Diglloyd d800 vs S2 shoot out

[tjv]

As much as I want to believe these two cameras are equal, I can tell you right now that I'd rather own the Leica. That massive viewfinder and the simple menu and ergonomics, plus the lovely prime lenses, true water proofing, money aside it would be perfect for me. In terms of detail, it's plausible the D800E is the S2's equal. But for someone like myself who doesn't need all the extra features of the Nikon body but values a different shooting experience and process – slower, more considered – the S2 would be awesome. The brief tests I did with the Nikon and my 24-70mm G lens suggest performance might be variable. As much as the new Zeiss lenses are great, I'd prefer not to have to use MF lenses to get the most from my kit.

Either way, I'll be buying the D800E as soon as possible... The Leica is just way out of my price league!

 

[docmoore]

1) I would choose 2CV - coolest french car ever IMO.
I dont think it is very reliable though.

Honestly,

The 2CV - you could push it to your destination if needed. Still the coolest car, but I would upgrade the wood to teak or bubinga.

Passed one on a Texas Highway going 30 miles per hour below the speed limit...not a good idea. I would rather be on a bicycle in that situation. But the bike would not have the panache of the 2CV...not even the Gitane....

Bob

 

[dhazeghi]

Personally I wouldnt judge a lens based on 1 test shot of a flat subject in flat light at 1 certain distance and 1 f-stop looking into the corners (by the way using the same f-stop for different sized sensor works in favor of the smaller sensor because it producer a larger DOF)

True, but 2/3 stop isn't that much, and given the flat-field subject and the center sharpness, I'm doubtful that DoF plays a role.

I believe to understand how good/or not so good a lens works one has to shoot it in various conditions with real world subjects.
I can honestly say the 120mm is a impressivly good lens for me, specially because it has sharpness and "pop" on one side, but still draws portraits and skin gentle and also with a nice bokeh.

Certainly. Likewise, if one is shooting landscapes, outstanding corner-to-corner sharpness and minimal field-curvature are valuable things.

DH

 

[FredBGG]

If it must be a french car I would choose 2CV - coolest french car ever IMO.
I dont think it is very reliable though.

I had a 2CV. It only broke down at the very end of it's life the morning after a 2,000 KM return trip. Like a faithful horse it got me home and then passed away.
She had 190,000 km on her. I also had a Citroen Dyan... the ugly version of the 2CV

 

[ustein]

>If it must be a french car I would choose 2CV - coolest french car ever IMO.

Had one 40 years ago. Performed great but also rusted even faster.

 

[PeterA]

So reading this thread - a bunch of people think the D800 is a better value propostion than an S2 - well isnt that just fabulous!

:ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[D&A]

Personally I wouldnt judge a lens based on 1 test shot of a flat subject in flat light at 1 certain distance and 1 f-stop looking into the corners (by the way using the same f-stop for different sized sensor works in favor of the smaller sensor because it producer a larger DOF)
I believe to understand how good/or not so good a lens works one has to shoot it in various conditions with real world subjects.
I can honestly say the 120mm is a impressivly good lens for me, specially because it has sharpness and "pop" on one side, but still draws portraits and skin gentle and also with a nice bokeh.

+2! To evaluate the performance (image) advantages between two closely matched systems, a wide variety of well controlled shooting situations must be evaluated. A flat field subject is fine for quick evaluation two or more samples of the same lens on the same body when the consistancy or best lens sample needs to be identified. Yet when it comes to comparing these two systems, I would like to see a few different pairs of closely matched lenses shot in a wide variety of situations and with various subjects, as Paratom has suggested. The resulting images I suspect will present themselves as being considerably more different than alike, especially when evaluated by printing large format prints. The subltleties of why one system might be prefered over the other will become more evident.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No question about it. As much of a PITA it was I shot at least 5 sets with the 160 and D800 just so it varied somewhat . One shot wonder tests are not very telling.

 

[fotografz]

The Leica S2 considering it's price has a bad reliability record.

I know 4 people that have these cameras and all 4 have had issues with it.

Nikon and Canon reliability in there pro models is stellar in comparison.

German engineering is way over rated.

My Mercedes is a piece of crap compared to my Honda minivan.

.... and my family is German ....

I'd be a bit careful of such pronouncements.

On the DWF website, where a bunch of early adopter pro wedding photographers have already pressed both the Nikon D800 and Canon 5D-III into service ... there are reports of issues with both cameras.

The D800 has a number of users reporting total lock-ups while shooting requiring a battery removal re-boot, and back-focusing issues when used in conjunction with SB-700 and 900 series focus assist speed-lights (but not with SB600 or 800s) ... this issue is also reported on DPReview.

Canon has suspended shipments of the 5D-III until the newly discovered light leak issue can be dealt with (hopefully with some firmware patch). Evidently the LCD light is affecting exposure metering in low light, and in bright sunlight, it also happens.

Anyone like me who went through the mirror box debacle with the pro body Canon 1DMK-II and Canon's initial denial, would beg to differ with your absolute pronouncement of superiority.

My trials and tribulations with Nikon Pro bodies and a reoccurring issue with their 24-70/2.8 (two copies broke in half because of a cheap pig-metal interior framework connection that was anything other than Nikon tough like some older Nikon lenses). A Nikon Pro body once lit up like a possessed Christmas tree and wiped all my images ... never figured that one out.

I DID have an issue with my S2 (which I reported in detail here on Get Dpi), received a loaner the next morning and my S2 picked up at the same time. Rather than a denial, I received an apology from Leica for the inconvenience. Since then, the S2 has performed flawlessly for me and has become my number one go-to camera.

The only cameras I've had zero issues with have been my two Sony A900s ... but I've had to send 2 lenses back to get better copies.

These are complex tools, any new camera design rushed to market for marketing reasons is ripe for issues.

-Marc

 

[jmosier01]

I've been shooting with an H3D 22, H4D 31/40/50/60 and a D800 for the last week. I have to say the D800 is really impressive. My focus has been on the 22 and 40 shooting along side the D800. I still prefer my H3D 22 files and the color coming out of both the 22 and the 40 are at the moment more appealing to me then the D800. I'm also noticing the D800 will show EVERY flaw with one's technique. I've been using the 120 HC with the hassy and the 70-200 VRII with the Nikon. I'm averaging a lot less keepers with the D800 then with the H4D or my D3/D3S cameras.

We'll see how the next few days go =)

 

[T.Karma]

I do not own any of the two cameras, nor do I have worked with them. So I have no ego involved here.

But judging by what is only displayed on this site it is so absurd to conclude that the results are equal, that I asking myself what people are actually looking for, when they look at pictures.

 

[craigrudlin]

Let me preface my remark by stating that I shoot "fine art" photography and not wedding, seniors, or street.

My "small" size print is 12x18 and I often print as large as 40x60 inches.
20x30 inches is my "typical" or usual size.

Obviously, it helps to have a higher resolution or higher pixel count
sensor in such situations.

BUT, resolution is not the major factor in creating the image. For me,
it is the character (some call it the "draw") of the lens as recorded by
the sensor.

I CAN tell the difference between lenses. Some call the appearance
"micro-contrast", some say that the lenses have a "three dimensional"
look.

I can certainly distinguish between an image with the Nikon 14-24 or
24-70 or 70-200 and my Leica S2 lenses. The image simply does not
look the same.

In this regard, it sounds like Lloyd's test may be inadequate to really
"judge" cameras or state that one is better or equal to the other.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Simply put you can't test look but really only technical aspects of a lens. How a lens draws is subjective so impossible to test that end of it.

 

[Vivek]

Simply put you can't test look but really only technical aspects of a lens. How a lens draws is subjective so impossible to test that end of it.

Considering these "tests" (any test out there- most "tests" that is) focus on that and these technical aspects are a very small aspect of a lens in the end, in real photography, I simply do not understand this business of these "test" sites.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I agree any test out there even from what I do which is even more a work in progress kind of testing is only a piece of the puzzle a lot of the times. In lenses you really need to get them into what you do as a shooter to see if it fits your style. Honestly most test sites are about revenue also. Lets be honest banner ads , google ads and affiliate partnerships are revenue based. In a way we are no different but we are not a test site. Just a little forum looking to support all the maintenance that goes into this place. For many it is there main income.

 

[paulraphael]

Simply put you can't test look but really only technical aspects of a lens. How a lens draws is subjective so impossible to test that end of it.

One thing you CAN test is if a subjective difference is a property of the lens or of the viewer's expectations. Human subjectivity is a powerful force. It's amazing how often (not always, but often) "Huge" differences become indestinguishable or squint-worthy in double-blind tests.

When you do have a real difference, then it's often (not always, but often) possible to correlate it with some measureable quality.

Remember how when people first started talking about bokeh, it was regarded as some kind of mystical effect. Then we learned how closely it correlated with spherical aberration and astigmatism, and a couple of other things. Now lens designers design for it, and bench tests are often pretty good predictors of what will look one way or another.

 

[D&A]

I'm not saying anything that hasn't been expressed previously. Like most things, there is more than one side of a coin that needs to be looked at regarding lens testing. Resolution, sharpness across the frame (even into the corners) is an important barometer for both potential performance and use for specific applications. Likewise the way a lens "draws" and presents an image can also be equally important for certain types of output. Weight is often given to one over the other and rightfully so. Therefore which of these often discussed attributes of a given lens, may come down to a photographers intended expectations and uses for such a lens.

Apparently both objectivitiy and subjectivity are involved and how much weight is given to each differs from one individual to another. Lens testing can be both a science as well as a personal opinion and often a lens that tests with near perfection on a test bench may be a poor choice for portraits...just as that great atmospheric portrait lens may be a poor choice for a detailed landscape that needs all the resolving power one can extract from a lens.

Dave (D&A)

 

[glenerrolrd]

The difficulty in most of the camera and lens tests comes from debating the conclusions . One is better than the other in what way ,for what application . Lloyd s tests are IMO pretty well done and often include findings that I might initially miss . I use them to see what he is finding ..like asking a fellow photographer ...How do you like the new 35? I want his conclusion and more so his rationale ..what bothers him may be less relevant to me . He supports his findings with a lot of examples and I can see for myself what he is seeing .


But because we differ in our chosen photographic interests does not mean that his testing and POV can t be relevant . He can t tell me if the D800 is better or close enough to the S2 for my usage ? But he can show me his tests which make it less time consuming to learn the new equipment and probably help me make fewer mistakes in my gear “investments”. Where the debate becomes endless is when we try to pick a winner verse just understanding his testing and rationale for his conclusions.

 

[fotografz]

The difficulty in most of the camera and lens tests comes from debating the conclusions . One is better than the other in what way ,for what application . Lloyd s tests are IMO pretty well done and often include findings that I might initially miss . I use them to see what he is finding ..like asking a fellow photographer ...How do you like the new 35? I want his conclusion and more so his rationale ..what bothers him may be less relevant to me . He supports his findings with a lot of examples and I can see for myself what he is seeing .


But because we differ in our chosen photographic interests does not mean that his testing and POV can t be relevant . He can t tell me if the D800 is better or close enough to the S2 for my usage ? But he can show me his tests which make it less time consuming to learn the new equipment and probably help me make fewer mistakes in my gear “investments”. Where the debate becomes endless is when we try to pick a winner verse just understanding his testing and rationale for his conclusions.

It is interesting to think about the whole testing dynamic, and how various people both view and use it ... as expressed to some degree on this thread. I tend to view"paid ones" from a marketing perspective ... people either with a purchase intent, or looking for purchase justification.

I've never found various comprehensive test to be of any more value than being "generally directional" as applied to practical real world usage. When Guy and Jack first tested the S2 here, it was a directional guide, and I later found Lloyd's report added little insight to it. What was far more important to me was a real world, hands on demo provided by Dale photographic. After that, I waited until the S2 offering matured more.

Of course a test can be an indicator of suitability IF it is conducted in a manner similar to one's own intended use ... which I rarely find to be the case. I do not think Lloyd's reports are the same as asking a fellow photographer their opinion. There is little to nothing that Lloyd shoots that is relevant to what and how I shoot. If I ask a fellow photographer, I don't ask one that shoots landscapes, because I don't shoot landscape photography. I ask a people shooter.

A related "speed bump" I always hit with these tests is that it seems the intent of the product positioning platform is often over-looked. Leica has been pretty clear in how they position this camera and its intended target audience. It was never positioned as "generalists" tool, but keeps on getting evaluated that way. There are better choices for the "generalist" photographer, and considerably less expensive ones.

-Marc

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

The internet is filled with reams of tech info regarding research for a particular camera or similar. Some have good reputations based on the extent and knowledge of such research, and I find that Lloyd's site is generally unbiased. His "paid" site, is much more detailed with an emphasis on particular areas that suit individual photographers. I tend to think that subscription sites can be more objective in their findings, as they're not beholden to a specific brand, and thus ego's are kept in check. DXO's site also utilizes very technical criteria to measure the performance of new technology, and it's findings don't seem biased, but rather essential for accumulating data.

I disagree with the "generalist" label because Leica's website even touts the S2, as being much like a 35mm in size and handling-in my opinion that appeals specifically to the "generalist" photographer. As planned obsolescence seems to rule the digital marketing cycle, Nikon's D800 is the new player, and bodes well for many photographers in many areas, with results that are directly comparable to the more expensive MFD and ultra 35mm, like the S2. Never read a camera review, after the purchase