Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pentax 645D and Leica S2 sensor size  (Read 18732 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2010, 02:03:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: archivue
With both pentax and leica, you can't use the back on a technical camera !
Yes, that's a big point, and also the 44x33 crop factor, but for the price...it would be criminal to ask for more.
I think that Pentax is not targeting experienced MFD o LF users but much more the high-end dslr users and the less wealthy amateurs (in a noble way).
As someone post in another room, it will allow the access to MFD to a lot more people, but their target is not the professional who has already invested in others and more versatiles systems. In that sense I do not think it will be a game changer if we talk about a possible threat for Hasselblad and Phase etc...
Yes it will probably be a game changer in bringing more people less experienced or less wealphy to MF, and that is a good point.
But then, its direct competitors are not willing to be the high-end MFD as expected but probably the next generation of FF from Canon and Nikon (and Sony??? what the truck is doing Sony in 35mm FF ?), and these, have already a lot of lenses and accesories, and that is where Pentax will have to work seriously: the lenses.

Cheers,

Fred.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 02:05:49 PM by fredjeang » Logged
rolleiflexpages
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2010, 02:06:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nemo
1) Leica tend to abuse their customers (do you remember the Panaleicas? The same camera than Pana, double price).

Double price? When I compared prices at the time when I bought several of the Leica/Panasonic digital compacts there was some price difference, but never to that extent.
Logged

Pascal Heyman - www.rolleiflexpages.com
Rolleiflex 6008 AF + DB20p, Rolleiflex Hy6, Leaf AFi-II 7
kaimaui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2010, 06:55:01 PM »
ReplyReply

as much as i dislike the same camera for twice the price there area few differences.
The best example is service / warratee.
i own an lc1 with a failed chip out of warratee.
It was clearly a faulty chip as this happened in large numbers.
Leica replaced their customers chips for free Panasonic did not.




Quote from: rolleiflexpages
Double price? When I compared prices at the time when I bought several of the Leica/Panasonic digital compacts there was some price difference, but never to that extent.
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2010, 12:57:02 AM »
ReplyReply

The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?

Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?

Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2010, 08:15:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: neil snape
The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?

Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?

Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.

This comes up almost every week here. The 2 last bits on every single 16-bit camera are marketing hype, and do not contain useful information due to A/D converter noise - this is what I've gathered here from those with much deeper technical knowledge.
Logged

Danny Chau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2010, 12:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing that impress me the most is that the high ISO is far superior to other MF backs, here is a crop (@100%) at 800 ASA from the Pentax 645D. The other thing I like is the all weather seal body which make this to be one of the cheapest MF camera on the market so far (Leica S2 is the other also has an all weather body).

The bit depth is all theoretical, once on print, no one can tell the difference. The camera is quiet and light, in terms of operation, I'll say this is one of the easiest MF to use to date, the option is easily accessible, I have printed a 60" x 40" print from a jpeg file and it looked stunning.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 12:44:07 AM by Danny Chau » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8246



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2010, 08:15:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.

My aunt used to say that the 16 bits cakes she was cooking did taste better, but my uncle could never measure the gap.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7703


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2010, 01:06:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't really think it's a question of bits, more like sensor cooling, signal processing, pattern noise elimination, calibration and so on.

In my view the Pentax may redefine the MF market, if execution is good enough. DxO data on the Pentax 645D is pretty impressive, much better than the Hasselblad H3 DII 39 but not as good as the Phase One P40+. (I include the DR figure, but it also applies to the other graphs).

I also compared with the Nikon D3X on the pixel level. It is quiet obvious that the Nikon sensor and ASIC achieves about 13 steps of "engineering DR" while the Hassy and the Pentax are just below 12 bits. That should really settle the 14 bits vs. 16 bits issue.

It seems, from DxO data, that Pentax did a decent job with the Kodak sensor they are using. Now engineering DR is something that can be measured. In real photography other things count a lot. What about mechanical tolerances, lens quality, AF-precision and internal baffling?

Best regards
Erik




The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?

Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?

Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
Logged

jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2010, 08:35:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?

Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?

Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
I guess since they are using the pipeline from their SLR the pipe is 14bit including the A/D.  So I don't think it necessary have to do any thing with the sensor.
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2010, 04:32:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess since they are using the pipeline from their SLR the pipe is 14bit including the A/D.  So I don't think it necessary have to do any thing with the sensor.
Indeed: the Kodak sensor chips produce analog output in the form of a charge from each photosite, with the camera maker then adding off-chip processing including first charge-to-voltage conversion (possibly of variable gain to adjust "ISO")  and then A/D conversion. And as said elsewhere, any bits beyond #14 (and probably #13 and #12 too) are noise anyway.
Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2010, 07:11:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if it's because on is made by Leica and the other is made by Pentax?  

Michael

I find this really captures it; some people read consumer reports, shot at Best buy and consider many purchases from a price/performance POV. Others get both pleasure as well as function from purchases. They find that certain brands just 'fit' their likes and give them pleasure. Over time, some may shift as the brand drifts from what you like or your taste changes.

Regardless, what happens is that a group of buyers who can take the factor of two in price difference never even worry if the "$8000" is worth it, because, if they want the product they will pay, until it is 'unreachable' (or the S.O. say  "WTF, you paid WHAT for that!!!?"  )

I haven't tried the Pentax, and shoot with the Contax 645 and P65+, yet, with the ergonomics and over 'feel', and a brand trust (not layalty) that the S2 system is going to "Please me" I am seriously considereing it.

The "value proposition" for Leica will always be on pleasure-+-function, not just 'frunction' basis. as with many items-if the brand pleases YOU then it is actually worth it.

regards
Victor
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2010, 03:20:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The mosaic values for both cameras are 14 bit.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7703


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2010, 10:34:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers has reviewed the Leica S2 in the field. He says that the lenses he tested are magnificent, although a few of the lenses he tested were broken. He writes that the Leica lenses are in a different league than Hasselblad lenses and has MTF-curves to prove it.

He found both cameras to impossible to focus, however. When the Leica is in focus the images are fantastic.

Just to point out, Mark Dubovoy, who is also a sharpness and accuracy freak found that the Leica S2 focuses very well. So we have two very knowledgeable persons arriving at opposite experience regarding AF on the Leica. I actually suggest that both authors know what they are doing, and both are right in their findings. It may be sample differences and/or differences in shooting methodology.

Lloyd Chambers article is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaS2/index.html

DAP is a pay site, but I find it to be worth every penny.

Best regards
Erik


I find this really captures it; some people read consumer reports, shot at Best buy and consider many purchases from a price/performance POV. Others get both pleasure as well as function from purchases. They find that certain brands just 'fit' their likes and give them pleasure. Over time, some may shift as the brand drifts from what you like or your taste changes.

Regardless, what happens is that a group of buyers who can take the factor of two in price difference never even worry if the "$8000" is worth it, because, if they want the product they will pay, until it is 'unreachable' (or the S.O. say  "WTF, you paid WHAT for that!!!?"  )

I haven't tried the Pentax, and shoot with the Contax 645 and P65+, yet, with the ergonomics and over 'feel', and a brand trust (not layalty) that the S2 system is going to "Please me" I am seriously considereing it.

The "value proposition" for Leica will always be on pleasure-+-function, not just 'frunction' basis. as with many items-if the brand pleases YOU then it is actually worth it.

regards
Victor
Logged

BrendanStewart
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2010, 07:43:18 AM »
ReplyReply

He writes that the Leica lenses are in a different league than Hasselblad lenses and has MTF-curves to prove it.

Charts are all fine and dandy, but have you ever looked at an image taken with a Hasselblad 100 2.2 or the 35-90 F4 @ 100%?  They are ridiculously sharp and little CA, and the colors are fantastic. If what he says about the Leica lenses are true, i'm sure we'll all be hearing more about it soon from different sources.  

However, I just cannot fathom a lens being THAT much better than the Hassy's, they are truly fantastic.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7703


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2010, 01:51:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Lloyd has some very impressive images shot with the Hasselblad in the Yosemite. At least they impress me. On the other hand he was also shooting the Leica S2 on the same trip. Both cameras had issues, but Lloyd was very clear that the S2-lenses were another class. Keep in mimd that Lloyd has experience with some of the finest lenses ever built, like The Coastal Optics 60 mm APO and also some of the Leica Apo lenses.

Unfortunately, Lloyd's site is a pay site. I would love to link to hist articles, but most are subscribers only.

Best regards
Erik


Charts are all fine and dandy, but have you ever looked at an image taken with a Hasselblad 100 2.2 or the 35-90 F4 @ 100%?  They are ridiculously sharp and little CA, and the colors are fantastic. If what he says about the Leica lenses are true, i'm sure we'll all be hearing more about it soon from different sources.  

However, I just cannot fathom a lens being THAT much better than the Hassy's, they are truly fantastic.

Logged

jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2010, 02:36:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

 Lloyd has some very impressive images shot with the Hasselblad in the Yosemite. At least they impress me. On the other hand he was also shooting the Leica S2 on the same trip. Both cameras had issues, but Lloyd was very clear that the S2-lenses were another class. Keep in mimd that Lloyd has experience with some of the finest lenses ever built, like The Coastal Optics 60 mm APO and also some of the Leica Apo lenses.

Unfortunately, Lloyd's site is a pay site. I would love to link to hist articles, but most are subscribers only.

Best regards
Erik
Can you elaborate a little more? I understand you  have to respect the copyright of the site owner; but in general terms what does he means by "that the S2-lenses were another class"? is he talking about build quality? image quality?.
 
From his site Loyd Cambers appear to have a good investment in Leica (time mastering etc).  If that is the case, his opinions should be very, very relevant.
A simple question, in this context the "Hasselblad" is the H4D-40?
Thanks.
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7703


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2010, 02:54:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The camera he used was a Hasselblad H4D-50 on loan from Hasselblad USA along with HC 100mm f/2.2 and HCD 28mm f/4.

My impression is that what he says is that:

Both cameras have issues with achieving optimal focus, but when accurate focus has been achieved the two HC lenses are not as good as the sensor in the Hasselblad. The Leica lenses are almost as good as it gets.

Lloyd has extensive experience with lenses, like Zeiss lenses on Nikon and Leica lenses on Canon using adapters and some absolutely astonishing quality lenses from Coastal Optics. That said, he has a limited experience with MF. He has done extensive testing with S2, and may even consider buying it. But he has issues with focusing. His experience with the Hasselblad is less immersive.

He has a lot of sample images, but no "A/B" comparison between the two systems. To put it shortly, in his view:

  • The Leica optics are as good as it gets
  • Achieving correct focus with either camera is a real challenge
  • The Leica works better for the kind of work he does

Added: November 13

I have revisited the DAP article. Lloyd used the 28 HCD 28/4 and the HC100/2. The 28/4 lens had a misalignment issue but the HC100/2 was OK. He found the HC100/2 to be very sharp at the center but lacking sharpness on edge and corners. He has actual pixel samples clearly showing the problems.

Now, he could obviously have two bad samples on loan from Hasselblad USA. He often finds issue with equipment. On the other hand Lloyd says that his findings are consistent with MTF-s published by Hasselblad and Leica. Lloyd has tested a lot of equipment and has a lot of input from Zeiss and Brian Caldwell (the designer of the Coastal Optics 60/4 APO lens), so he feels he is competent enough to interpret MTF charts.

Best regards
Erik


Can you elaborate a little more? I understand you  have to respect the copyright of the site owner; but in general terms what does he means by "that the S2-lenses were another class"? is he talking about build quality? image quality?.
 
From his site Loyd Cambers appear to have a good investment in Leica (time mastering etc).  If that is the case, his opinions should be very, very relevant.
A simple question, in this context the "Hasselblad" is the H4D-40?
Thanks.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 03:34:40 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2010, 10:29:37 AM »
ReplyReply


I have revisited the DAP article. Lloyd used the 28 HCD 28/4 and the HC100/2. The 28/4 lens had a misalignment issue but the HC100/2 was OK. He found the HC100/2 to be very sharp at the center but lacking sharpness on edge and corners. He has actual pixel samples clearly showing the problems.
Thanks a lot. Some times I feel that as quality of the medium format systems grow, the modular design will be forced out of the mainstream.
At a lowering price is very difficult to have align system at this level. And that is today, with 80mpixels sensors at the top and the entry level at 10~15K.
Plus  we have the issues with wether protection and the attraction of a system like the Leica to the far more numerous 35mm SLR users.
The problem with technology is resource starvation. If the integrated systems like the Leica and the Pentax sale in significantly larger numbers than the modular systems they will have to compete  with far less resources, and they will fail. Even if they remain better, the difference will diminish  each day and the appeal of the integrated systems from 35mm houses will increase.  Phase one has proved to be a powerful competitor on the high end. They are not slowing down, even as a joke. But on the low end is more complicated. If the Pentax experiment works, I can see Canon or less likely Nikon entering and that could easy become the end of the current MF vendors. On the other hand,  massive Pentax sales could trigger and alliance bwt a medium format camera builder and some of the SRL companies. Ok end of rambling.  None of this, if ever happen, will do so overnight.
 




Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad