Leica S and diglloyd

[JV]

I personally am very glad I never invested one penny in Mr Chambers' website.

He said the M240 was unreliable...  As far as I know quite a few people are using it with great success...

His review of the Leica Q led to pages and pages of comments on the Leica forums...

From his review of the Leica T:

But the Leica T is ideal for a champagne and caviar reception (but I have no way to field test this idea).

I can’t stand the T. Intensely frustrating grip with badly-placed twiddly toy controls and tiny type on a touch screen I can’t see because my finger is on the spot containing the 5-point text I’m supposed to read (try reading “JPG + DNG” if you’re anywhere close to presbyopia).

I wonder why Jonathan Slack, a respected Leica reviewer, bought this camera then, after having had a loaner from Leica for 2 years...

Over and out.  I have no longer any interest in Mr. Chambers's opinion.  

[dchew]

In my experience trying autofocus, manual focus, ground glass, live view zoom focus and focus peaking, the most accurate and repeatable system I have found is a laser distance finder and the ALPA HPF rings (I'm sure the Arca system is just as good or better). It just never misses.

It seems crazy to me that after all that technology development, the most accurate process is a glorified tape measure and a dial. And of course the time to do it.
 

Dave

[eronald]

Yes, but cameras are not equals. If I do that with my Nikon, the focus will indeed vary a little bit between takes. If I do that with my Hasselblad, the focus will be spot on all the time. And on this particular forum, we should be discussing the Hasselblad, not the Nikon.

Actually I did try that with both my Canon 85 1.2 and the superb Hassy 100mm F2.2, with very similar results. Good close focus, medium focus, issues at very long distance.

The lenses seem to have servo actuators, and these have a finite number of "steps" near infinity, which actually correspond to quite large (tool arge) focus distance steps.

Of course it is possible that since I tested cameras and lenses have now been updated, but there are certainly still a lot of old lens designs floating around.

And BTW, before you get me wrong, I would like to say that my tests of Hasselblad focus for "people" use have always shown that their system works very well. Wide open with a fast lens at long distance is indeed a special case, but it can bite you sometimes eg. at events. Which may be a good reason for resorting to a lens marketed as a "tele" not because of the reach but because the focus design may mitigate precisely  this issue.

I guess also that modern lenses lack a hard "infinity" mark,  So effectively your infinity will never be more accurate than the precision of your AF system, which is not exactly designed for people intending to make 44" landscape prints

Edmund

[dlavay]

No matter what the subject matter, I am always amazed how "offended" many are these days, especially when they are exposed to an opinion that is at variance with their own. The great thing about blogs like LLoyd's is that they present other ways at looking at the same data which eventually benefits all in a free and open marketplace. Of course, when you put down a lot of hard earned cash to buy a piece of equipment and someone tells you that you were an idiot for having done so, you are offended.

[kers]

I read about Lloyd Chambers that some people think he is biased because of his sponsoring… Now in this thread he is accused of not liking Leica.
I think in this case he just wants a camera from Leica - costing so much- to be as good or better than the other cheaper cameras, but obviously that is not always the case…
In making digital cameras Leica is often not as good as in making lenses, still they charge you as if they are.
In general i like his no nonsense approach in his reviews and often i can confirm his findings. Then of course he is just one person with one mind. I admire his gift to surprise me with finding technical flaws that i would never have discovered myself, but are evident and important.

[Ken R]

I read about Lloyd Chambers that some people think he is biased because of his sponsoring… Now in this thread he is accused of not liking Leica.
I think in this case he just wants a camera from Leica - costing so much- to be as good or better than the other cheaper cameras, but obviously that is not always the case…
In making digital cameras Leica is often not as good as in making lenses, still they charge you as if they are.
In general i like his no nonsense approach in his reviews and often i can confirm his findings. Then of course he is just one person with one mind. I admire his gift to surprise me with finding technical flaws that i would never have discovered myself, but are evident and important.

He wants what most forum folk want. A Mirrorless Camera with the A7RII sensor, Canon ergonomics, reliability, service and lens selection, 5-axis IBIS, Vibrationless shutter plus an amazing EVF, all for about $2500. Heck, ill take two of those, today.

[landscapephoto]

Actually I did try that with both my Canon 85 1.2 and the superb Hassy 100mm F2.2, with very similar results. Good close focus, medium focus, issues at very long distance.

The lenses seem to have servo actuators, and these have a finite number of "steps" near infinity, which actually correspond to quite large (tool arge) focus distance steps.

Of course it is possible that since I tested cameras and lenses have now been updated, but there are certainly still a lot of old lens designs floating around.

This has not been my experience on my H4D-50. This has been my experience on the D800 and indeed I can relate to the idea of "finite number of steps near infinity" on that camera. On the H4D-50, my experience is different or maybe the camera has simply enough "steps".

Hasselblad has upgraded the focus on the H4D series, so it is possible that you tried an older camera. I don't know about those. I had less reliable focus on an H3D loaner, but maybe the camera was simply miscalibrated.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I agree, absolutely.

Best regards
Erik

No matter what the subject matter, I am always amazed how "offended" many are these days, especially when they are exposed to an opinion that is at variance with their own. The great thing about blogs like LLoyd's is that they present other ways at looking at the same data which eventually benefits all in a free and open marketplace. Of course, when you put down a lot of hard earned cash to buy a piece of equipment and someone tells you that you were an idiot for having done so, you are offended.

[eronald]

What's not to like, he's a measurbator's wet dream.

Klaban,

 I think I can go on vacation, knowing I have a worthy replacement.

Edmund

[erlingmm]

He does have a track record of finding errors and anomalies. What annoys me is is tactic of crying wolf on his blog after just getting a camera in his hands, and then referring to his paid site for a more elaborate evaluation, that may be more balanced. His blog is open and the site that will be referred to, the discussion/evaluation is closed, that way the negative sticks.

[FMueller]

Diglloyd. Overpriced for what you get. Nasty attitude to go with it.

[JV]

No matter what the subject matter, I am always amazed how "offended" many are these days, especially when they are exposed to an opinion that is at variance with their own. The great thing about blogs like LLoyd's is that they present other ways at looking at the same data which eventually benefits all in a free and open marketplace. Of course, when you put down a lot of hard earned cash to buy a piece of equipment and someone tells you that you were an idiot for having done so, you are offended.

Hi,

I agree, absolutely.

Best regards
Erik

No offense but to me it sounds more like the subscribers to his site are offended...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes and now. To begin with, there is a tendency if there is a bad news, shoot the messenger.

On the other hand, those who has followed Lloyd's testing for many years know his methods and foibles.

The A7r vibrations was an example of that. Many users could not observe it, as the effect was subtle - essentially reducing the sharpness of the A7r to A7 levels. The issue was essentially almost non observable,  as the images still looked sharp, but very easily measurable. So, now that weakness of the A7r is widely known, but when news about it came out they were widely sneered at by some "experts".

Now, Lloyd has a foible for large apertures. For testing it is a good thing, for large aperture work shows the weaknesses of a system. I presume that we don't buy 6000$ lenses just to shoot them at diffraction limited f/11? Personally, I shoot mostly f/8, which is also limited by diffraction on most of my lenses. Using f/8 instead of full aperture covers up a lot of subtle focusing errors.

Now, I think Lloyd gets things wrong some times. A good example of this is that he makes a bit to much noise about Sony raw compression. He observed some artefacts and attributes it to the raw compression. In this case I would guess he may be in error. But, the Sony raw compression can create artefacts. *) So, it is good Lloyd makes some noise about it, but some of that noise may be misinterpretation of his observations.

Best regards
Erik

*) Sony has actually two intertwined methods of raw compression. One is a tone curve, that is basically sound, the other one is a "delta compression" that can cause artefacts where local contrast is very high.

No offense but to me it sounds more like the subscribers to his site are offended...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am not a great believer in those steps. I would argue that it starts with the AF-sensor having a finite resolution, after that comes the alignment of sensor and play in the mechanical gears. BTW, I just had hands on a Leica S something like three days ago. The AF was quite noisy, so it is definitively using a geared mechanism.

Lloyd has tested one of the Hasselblad HD models, and it was essentially the only modern MFD camera he did not have focusing issues with, but he didn't particularly like it. Anyway, he didn't note focusing problems.

Regarding Leica S, he actually likes the camera. But he cannot use live view for focusing and he has found the AF was not accurate enough on any of the samples he tested. Personally, I also use live view when shooting on tripod. Lloyd has found issues with focusing on DSLRs, too.

Best regards
Erik

This has not been my experience on my H4D-50. This has been my experience on the D800 and indeed I can relate to the idea of "finite number of steps near infinity" on that camera. On the H4D-50, my experience is different or maybe the camera has simply enough "steps".

Hasselblad has upgraded the focus on the H4D series, so it is possible that you tried an older camera. I don't know about those. I had less reliable focus on an H3D loaner, but maybe the camera was simply miscalibrated.

[Chris Livsey]

Michael seemed impressed with the S2:

https://luminous-landscape.com/leica-s2-first-impressions/
"It is immediately obvious that the Leica autofocusing system is far superior to any current Medium Format system"
"autofocus on the S2 is deadly accurate."
"After several days of shooting, I did not find one single image where the S2 autofocus system failed. I tried to make it fail and it never did. I have never experienced this with any other camera (35 mm size DSLR’s included)."

Hard to believe the S went rapidly downhill in this respect?

[AreBee]

Chris,

Michael seemed impressed with the S2...

The article you link to was written by Mark Dubovoy, not Michael. Lloyd Chambers' comment on it can be found here

[Chris Livsey]

Indeed my bad, thanks for the correction and the link. I was taking the first line: January 13, 2009 by Michael Reichmann
I remember reading it at the time and had Michael down in memory as author, apologies to Mark Dubovoy for the mis-attribution.

So who was correct? Or were both too polarised at the extremes and the answer was under some circumstances bad under others good?

I have never read Mr Chambers before, I don't think I will be a regular reader, we didn't "gel".

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I remember Mark's article and also Lloyds. To begin with I don't think focusing on DSLRs works like described by Mr Mark, I don't think that there a a lot of zones, that is a compact camera thing. I would suggest that modern AF is using servos, that by nature are continuous, but I am really not an expert on this.

Now, Lloyds page is description only and a bit on the expensive side. I am not interested in Leica as I can not afford them anyway, but also because I don't feel they go in a good direction, so I don't subscribe to that site. I do subscribe to DAP and to Zeiss lenses, I think. I had an S in my hands a few days ago, and I did not feel enthusiastic about it. AF was very noisy, and that really indicates that it is a mechanical device, nothing like USM or the linear motors used on Sony A7. This may matter or may not, I don't know.

Lloyd Chambers shows a lot of images,mostly even at actual pixels. I also have some raw images from him. I would say we see very little of that on the web.

The best way to find out is to buy some gear and shoot with it a year or two…

Best regards
Erik
 

Indeed my bad, thanks for the correction and the link. I was taking the first line: January 13, 2009 by Michael Reichmann
I remember reading it at the time and had Michael down in memory as author, apologies to Mark Dubovoy for the mis-attribution.

So who was correct? Or were both too polarised at the extremes and the answer was under some circumstances bad under others good?

I have never read Mr Chambers before, I don't think I will be a regular reader, we didn't "gel".

[eronald]

Erik, there seem to be as many implementations of AF as models of cameras and lenses and firmware versions. But here for your entertainment is a link from "that site". I particularly like the quote from near the end:

"When you're trying to solve focus problems, the wrong understanding will lead you to the wrong answers"

Remove "focus" from the equation, and one gets a nice motto to live by

Edmund

Hi,

I remember Mark's article and also Lloyds. To begin with I don't think focusing on DSLRs works like described by Mr Mark, I don't think that there a a lot of zones, that is a compact camera thing. I would suggest that modern AF is using servos, that by nature are continuous, but I am really not an expert on this.

Now, Lloyds page is description only and a bit on the expensive side. I am not interested in Leica as I can not afford them anyway, but also because I don't feel they go in a good direction, so I don't subscribe to that site. I do subscribe to DAP and to Zeiss lenses, I think. I had an S in my hands a few days ago, and I did not feel enthusiastic about it. AF was very noisy, and that really indicates that it is a mechanical device, nothing like USM or the linear motors used on Sony A7. This may matter or may not, I don't know.

Lloyd Chambers shows a lot of images,mostly even at actual pixels. I also have some raw images from him. I would say we see very little of that on the web.

The best way to find out is to buy some gear and shoot with it a year or two…

Best regards
Erik
 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.

I no longer subscribe to the Leica pages at Diglloyd as I am not a potential Leica customer, but it is quite obvious that he has a lot of problems with focusing errors on the Leica-S. It seems that a client of his also had a lot of problems. He also says he demonstrated those problems for a Leica representative and reported the issues to Leica.

That said, Lloyd is often critical about focusing precision on equipment he reviews. I would guess it has to do with his testing. High quality equipment needs to be evaluated at large apertures and pixel peeping magnifications. That is the information he is selling. It is not like writing that "it is a great camera and shoots great 600x800 pixel images at f/16 and hyperfocal distance".

I have some images shot by a friend of mine, they don't blow of my socks, but they were all shot at f/11.

A couple of days ago I played a little bit with the Leica S in a studio in Luxemburg. I also saw some medium size prints, they were not that impressive but I did not really pixel peep.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, there seem to be as many implementations of AF as models of cameras and lenses and firmware versions. But here for your entertainment is a link from "that site". I particularly like the quote from near the end:

"When you're trying to solve focus problems, the wrong understanding will lead you to the wrong answers"

Remove "focus" from the equation, and one gets a nice motto to live by

Edmund