Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Diglloyd" is testing the Leica S2  (Read 17593 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2010, 07:25:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: telyt
You're preaching to the choir.  I write engineering software for a living.  However, when I want to see what camera will produce the best prints I look at prints, not raw files.  Raw files are only an intermediate step.

I certainly don't get the impression I'm preaching to the choir. As far as I know, the only cameras that produce prints are those that have a Direct Print command. You just plug them into a printer and the printer produces a print from the in-camera-processed jpeg.

Are those the sorts of prints you are comparing?

Cameras produce RAW files and processed jpegs.  Between the pressing of the shutter, and the camera's electronics automatically writing a RAW file to the memory card, you have absolutely no control over the processes and the outcome. The (technical) quality of the result is totally dependent on the design and sophistication of the camera.

However, when anyone starts off with a RAW file in order to make a print, the final outcome, the print on your wall, is subject to a thousand variables involving the editing skill of the photographer, the skill of the printing operator, the quality of the printing equipment, the calibration of the monitor etc etc.

The quality of the print certainly may reflect in part the quality of the camera, as distinguishable from the quality of another camera, but not necessarily. An obvious example that springs to mind is Michael's comparison of identical scenes shot with the G10 and P45+, printed at A3+ size.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2010, 07:44:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
And that's the danger with these sorts of topics: only the committed have the energy to stick around for long, and I doubt that includes many people who actually go out on a regular basis and make photographs happen, though I accept that there will be exceptions.

So why am I still here? Hope beats long in the human breast, even as the waves close over one's head. Not, of course, that anyone having just drowned has come back momentarily (in my admittedly limited experience) to prove this belief. But on balance, it's an idea that seems to live happily enough with what might be the reality. Much as with the multifarious, disparate photographic beliefs, you might say; a broad church indeed.

Rob C

Actually, I think a number of the engineers who design the pro cameras probably lurk here.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2010, 12:25:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Actually, I think a number of the engineers who design the pro cameras probably lurk here.

Edmund




But, does lurking include heavy snapping? There's a crucial difference between being a happy shooter and one who lives by the damn machines, as you well know. So an engineer just reading a lot of photographic forum posts isn't getting any basis for real understanding of feel or sense of function.
 
Rob C
Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 619


« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2010, 12:26:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
I certainly don't get the impression I'm preaching to the choir.

I can't help you there    

Many of the posts in this thread (and others) leave the impression that the raw file is everything.  As you mentioned, there are many other factors and decisions involved in translating the raw file to a print, as well as the subjective personal factors that make one camera more usable for a particular purpose than another.  The latter are often overlooked or dismissed but I find that they are at least as important if not more so to the outcome hung on the wall compared with the anal pixel-peeping in this forum.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2010, 01:06:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: telyt
I can't help you there    

Many of the posts in this thread (and others) leave the impression that the raw file is everything.  As you mentioned, there are many other factors and decisions involved in translating the raw file to a print, as well as the subjective personal factors that make one camera more usable for a particular purpose than another.  The latter are often overlooked or dismissed but I find that they are at least as important if not more so to the outcome hung on the wall compared with the anal pixel-peeping in this forum.

No, not everything. It's just the starting point when making a print from a digital image. I consider a RAW file to be like a film negative, but even more amazing. A film can be developed only once. But a RAW file can be developed again and again in so many different ways.

As technology and software progresses, one may get better results years later.

There's no doubt that certain cameras are more usable for certain purposes. There are always trade-offs affecting our decisions to buy one camera in preference to another. Sometimes it may be pure economics, and sometimes it may be flexibility and weight. When money is no object and the maximum image quality is sought, irrespective of convenience of use and flexibility, then an MFDB is probably the way to go.

But I wonder if you could tell the difference between a huge panorama print made from a single P65+ shot, and the same scene from 2 or 3 stitched D3X shots.
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2010, 01:26:34 PM »
ReplyReply

When money is no object and the maximum image quality is sought, irrespective of convenience of use and flexibility, then an MFDB is probably the way to go.


Why is it always a inconvenience , flexibility and money no object description tagged to MF. Frankly that is all a bunch of bullshit by non owners not wanting to get in the game. Please speak for yourself and not us working Pro's and others that actually find these comments nonsense. I do not find my MF gear a inconvenience at all because I throughly enjoy shooting it in every situation I put it in. It's also not the most expensive , I had more money in a Leica M system and DMR system on there own. Flexibility is usually associated with experience. The more experience you have it does not matter what you put in our face we will make it work no question about it regardless of any physical limitations we will find a way around it. They may mean these things to you since you have less experience and are not a working pro battling the band everyday but lets starting putting For my taste in front of these comments. PLEASE
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785



« Reply #66 on: July 18, 2010, 02:14:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
When money is no object and the maximum image quality is sought, irrespective of convenience of use and flexibility, then an MFDB is probably the way to go.
I believe that most reasonable forum members would agree with that observation. However, the hyperbole of some MFDB users is disconcerting. There is no way that the best MFDBs could have a 6 stop DR advantage over the best dSLRs. The assertion by some that the S2 (actually a "tweener") completely blows away the best Nikons and Canons is exaggerated as shown by tests conducted by Digilloyd and Erwin Puts. It's time to get back to reality.

 

Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #67 on: July 18, 2010, 02:57:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Did I even mention DR ( BTW I would never say 6 stops EVER and I have never commented on DR and that comparison between 35 and MF anywhere on the internet ) or it is blowing a D3X out of the water, too the contrary the DR on the S2 is less than the Phase P40+ by almost 3/4 of a stop or more, real world with testing. Not me and that is Rays quote not mine.

As far as the D3x I have no idea and never mentioned a word about it since I have never tested it. I honestly don't care about a D3x and what it can do or not. It's not MF and that is what I shoot. Let's be careful who you are addressing your slams too.

But the flexibility and inconvenience of MF is a misleading comment on Rays part. Lets break it down if you want. Let's take a P40+ back for example . I currently have 4 Mamiya bodies dating back to at least 1990 or longer that I can put it on and I have anything that Phase develops this year , next year or maybe even 5 years from now to put on a body without switching a mount. Number two I can switch to a Contax mount, okay that is a dead system but I can. Hassy H1 and H2 I can switch the back mount too. On too lenses depending on system I have everything Mamiya has ever made and what Phase labels today, I also have all Contax Zeiss lenses, than all Hassy H lenses and if I want I can bolt on any V Hassy lens.

Next I have ANY tech camera I want to bolt onto. Alpa , Arca, Horseman, Cambo, Silvestri and also almost any view camera style cam i can bolt that back too plus let's not forget all the glass from Rodenstock and Schnieder.



That is a ton of flexibility and also I can retain my back for a lot of years and use on any of these combinations plus any future cam that comes along. You can't say that with a Canon 5dII, sure you can bolt some lenses on it outside Canon and has some other capabilities but a MF can do a lot more moving around. Not to say it won't cost you money but look at all that glass I can play with and all the bodies I can bolt this darn thing too. There is a lot of power in this that get's left behind in almost every conversation.

Now lets bring this back to the S2 it is even less flexible than a Canon or Nikon. It ONLY takes 3 lenses to date and you can't move the body around. Not a Pro in there right mind would even consider this for there only ONE system. Any Phase and Hassy shooter has a far better chance to call there system the only one they have because they have backup bodies they can use and a entire system like written above to work with. 35mm you have to buy another cam for backup which fortunately does not cost the price of a S2 and is far more affordable to do. But almost any 35mm cam today is considered disposable as not very many folks will even have the same body after 3 years. Now that is reality
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 03:10:23 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #68 on: July 18, 2010, 03:18:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
I believe that most reasonable forum members would agree with that observation. However, the hyperbole of some MFDB users is disconcerting. There is no way that the best MFDBs could have a 6 stop DR advantage over the best dSLRs. The assertion by some that the S2 (actually a "tweener") completely blows away the best Nikons and Canons is exaggerated as shown by tests conducted by Digilloyd and Erwin Puts. It's time to get back to reality.


Why I use my Phase system for EVERYTHING you use your 35mm system for and than a lot more. That is my reality, so where is the hyperbole in that. You want me show you . It's real simple I have not had a 35mm system for over 2 years ( only MF) until last week and that is a cheap Canon for a job that I don't want to risk my Phase system on. Not for any tech or flexibility part but yes a connivence for me as this one job makes keeping my Phase system home safe from theft, water , sand and most likely damage and if anything happens I won't care. Disposable


And BTW let me go full circle and excuse myself from the rest of this . I actually think the D3x is a really good cam and came real close to buying one when it came out. I have seen a lot of files from it with workshop folks and think it is maybe one of the best in 35mm. I like the M9 too and did a full review on it. But that is another thread between these two. LOL
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 03:27:18 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2010, 03:26:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Very clearly all those are serious advantages with MFDB, the S2 is an MF DSLR. With an MFDB you can switch bodies and you can even use film as backup. Of course, if you only carry a single zoom lens to Namiba and the front lens falls out, nothing of that will help ;-(

It is very clear that a lot of flexibility is gained with MF Digital Backs. One real advantage with MF is resolution/sharpness. If an MF back has a small pitch it will have many pixels, has it large pitch it will stress the lens less. Potentially a larger sensor would also collect more photons and therefore have less noise. So MFDBs have a real advantage in image quality.

With the Leica S2 much of the flexibility is given up, opting for a smaller and possibly more efficient package. There is no reason at all an MFDB owner would switch to a DSLR if the advantages of that system don't fit his/hers needs. That said it may be a bad advise to suggest that MFDBs are needed for professional work. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses.

There are many issues with the Leica S2, to begin with it is very expensive, even if it is competitive with some MFDBs. But, those MFDBs don't exist in vacuum. Phase and probably have decent upgrade policies, Leica can have that to, but before offering upgrades they need to survive (no small matter in this times).

In my view the Leica S2 is probably very competitive regarding optics, perhaps less so on sensors. Phase and Hassy have long experience with digital backs and had all opportunities to make all the mistakes it takes to gain knowledge, Leica is a beginner in this area.

Finally I'm not sure that MFDBs are the real competitors to the Leica S2, but both the Nikon D3X (and it's lesser colleagues) and the new Pentax 645D may be.


Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Did I even mention DR ( BTW I would never say 6 stops EVER and I have never commented on DR and that comparison between 35 and MF anywhere on the internet ) or it is blowing a D3X out of the water, too the contrary the DR on the S2 is less than the Phase P40+ by almost 3/4 of a stop or more, real world with testing. Not me and that is Rays quote not mine.

As far as the D3x I have no idea and never mentioned a word about it since I have never tested it. I honestly don't care about a D3x and what it can do or not. It's not MF and that is what I shoot. Let's be careful who you are addressing your slams too.

But the flexibility and inconvenience of MF is a misleading comment on Rays part. Lets break it down if you want. Let's take a P40+ back for example . I currently have 4 Mamiya bodies dating back to at least 1990 or longer that I can put it on and I have anything that Phase develops this year , next year or maybe even 5 years from now to put on a body without switching a mount. Number two I can switch to a Contax mount, okay that is a dead system but I can. Hassy H1 and H2 I can switch the back mount too. On too lenses depending on system I have everything Mamiya has ever made and what Phase labels today, I also have all Contax Zeiss lenses, than all Hassy H lenses and if I want I can bolt on any V Hassy lens.

Next I have ANY tech camera I want to bolt onto. Alpa , Arca, Horseman, Cambo, Silvestri and also almost any view camera style cam i can bolt that back too plus let's not forget all the glass from Rodenstock and Schnieder.



That is a ton of flexibility and also I can retain my back for a lot of years and use on any of these combinations plus any future cam that comes along. You can't say that with a Canon 5dII, sure you can bolt some lenses on it outside Canon and has some other capabilities but a MF can do a lot more moving around. Not to say it won't cost you money but look at all that glass I can play with and all the bodies I can bolt this darn thing too. There is a lot of power in this that get's left behind in almost every conversation.

Now lets bring this back to the S2 it is even less flexible than a Canon or Nikon. It ONLY takes 3 lenses to date and you can't move the body around. Not a Pro in there right mind would even consider this for there only ONE system. Any Phase and Hassy shooter has a far better chance to call there system the only one they have because they have backup bodies they can use and a entire system like written above to work with. 35mm you have to buy another cam for backup which fortunately does not cost the price of a S2 and is far more affordable to do. But almost any 35mm cam today is considered disposable as not very many folks will even have the same body after 3 years. Now that is reality
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 04:12:25 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2010, 03:34:39 PM »
ReplyReply

LOL I know a lot of give and take here for sure Erik and obviously 35mm is a really good setup and don't want to take away from how good they have become. But people get very narrow minded about MF and that should not be the case. It has it's place and it is damn good. When you have one and use it for awhile and see the images spitting off these things you really do scratch your head and say what have I been missing all these years with 35mm. Most folks really don't know until they own one and start getting down to working these files. Trust me this relates to my earlier thinking as well until I got one. LOL

Honestly 35mm shooters what is the one constant thing that pops up in the back of your head. Be honest with yourself. I can get by with 35mm.

Don't worry I said it for years too and you can but that question still comes up, is it good enough. It is but I like overkill. LOL
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 03:39:49 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

ejmartin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 575


« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2010, 03:46:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Nick Rains
By using the same focal lengths I was expecting to see very little difference between the images as each camera was applying a similar number of pixels to the same field of view ( the pixel pitch is comparable between the two, 5.94 - 6)  It appeared to me that the S2 resolved better detail as well as a subtlety of tone that was lacking from the Nikon. The D3X looked slightly plastic whilst the S2 looked slightly filmic if that makes sense.

[attachment=23187:NIRA0010_2.jpg]

[attachment=23188:_DSC0015.jpg]


ps the top image is from the Leica. Check out the wooden leaf designs at the ends of Christ's arms. To me the Nikon has some jaggies in the curves and the S2 none.

After a bit of effort with sharpening (wow you use a lot!) I got the following from my demosaic algo and the D3x image; note that the jaggies are absent in the location you mentioned; there is a bit less noise too, though in some places the "noise" of demosaic error gives an impression of richer texture which some might like:



Edit: PS -- I am impressed with your comparison image from the S2; it does seem to put out more detail.  I wonder how much of that is down to the lack of an AA filter.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 09:52:26 PM by ejmartin » Logged

emil
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2010, 03:47:23 PM »
ReplyReply

No, Guy, what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter that I am is "if I drop the D3x under my vest, and stick a lens in my pocket, I'll get past the door without attracting attention, and however sh*tty cheap their lighting guys are I'll come out with 100 shots". That's what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter - the fact that his equipment can travel, will travel, and nails every shot. Each time I got out the Mamiya it was "please God, let it focus today".

Edmund

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
LOL I know a lot of give and take here for sure Erik and obviously 35mm is a really good setup and don't want to take away from how good they have become. But people get very narrow minded about MF and that should not be the case. It has it's place and it is damn good. When you have one and use it for awhile and see the images spitting off these things you really do scratch your head and say what have I been missing all these years with 35mm. Most folks really don't know until they own one and start getting down to working these files. Trust me this relates to my earlier thinking as well until I got one. LOL

Honestly 35mm shooters what is the one constant thing that pops up in the back of your head. Be honest with yourself. I can get by with 35mm.

Don't worry I said it for years too and you can but that question still comes up, is it good enough. It is but I like overkill. LOL
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 03:48:14 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2010, 03:57:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I focus just fine. Getting you new glasses. LOL

I know I know. LOL
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2010, 04:09:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

I agree with you on the DR issue. Regarding the Leica S2 blowing away the DSLR competition I'd say that it has significantly higher resolution than any full frame DSLR or the Leica M9. I'm familiar with the with the tests that Erwin and Lloyd Chambers published. I spent a couple of hours looking at Lloyds DNGs from the S2 and the D3X. From what I have seen I can say pretty sure that there is a significant resolution advantage to the S2 in absolute terms. If DR has anything to do with shadow detail I cannot see a DR advantage in Lloyd's pictures, in my view it may be quite a bit worse on the S2 than on D3X.

Essentially, the images Lloyd made shows exactly what we would expect, better resolution, lot of aliasing.

Hopefully I can publish my findings in a couple of days.

I also hope to get raws from Nick Rains (Already got the D3X file, thanks a lot!).

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: bjanes
I believe that most reasonable forum members would agree with that observation. However, the hyperbole of some MFDB users is disconcerting. There is no way that the best MFDBs could have a 6 stop DR advantage over the best dSLRs. The assertion by some that the S2 (actually a "tweener") completely blows away the best Nikons and Canons is exaggerated as shown by tests conducted by Digilloyd and Erwin Puts. It's time to get back to reality.
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #75 on: July 18, 2010, 04:09:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bjanes
It's time to get back to reality.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...57614936120567/
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #76 on: July 18, 2010, 04:20:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have seen that test, even downloaded an image from the Hasselblad HD50 and the Nikon 3DX and printed in A2 and had some friends (seasoned imaging professionals) have a look. Both preferred the Nikon image, although one found the Hassy image be sharper. DOF is very short on those images and that can cheat the eye. Also, tonality matters a lot. It's a bit hard to do this comparison with live models as the pictures will not be identical.

Finding out the relative merits of systems takes a lot more than a single picture. I'd say that well designed tests say more than a single portrait shot.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: tho_mas
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #77 on: July 18, 2010, 04:22:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

How do you take pictures with the lens in your pocket? Also, I need big pockets for my 24-70/2.8 lens.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: eronald
No, Guy, what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter that I am is "if I drop the D3x under my vest, and stick a lens in my pocket, I'll get past the door without attracting attention, and however sh*tty cheap their lighting guys are I'll come out with 100 shots". That's what goes through the head of the 35mm shooter - the fact that his equipment can travel, will travel, and nails every shot. Each time I got out the Mamiya it was "please God, let it focus today".

Edmund
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785



« Reply #78 on: July 18, 2010, 04:24:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Did I even mention DR ( BTW I would never say 6 stops EVER and I have never commented on DR and that comparison between 35 and MF anywhere on the internet ) or it is blowing a D3X out of the water, too the contrary the DR on the S2 is less than the Phase P40+ by almost 3/4 of a stop or more, real world with testing. Not me and that is Rays quote not mine.

As far as the D3x I have no idea and never mentioned a word about it since I have never tested it. I honestly don't care about a D3x and what it can do or not. It's not MF and that is what I shoot. Let's be careful who you are addressing your slams too.
Guy,

Calm down! I was not attributing those statements to you, but was only agreeing with the main premise of your post. My other comments were in response to statements by others on this thread.

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
But almost any 35mm cam today is considered disposable as not very many folks will even have the same body after 3 years. Now that is reality
Perhaps in your circles. But have you ever looked at the equipment used by photojournalists working for bankrupt newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune? These papers are not upgrading equipment that is suitable for the relatively modest demands of newsprint.  
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2785



« Reply #79 on: July 18, 2010, 04:28:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Why I use my Phase system for EVERYTHING you use your 35mm system for and than a lot more. That is my reality, so where is the hyperbole in that. You want me show you . It's real simple I have not had a 35mm system for over 2 years ( only MF) until last week and that is a cheap Canon for a job that I don't want to risk my Phase system on.
That statement is demonstrably false. Your Phase system is not good for rapid action sports photography or photojournalism in rapidly evolving low light situations. It's frame rate is two slow and the auto focus system not up to the task. The D3s would be better for these situations.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad