Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica S2 30mm  (Read 13842 times)
paulmoorestudio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 235


WWW
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2011, 05:48:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Situations with extreme highlights. Negative film may handle some situations differently than sensors.

BR
Erik

sadly the world of the negative is not very practical.. it just is not the best viewing medium, my clients were never very good at reading a properly exposed negative.. so it and transparencies gets digitized, and now we are back in the digital world.. all roads lead to pixels.. and really lets not even begin the discussion of traditional print latitudes. So not to beat a dead horse but..the fact that the  S2 will never have film in it is not a negative..no pun intended.
Logged

Dennis Carbo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


WWW
« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2011, 07:55:58 PM »
ReplyReply

ok I get the ir while shooting neubula thing.. will keep that in mind when shooting those!..
..But for the life of me I can't fill in the blank on the above quote. I have shot film, almost every brand, stock and format made since 1971, so I have some grasp of film's capabilities and I don't think
that much has changed at kodak/fuji since 2005 when I stopped shooting it.
I use a 4 x 5 Speed Graphics / Aero Ektar (178mm/f2.5) for portrait work on occasion - it give a unique look none of my Digital Equipment or processing techniques match to my satisfaction. I own it and film is cheap so if I want that look I shoot film.
Logged
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2011, 01:22:23 AM »
ReplyReply

#3 happy S2 (+Nikon) user here.
Nick and Paratom,

I am currently a Nikon user and considering the Leica S2. May I ask your opinion on the difference in image quality and what you consider to be the max usable ISO while still maintaining the difference?

Christopher 
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2011, 02:02:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I will shoot at up to ISO640 and I have 20x30 inch prints that show essentially zero noise.There is noise there of course, if you go looking for it, but you can do plenty to the file before it becomes visible in a print. The highest ISO, 1250, shows a visible drop in IQ - but it's still completely usable for more modest sized prints.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 02:19:34 AM by Nick Rains » Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2011, 02:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I will shoot at up to ISO640 and I have 20x30 inch prints that show essentially zero noise.There is noise there of course, if you go looking for it, but you can do plenty to the file before it becomes visible in a print. The highest ISO, 1250, shows a visible drop in IQ - but it's still completely usable for more modest sized prints.

Thank,

but what is your opinion on the image quality (prints) compared to your FF Canons? Is it clearly better at ISO 640 or only at say ISO 100?

Christopher
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2011, 02:50:39 AM »
ReplyReply

The IQ of the S2 is completely superior to a 5D2 in a 20x30 inch print under just about all circumstances. Smaller prints narrow the gap of course. 16 bit capture helps, the files are more robust than DSLR files and have more useable shadow detail.

I'm not sure what you want to know - the S2 produces superior IQ to a Canon, that's why you spend the big bucks. The Canon can certainly do amazing work, but all things being equal, the S2 has a bigger sensor, better DR, better lenses and thus produces better results.

To specifically answer your last question - prints from the S2 at ISO640 are indeed better than those from a 5D2 at ISO640. The bigger the print, the easier it is to tell them apart.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6921


WWW
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2011, 10:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

There are no magic tricks Nikon and Canon can do, except reducing readout noise. Having a larger sensor will always be an advantage. It collects more photons. Sharpness will be better because each detail will have a larger size on the sensor. The Leica may also have better lenses, at least in some cases.

The other question is if you that image quality and if you can afford it?

I'd recommend that you check out this comparison of Nikon D3X and Pentax 645D based on images from Imaging Resource: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality

It contains images scanned from large size prints.

Also check Miles Hecker's excellent reviews: http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt1.html and http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt2.html

Obviously, Pentax does not have the same lens quality as Leica, but other than that the cameras are quite comparable. Electronically I got the impression that the Pentax is very good.

Best regards
Erik


The IQ of the S2 is completely superior to a 5D2 in a 20x30 inch print under just about all circumstances. Smaller prints narrow the gap of course. 16 bit capture helps, the files are more robust than DSLR files and have more useable shadow detail.

I'm not sure what you want to know - the S2 produces superior IQ to a Canon, that's why you spend the big bucks. The Canon can certainly do amazing work, but all things being equal, the S2 has a bigger sensor, better DR, better lenses and thus produces better results.

To specifically answer your last question - prints from the S2 at ISO640 are indeed better than those from a 5D2 at ISO640. The bigger the print, the easier it is to tell them apart.
Logged

HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2011, 12:57:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure what you want to know -
Thanks,
What do I want to know? Well, I guess I am sort of trying to justify for myself that jumping to the S-system is the right thing to do. I am currently using a D3 with mostly the 24-70 and i print on a 24 inch Hp Z3200ps. The results I get are quite satisfying.

However, I have become increasingly interested in how my camera reproduces the image I capture.  I have added my first prime a 200mm f 2, and to my eye the images taken with this lens quite consistently have a “better look” and it also carries over to the final print. To my eye, it is just more pleasing. Now, where do I go from here?

I could add more primes to my Nikon kit and upgrade to a D4 or D4x. However, that is a serious amount of money that could bring me quite a step towards MF territory. Maybe MF is a better way to go. I know there are several options, but from what I read S2 users appear to be more consistently satisfied with the lenses. If I like “ the look” (looks good on the web, but I have yet to see a print), then Leica´s seeming commitment to consistently produce superb lenses that adhere to a “certain look” would save me a lot of time from having to trying this and that odd lens. Prehaps a S2 with the awaited zoom lens would be ideal?

However, when I look at images comparing the S2 and D3x  on the links from Eric or on DigLoyd, I am amazed at how good the D3x actually is. But I have a feeling these comparings mostly show differences in resolution.  I am really more interested in the overall look and “feeling” the image gives, and to compare that I guess I will have to shoot and process som images of my own and compare the results.

One thing holding me back is the performance at high ISO, so I keep lurking in the forums asking users of Nikon and S2 about their experience. From what I gather ISO 640 seems to be the current max if I want optimal results. That is a bit short of what I want. There may be some updates to improve on this, or maybe I will have to hang out for the S3? Just can´t make up my mind 

Thanks again for your replies, Christopher.


Logged
dfarkas
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


WWW
« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2011, 10:10:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks,
What do I want to know? Well, I guess I am sort of trying to justify for myself that jumping to the S-system is the right thing to do. I am currently using a D3 with mostly the 24-70 and i print on a 24 inch Hp Z3200ps. The results I get are quite satisfying.

However, I have become increasingly interested in how my camera reproduces the image I capture.  I have added my first prime a 200mm f 2, and to my eye the images taken with this lens quite consistently have a “better look” and it also carries over to the final print. To my eye, it is just more pleasing. Now, where do I go from here?

I could add more primes to my Nikon kit and upgrade to a D4 or D4x. However, that is a serious amount of money that could bring me quite a step towards MF territory. Maybe MF is a better way to go. I know there are several options, but from what I read S2 users appear to be more consistently satisfied with the lenses. If I like “ the look” (looks good on the web, but I have yet to see a print), then Leica´s seeming commitment to consistently produce superb lenses that adhere to a “certain look” would save me a lot of time from having to trying this and that odd lens. Prehaps a S2 with the awaited zoom lens would be ideal?

However, when I look at images comparing the S2 and D3x  on the links from Eric or on DigLoyd, I am amazed at how good the D3x actually is. But I have a feeling these comparings mostly show differences in resolution.  I am really more interested in the overall look and “feeling” the image gives, and to compare that I guess I will have to shoot and process som images of my own and compare the results.

One thing holding me back is the performance at high ISO, so I keep lurking in the forums asking users of Nikon and S2 about their experience. From what I gather ISO 640 seems to be the current max if I want optimal results. That is a bit short of what I want. There may be some updates to improve on this, or maybe I will have to hang out for the S3? Just can´t make up my mind 

Thanks again for your replies, Christopher.


I do think the best bet is to try the S2 for yourself, see how the camera handles for your shooting, and ultimately process and print files that you have made yourself. If you are in the US, you can test drive one:

Leica S2 Professional Rental | Dale Photo & Digital

As far as high ISO on the S2, we did a test of ISO performance a while back. Included with the test are the original DNG files as well as the Lightroom presets used to process each ISO setting.

Maximizing High ISO Performance on the Leica S2

If you have any specific questions on the S2, I am happy to help. There is also a fairly large group of Leica S2 users/owners at our Red Dot Forum community, who are generally happy to share their own experiences. Many have made exactly the same transition you are looking to do.

Logged

David Farkas
Leica Store Miami
www.leicastoremiami.com

Check out Red Dot Forum for Leica news, reviews, blogs and discussion
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #89 on: November 21, 2011, 03:34:49 PM »
ReplyReply

However, when I look at images comparing the S2 and D3x  on the links from Eric or on DigLoyd, I am amazed at how good the D3x actually is. But I have a feeling these comparings mostly show differences in resolution.  I am really more interested in the overall look and “feeling” the image gives, and to compare that I guess I will have to shoot and process som images of my own and compare the results.

It really is a matter of value. The Leica route is probably going to cost you an additional 30.000 US$ at initial purchase and 5.000 US$ more average per year when factoring in upgrades and possible lenses purchase.

I would personnally wait a few more weeks until the rumored D800 is announced/ships and compare the price of that body + an Ocean optics 60mm macro lens to that of the Leica system in terms of image quality in screen and on print. Then you can decide if the additional price is worth it, or if a car would be more useful. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 6921


WWW
« Reply #90 on: November 21, 2011, 04:00:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I guess that the Leica has some advantage due to the larger sensor and possibly better lenses. But you need also consider the cost. I expect the upcoming Nikon D800 to be attractively priced. The Zeiss lenses don't autofocus but some of them offer very good image quality at a very decent price, 21/2.8 and 100/2 macro come to mind. The D800 will have live view and the S2 has not.

Sharpness/resolution is not the only parameter. There is also control of flare and ghosting. My guess is that Nikon may actually be best in that area. Color is more decided in processing, but I have heard some rumors that Nikon may have not as good color as Sony. Color rendition is related to filter characteristics and there can be a trade off between narrow filters and high ISO performance.

Miles Hecker presented some landscape images taken under the same condition with Nikon D3X and Pentax 645D, these image were very different.

Best regards
Erik

It really is a matter of value. The Leica route is probably going to cost you an additional 30.000 US$ at initial purchase and 5.000 US$ more average per year when factoring in upgrades and possible lenses purchase.

I would personnally wait a few more weeks until the rumored D800 is announced/ships and compare the price of that body + an Ocean optics 60mm macro lens to that of the Leica system in terms of image quality in screen and on print. Then you can decide if the additional price is worth it, or if a car would be more useful. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

paratom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178


« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2011, 04:13:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks,
What do I want to know? Well, I guess I am sort of trying to justify for myself that jumping to the S-system is the right thing to do. I am currently using a D3 with mostly the 24-70 and i print on a 24 inch Hp Z3200ps. The results I get are quite satisfying.

However, I have become increasingly interested in how my camera reproduces the image I capture.  I have added my first prime a 200mm f 2, and to my eye the images taken with this lens quite consistently have a “better look” and it also carries over to the final print. To my eye, it is just more pleasing. Now, where do I go from here?

I could add more primes to my Nikon kit and upgrade to a D4 or D4x. However, that is a serious amount of money that could bring me quite a step towards MF territory. Maybe MF is a better way to go. I know there are several options, but from what I read S2 users appear to be more consistently satisfied with the lenses. If I like “ the look” (looks good on the web, but I have yet to see a print), then Leica´s seeming commitment to consistently produce superb lenses that adhere to a “certain look” would save me a lot of time from having to trying this and that odd lens. Prehaps a S2 with the awaited zoom lens would be ideal?

However, when I look at images comparing the S2 and D3x  on the links from Eric or on DigLoyd, I am amazed at how good the D3x actually is. But I have a feeling these comparings mostly show differences in resolution.  I am really more interested in the overall look and “feeling” the image gives, and to compare that I guess I will have to shoot and process som images of my own and compare the results.

One thing holding me back is the performance at high ISO, so I keep lurking in the forums asking users of Nikon and S2 about their experience. From what I gather ISO 640 seems to be the current max if I want optimal results. That is a bit short of what I want. There may be some updates to improve on this, or maybe I will have to hang out for the S3? Just can´t make up my mind 

Thanks again for your replies, Christopher.


Hi again Christopher.
I would be carefull with those comparisons based on a few images and dont tell the story about the "overall look and feeling" as you say.
My feeling is that with the S2 I get:
- more sharpness and microdetail,for example look into the eyes of portraits shot with the S2
- I prefer the skintones I get with the S2
- the images of the S2 look very "clear"/real/3d
- I like the rolloff from sharp to unsharp plane
- images of the S2 need near zero post processing (for my taste)
- The S2 lenses are very good even wide open (specially the 70mm S lens will beat most 50mm DSLR lenses in regards to contrast/vignetting and Bokeh)
-ISO up to 640 the S2 will beat any Canon/Nikon but I dont like ISO 1250 fro the S2. So yes, you can use the S2 handhold for many things but there are some applications in low light where you will reach the limit.

How big are those differences..hard to say and I would lie that I wouldnt have had second thoughts here and then if I should have spent so much money for the last little bit of IQ and the very few really big prints.

- Other than that I also like the simple user interface of the S2 and the big viewfinder.

On the other side the Nikon system offers a faster pace (faster AF), more foolproof exp metering, of course much more lens options (which I own but dont use Wink and of course smaller lenses).
I had a D3x and still have a D700 (with tele/zoom and high ISO / fast AF applications in mind) but have barely used it after getting the S2.
I have to add that I had a Hy6-Sinar75LV before I switched to the S2. And while the S2 suits better my handling needs I did like the IQ from the Sinar back and the Rollei lenses at least the same as that from the S2. So my opinion is that probably all Medium format digital systems will offer that level of IQ when using the right lenses.

by the way, I am hobby photographer not pro and do a lot of "casual" shooting.

Regards, Tom

 
Logged
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #92 on: November 24, 2011, 12:42:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks all for taking your time to share your thoughts on this.

In will of course wait to see what the next generation Nikon cameras bring. Maybe the quality increment from a D4 or D800 is sufficient for my use. As you say Bernard, it is really a value question. I probably ought to get at lest one of the the lenses you and Eric recommend and try that out.

Thanks Tim for sharing your thought on the S2 vs Nikon. Truly appreciate your frankness about having had second thoughts at times. I too do this only for personal pleasure. Now that actually kind of amplifies the desire to reach the ultimate limit. It is not just a tool for doing work to give a living return on investment, it is more of an instrument and process in creating something personally gratifying. But, I am not at all sure if MF is the right step. I am more concernd about color transition, rolloff from sharp to unsharp etc than by increasing pixels. Just because I can, does not mean I should  Undecided.

Thanks again, Christopher
Logged
PeterA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #93 on: November 24, 2011, 12:59:39 AM »
ReplyReply

This here is the most hardcore set of Medium Format users on the net, people here have the most exotic stuff and no one has actually got an S2?
Does that say something about the S2?

Edmund

Maybe this forum is not where S2 owners and users care to post?  Cheesy

after all the S2 isn't a real MF system don't ya know?









Logged
craigrudlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #94 on: November 24, 2011, 09:42:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I just made the switch from 35mm to a Leica S2.  First, I am impressed by the dynamic range.  On a recent trip
through Death Valley and to Mono Lake, I did not have to do any HDR.  Second, is the remarkable tonal contrast
which gives the images a texture and tactile feeling-- you can reach out and touch the rock and feel the sand.
 The S2 handled like my Nikon, extremely easy to use, and
the Leica glass is quite impressive.  My associate  had a D700, and comparing the same "shot" between the 700 and
the S2 demonstrates the remarkable difference in dynamic range, tonal contrast, particularly "micro contrast".
I have already made 20x30 and 24x36 inch prints that have a presence I just can't attain with the 35mm Nikon.
Post processing is also reduced significantly.  Please visit my web site to see some examples (albeit as jpg's they can't really
show the full benefits of MF).  The Leica S2 images are under the "new" section of my website.

One "negative" characteristic of MF, not just Leica, is the reduced depth of field.  That, I admit, I found a "problem."  Not
having as many focusing points fort AF was not really an issue because the viewfinder is so bright and clear that manual
focusing, when needed, was easy and often I just didn't even bother to "focus and re-compose."  The Leica's AF, when used
was very good and definitely not slow.

www.rudlinfineart.com

craig
Logged
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 29, 2011, 11:31:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Craig, that is really interesting.

Although it is probably difficult to see the differences in small web images, I took a look at your new images taken with the S2 and they are beautiful. However, comparing with your images in the multicrome section which I presume are captured with your Nikons, it is really difficult for me to take a random picture and say which is which. Perhaps the Leica images show more pleasing color and transitions, but that could easily just be a self fulfilling illusion (see what you want to see..) or just be different light conditions I guess.   I will just have to get my hands on one and make some prints!

Christopher
Logged
HCHeyerdahl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2011, 11:37:30 PM »
ReplyReply

This here is the most hardcore set of Medium Format users on the net, people here have the most exotic stuff and no one has actually got an S2?
Does that say something about the S2?

Edmund

Maybe this forum is not where S2 owners and users care to post?  Cheesy

after all the S2 isn't a real MF system don't ya know?



I am too much of a wanabe to know if you are just fooling around or actually have a point. I do know that the sensor of the S system is smaller than the Hassey systems that have more then 40 MP. Sorry if I just don´t get the pun, but could you please explain if there is something here I ought to be aware of? I would hate to find out AFTER having moved to the S system.

Christopher


« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 11:40:29 PM by HCHeyerdahl » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643



WWW
« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2011, 11:39:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Why doesn't Leica just sell or license Nikon and Canon high-end lenses; we all need that glass, rather than be a boutique brand they would sell hundreds of thousands if not millions, and Peter Karbe would become a rocks star.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
georgl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #98 on: November 30, 2011, 03:40:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why doesn't Leica just sell or license Nikon and Canon high-end lenses

It takes proprietary experience, technolgy in design/ measurement/ manufacturing and skill to make lenses of this quality-level. The apprenticeship to become a Feinwerktechniker or Feinoptiker alone takes 42 months. The grinding machines can only process single lens surfaces, mechanics with the necessary precision cannot be casted... So even when Nikon or Canon would manufacture lenses to Leica-standard they wouldn't be any cheaper or easier to produce than today. Just look at their better Telephoto- or Cine-lenses.
On the other hand, Leica in Germany is not allowed to manufacture lenses that are fully compatible to Japanese systems - Zeiss had to outsource it's ZF-series to Cosina therefore. Unlike Germany (yes, they're this naive), Japan still protects crucial parts of their industry.

I seriously hope they take the chance and develop a modern digital camera system with proprietary technology this time. ARRI did it with the Alexa - why not Leica?
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad