ... you should be ... we are on a quantum slide out of our comfort zone.

And I must say that all of the captures I have been privy to of the S 007 are stellar ... not LL but others.

Just sayin ...

Bob