Leica S and diglloyd

[ErikKaffehr]

Perhaps he used MF film camera?

The Leica S2 was announced 23-d september 2008, a bit to late for "Genesis", unless Salgado was a beta tester.

Best regards
Erik

[Chris Livsey]

Who to believe ?
So you have to ask him personally
Perhaps he used MF film camera?

So the consensus is: we have no idea from looking at the work which system he used. Yet again it is shown that the mind behind the camera is far more important than the equipment, but on we (I'm as much to blame) drone about how well, or not, the Leica S autofocuses in someone else's experience, where is BC when you need him?

[peterv]

I don’t know if BC will chime in. If he stays out, I find that quite understandable, it’s a bit of a mess down here.

This forum is frequented by pro’s and amateur photographers alike, but as of late we also have amateur psychologists:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841424#msg841424

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

Than we have the following strange reasoning; Diglloyd says so, thus S system owners have to prove otherwise:

If you feel that Lloyd Chambers is less then competent, please post some proof demonstrating the accurate focusing of at least two samples of the Leica S under demanding conditions.

As the OP, I posted my opinion three pages ago, which was somehow, maybe conveniently, overlooked:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841135#msg841135

Anyway, there’s not much point in going on like this, BC’s input is very welcome, but I doubt even he can convince some here the S system is worthwhile.

BTW, here's an interesting first impressions on the a7rII vs the Leica S:

http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/03/387-sony-a7rii-review-first-impressions/

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have read and reconsidered your response to mine.

Let's make it clear, I have read Lloyd's original review of the S2, but not the present one.

Lloyd generally feels that AF-systems are not accurate enough. He shoots often at maximal aperture and generally AF-systems used to be not accurate enough. He was complaining about the Pentax 645d, Canons and Nikons, too. But, those focusing errors were relatively small. Lloyd, like myself, see live view as a solution to focusing problems.

Shooting medium apertures reduces the need for focusing accuracy. Just to say, Erwin Puts (the author of the Leica Lens Compendium) also indicated that focusing systems were not accurate enough at least on Leica M and the Nikons he compared.

I no longer subscribe to the Leica pages on Diglloyd, so I cannot comment on his latest tests.

He published an image on his blog that was gravely defocused, that may have been an issue with AF locking on the wrong subject.

I also would say that he (Lloyd) had a fair share of problems with Leica's and that may affect his opinion. So my take is that he is quite credible when he talks about minor but significant issues with focusing at large apertures, but less so when he talks about gross errors.

Even small focusing errors are important, you play a lot for having lenses that are almost perfect at full aperture and focusing errors degrade them significantly.

It would be useful to find out what is causing the focusing problems he reports, don't you think?


Best regards
Erik

I don’t know if BC will chime in. If he stays out, I find that quite understandable, it’s a bit of a mess down here.

This forum is frequented by pro’s and amateur photographers alike, but as of late we also have amateur psychologists:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841424#msg841424

Than we have the following strange reasoning; Diglloyd says so, thus S system owners have to prove otherwise:

As the OP, I posted my opinion three pages ago, which was somehow, maybe conveniently, overlooked:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841135#msg841135

Anyway, there’s not much point in going on like this, BC’s input is very welcome, but I doubt even he can convince some here the S system is worthwhile.

BTW, here's an interesting first impressions on the a7rII vs the Leica S:

http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/03/387-sony-a7rii-review-first-impressions/

[peterv]

It would be useful to find out what is causing the focusing problems he reports, don't you think?

Absolutely! And I think you gave the answer further up in this thread. Resolution of the AF and user error, which are not problems confined to the S system.

I think it’s as simple as this: AF is convenient and can be very helpful. But like for example Auto Exposure, it can easily be fooled into making the wrong decision. The camera operator needs to help guide the camera’s choices for AE, AF, AWB, etc. All these auto-functions are aids which can be very useful but if the camera makes the wrong decision, ultimately, it’s the operator’s fault. Now some camera’s are better at AF, others are better at AE. The operator needs to know his/her camera and understand it’s shortcomings in decision making, which is where the Diglloyd-site comes in.

Mr. Chambers is in the business of finding shortcomings and selling that info. He needs to motivate his buyers by his writings on his free blog. Maybe there’s an economic incentive to make matters look worse than they actually are. Anyway, “Tell it like it is” is a good slogan.

I don’t think there’s a problem with AF in the S system, but I know from experience the system’s AF can be fooled, which is nothing new. Much like any other camera’s auto-function, I guess.

[eronald]

There are those who change their partners or cameras more often than their underwear. An occupational hazard for the gigolo or camera tester. But perhaps there's something to be said for a more intimate and lasting relationship? Certainly more knowing and fragrant.

It would seem that for a gigolo photographer a lasting relationship can be quite productive ($1B).

On the other hand, a slight fragrance of scandal certainly helps sell magazines.

Edmund

[vampire]

I haven't read this entire thread. But in general,  I am skeptical of his conclusions with all of the medium format equipment he has used. I'm not saying that he's 100% wrong or that he hasn't had any issues. But I have used some of the same equipment that he has and have not had the same poor results. I even offered to met up with him with my H4x and phase back several year ago, so he could test that and he said he wasn't interested and that medium format wasn't his focus or interest (paraphrasing here), so he didn't want to. I have followed his mac/computer and views and think that is pretty accurate though.

Also, I saw Salgado's exhibit twice and up close you can tell the difference between the film shots and digital shots. I mean when you look at the grain closely, from a foot away. It didn't effect the impact of his images and you couldn't really  tell from farther away. But it was a fun little game to guess and see if I was right when I got closer to it. I d think the exhibit said that he shot with canons when he switched to digital for the project. It was one of the best exhibits I've ever seen.

[eronald]

I haven't read this entire thread. But in general,  I am skeptical of his conclusions with all of the medium format equipment he has used. I'm not saying that he's 100% wrong or that he hasn't had any issues. But I have used some of the same equipment that he has and have not had the same poor results. I even offered to met up with him with my H4x and phase back several year ago, so he could test that and he said he wasn't interested and that medium format wasn't his focus or interest (paraphrasing here), so he didn't want to. I have followed his mac/computer and views and think that is pretty accurate though.

Also, I saw Salgado's exhibit twice and up close you can tell the difference between the film shots and digital shots. I mean when you look at the grain closely, from a foot away. It didn't effect the impact of his images and you couldn't really  tell from farther away. But it was a fun little game to guess and see if I was right when I got closer to it. I d think the exhibit said that he shot with canons when he switched to digital for the project. It was one of the best exhibits I've ever seen.

I think that at this point one should talk about team Salgado.

Edmund

[eronald]

J,

  I would like to compliment you on the superb layering in the setup of this image.
  The lighting and the styling are perfectly complementary. Bravo.
 
  Yes, in your hands the Leica draws well.

  I think the guy who compared AF to AE was the one who nailed it - we admit every AE system has limitations and quirks, yes shots get wrecked, and we learnt to check histograms. In the same way we should  learn to deal with the quirks of AF, and just get on with our lives.
 
Edmund

I' ve stayed away from this, because we've been very  busy and there seems to be a lot of conjecture about just about everything.

I'd never talk someone into buying a camera.  

Why?  

All I know is the S2 works for me, does what I want and in regards to autofocus, It works well with Contax and Lecia lenses.   It's not a sports camera, but it's accurate and fairly quick.

In fact of all the cameras I've owned and used, which is way too many, the best autofocus was the Nikon F5, D3, D4 and the Canon 1dx, and they will miss focus under certain situations.

The best medium format camera I've used with autofocus is the Leica.

I've included one photo, prior to any real post production, just adjust and thrown up as a jpeg around 4,000 pixels tall.

I'd  never put up an image this large because I know I'll hear there is ca, or something, but for focus it makes a point as it was shot at F 4.8 and 1/12th of a second, 640 asa,  with a medium tripod and a gitzo fluid head that I keep totally loose for stills.

Obviously the subject is fairly still, the tripod though very very loose helps, but as still as the actor was,  the subject moves more than a brick wall.

S2, no sharpening applied, 55mm contax lens.


It's a smooth camera with great mirror dampening and I like the ccd look.

Now with the new cmos version, I doubt if I'd pay over $10,000 for it but that's not because of leica, I don't think I'd ever pay over 10 grand for any cmos "still" camera again.  Those days are past, at least in my view, but if I did it would be the S version.

Saying that,  I'd buy another S2 in a heartbeat.

IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes I agree. But, you buy this very well corrected lens for 6k$ and have no option to focus it correctly.

- AF has limitations
- Focusing on view screen is often difficult. Some can do it admirably well. I use 9X magnification on my Hasselblad V and accurate focus is still hit or miss. Good enough focus is something different.
- No live view AF

Just to say, I have no problems with AF on my Sonys the way I shoot, but when I shoot other stuff like a group of people I often miss AF. Grave focusing problems are probable caused by non optimal usage, but critical focus is not a given with AF and all systems are not created equal.

Best regards
Erik

J,

  I would like to compliment you on the superb layering in the setup of this image.
  The lighting and the styling are perfectly complementary. Bravo.
 
  Yes, in your hands the Leica draws well.

  I think the guy who compared AF to AE was the one who nailed it - we admit every AE system has limitations and quirks, yes shots get wrecked, and we learnt to check histograms. In the same way we should  learn to deal with the quirks of AF, and just get on with our lives.
 
Edmund

[StuartR]

Erik, you seem to argue very passionately against a camera that by your own admission you have never used (or at least not extensively), regarding a review you have not read, in the face of several owners of the system who are trying to tell you that it works just fine...I would encourage you to try one for a longer test if you get the opportunity, as you may find your own experience different than Lloyd Chamber's.
I am not sure what exactly happened with Lloyd Chambers, but I can tell you from my own experience, the S2 and S focus very accurately, and more accurately than any other DSLR I have used. I produce large exhibition work (1mX1.5m) for museums and galleries, and have shot extensively with an S2 and S for the last three years. My working apertures tend to be around 5.6-11, but I have often worked wide open as well. The S and S2 are very accurate indeed, and I find they will easily and accurately focus on the moon or city lights in the distance even at night (when I do a lot of my work). Of all the cameras I have ever used, it is the S that I would trust the most to come back with a well-focused, tack sharp image.

I think the issue that Lloyd may have is that the AF sensor is a bit larger than the cross in the center and can be provoked into misfocusing if it is not placed correctly. The sensor has a tendency to read the closest thing in its path, so if something slightly forward of your intended focus point protrudes into the AF area, you might get poor or inconsistent results.

Regarding the AF motors, I believe David Farkas had an interview with Peter Kaarbe, the head lens designer at Leica. In it he talks about the S lenses and why they were designed the way they were. As far as I remember, he said they initially wanted to use ultrasonic motors, but they found that they were not accurate enough for the heavy lens elements, so they used very high precision stepping motors that could move the lens elements quickly, but also stop them exactly where they need to stop. In the S, I believe they also worked in firmware to increase the speed that the motors run at, and then calculate the drift between the onset of breaking in the motor and the exact stopping point, so that they could run the motor at full speed and cut it, and the stopping distance would wind up exactly at the point of optimal focus. Additionally, each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs so that they can compensate for each other's deviation from ideal. I am not saying that it is always perfect, nor that other manufacturers don't do something similar (though I have not heard of it), but personally my confidence is more in the technicians at Leica and in my own experiences than it is in Lloyd Chamber's reviews. But honestly, it is unfortunate that he did not have a better experience. I hope he was just unlucky with the body and or lens that he got, but if it is not working for him, that is fine for him to say so. Still, the people using the gear day in and day out are probably more authoritative...
If you want to pixel peep some S prints, you are welcome to contact me next time you visit Iceland.
Stuart

[AreBee]

Stuart,

...each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs...

If memory serves, lens focus-shift is also coded.

[landscapephoto]

In the S, I believe they also worked in firmware to increase the speed that the motors run at, and then calculate the drift between the onset of breaking in the motor and the exact stopping point, so that they could run the motor at full speed and cut it, and the stopping distance would wind up exactly at the point of optimal focus. Additionally, each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs so that they can compensate for each other's deviation from ideal. I am not saying that it is always perfect, nor that other manufacturers don't do something similar (though I have not heard of it)

I have read similar stories about the Hasselblad H system. For example, I have read that the H system focusses at full aperture, but uses lens dependent tables to correct for focus shift when the aperture is closed. Indeed I find that the AF on my camera is perfectly accurate. I would expect the Leica S to be just as good.

[erlingmm]

I am not as subscriber, so I can't read digilloyd's evaluation after the initial cry wolf about the S AF. But he is now into evaluation of the S lenses. Abot the 24mm he says:

"This is a truly outstanding performance probably unequalled by any lens for the 35mm format. To see it on medium format 45 X 30mm sensor is very impressive. The particularly high cost of the Leica 24mm f/3.5 Super-Elmar-S ASPH is neatly explained by this example. But cost should not be confused with value—this is as good as it gets for a lens this wide (19mm equiv in the 35mm format) and thus the 24/3.5 SEM is surely a must-have lens for the S shooter."

I can only agree.

About the 45 (that I don't have) he says:

"I liked the Leica 45mm f/2.8 Elmarit-S ASPH a lot and found it very appealing in the field. Highly recommended for Leica S shooters."

About the sensor itself he says:

"The CCD sensor on the S006 is superb."

The S007 is now rumored to be released Aug 31. I know the first samples are out for testing, looking forward to the first reviews.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I did read the original S2 review, and I even got some raw images from Lloyd Chambers.

But you are right that I have not read the present S review. What I have tried to point out is that Lloyd had issues with several samples of S-series cameras, but also that he essentially finds AF-accuracy a problem on most systems.

The AF errors he finds are usually a bit subtle, this was the case in the original article on the S2. He does talk about gross focusing errors on the S in his blog and that would probably relate to either a faulty camera or the focus locking on the wrong subject. In the blog he refers to at least two cameras, the one he tested and another one belonging to a customer. So he reports issues with at least three cameras, the original S2, the one he tested and the customers camera. I am pretty sure he had another S2 he tested earlier. What he misses is really is a well implemented live view. The new CMOS based backs from Phase, Leaf and Hassy have it and it is a great help for many users.

Another point that should be pointed out is that he actually likes the Leica system very much.

A small observation may be that an optimally focused image on the S should generate a lot of aliasing artefacts, according to basic laws of signal processing. I see a lot of these on my images with the Hasselblad, even with 20 year old lenses, but I have not seen any reports on aliasing, except on Lloyds site. So, if Leica does not produce these artefacts, there must be an explanation, some candidates:

• Subject lacking fine detail
• Small aperture. Lloyd found that f/11 is sufficient to suppress aliasing errors, on my P45+ I need f/16
• Anything reducing resolution. Mirror caused vibration, shutter vibration, defocus and so on.

Good lenses combined with large pixels should produce large amounts of aliasing. If this is not the case, there must be some factor limiting sharpness.

This image is a good example of that: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Nyquist1.jpg

One area where I see this kind of aliasing problems is water surfaces and rigs on sailboats. As I am living and working in the Swedish archipelago I often make these kinds of shoots.

This image is a good example of it: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/seawater_a.png

I may also add that I am seeing more of this kinds of artefacts now than say a year ago as I have improved my focusing skills.

On the other hand, if the sensor "ouresolves" the lens or the subject, you won't see artefacts, so it also depends on subject choice.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, you seem to argue very passionately against a camera that by your own admission you have never used (or at least not extensively), regarding a review you have not read, in the face of several owners of the system who are trying to tell you that it works just fine...I would encourage you to try one for a longer test if you get the opportunity, as you may find your own experience different than Lloyd Chamber's.
I am not sure what exactly happened with Lloyd Chambers, but I can tell you from my own experience, the S2 and S focus very accurately, and more accurately than any other DSLR I have used. I produce large exhibition work (1mX1.5m) for museums and galleries, and have shot extensively with an S2 and S for the last three years. My working apertures tend to be around 5.6-11, but I have often worked wide open as well. The S and S2 are very accurate indeed, and I find they will easily and accurately focus on the moon or city lights in the distance even at night (when I do a lot of my work). Of all the cameras I have ever used, it is the S that I would trust the most to come back with a well-focused, tack sharp image.

I think the issue that Lloyd may have is that the AF sensor is a bit larger than the cross in the center and can be provoked into misfocusing if it is not placed correctly. The sensor has a tendency to read the closest thing in its path, so if something slightly forward of your intended focus point protrudes into the AF area, you might get poor or inconsistent results.

Regarding the AF motors, I believe David Farkas had an interview with Peter Kaarbe, the head lens designer at Leica. In it he talks about the S lenses and why they were designed the way they were. As far as I remember, he said they initially wanted to use ultrasonic motors, but they found that they were not accurate enough for the heavy lens elements, so they used very high precision stepping motors that could move the lens elements quickly, but also stop them exactly where they need to stop. In the S, I believe they also worked in firmware to increase the speed that the motors run at, and then calculate the drift between the onset of breaking in the motor and the exact stopping point, so that they could run the motor at full speed and cut it, and the stopping distance would wind up exactly at the point of optimal focus. Additionally, each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs so that they can compensate for each other's deviation from ideal. I am not saying that it is always perfect, nor that other manufacturers don't do something similar (though I have not heard of it), but personally my confidence is more in the technicians at Leica and in my own experiences than it is in Lloyd Chamber's reviews. But honestly, it is unfortunate that he did not have a better experience. I hope he was just unlucky with the body and or lens that he got, but if it is not working for him, that is fine for him to say so. Still, the people using the gear day in and day out are probably more authoritative...
If you want to pixel peep some S prints, you are welcome to contact me next time you visit Iceland.
Stuart

[eronald]

I don't think Leica has a price problem anymore, when you can get an S for $5-6K. That's less than a Pentax, and an adaptor gets you a bunch of C or H lenses, as you note. Of course it is not for the penniless artiste but who cares about her anyway?  To be fair, I'd heard of an AF issue with landscapes before and your studio experience says nothing much about what happens towards infinity with a given lens - however nobody is stopping prospective purchasers from doing their own testing.

Sony now finally has a nice camera that can do everything - hi ISO,  hi rez, stabilised hand held video, internal 4K, silent shutter, compatible with any lens under the sun Canon, Nikon, old Contax Zeiss, you name it, even usable as a back on a  shift/tilt cam. The color and skin texture reminiscent of the old 1Ds2, but it's a one-size-fits all. I'm willing to bet you'll have one within 6 months/

I think for a pro sometimes doing video the A7RIIi is ten times more useful to have a spare Sony A7RII in the bag than another Leica S lens - I cannot imagine a single shot you couldn't save/get with that thing as a backup, provided you don't break it with your monkey paws. And as all french men, and all female bag buyers know, even though one can sometimes tell the difference between a fake and the real thing, one can decide that it doesn't really matter


Edmund

I don't get it.  Talking about resolve, out resolve, artifacts, crap this isn't a science project, it's about a photograph, at least I thought that's what a camera was for.

Then as usual with Leica somebody always mentions money saying for a $6,000 lens it should look good, though the image I posted was with a $900 contax lens  and this image with a contax 80mm wide open at f2.0 that probably sells for about $400.



I could show a thousand in focus images with contax and leica glass and I don't mind if people don't agree with the camera, or the price, but why care if your never going to buy or use one?

I think it's pretty cool that Leica built a new system from the lens to the sensor.  Especially one so well thought out.

The money for isn't crazy, heck go price out the new sony a7RII and a full set of lenses (most of them F4) and the price is more than using my legacy glass and a S2, so I dunno I guess for me the Leica was a good deal.

And no offense meant but who the hell is digital lloyd?

IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

No issue with your comment, but I happen to be a non commercial photographer quite interested in the science of photography. Those artefacts are real, as I see it in the pictures I make. So, it may not matter to you but it does matter to me.

My issues arise with Hasselblad lenses on the P45+ I have. Now, this is not a horrible problem, and I can eliminate it with some sloppy workflow, like bad focus, stopping down to f/16, no mirror lockup. Would it be a horrible problem I would have get rid of that P45+ long ago…

But the way I shoot I see it almost all the time, on subjects that are prone to it. I don't see it on flower shots, but often shots including water surface with small waves and also on sail rigs. You won't see it if you are shooting a yacht filling an image but you see it when there are a half dozen sailboats on anchor in a bay you happen to shoot. You should see this according to theory, so when aliasing is visible it is a clear indication that the lens actually outresolves the sensor.
 
And yes, I clearly see more problems once I have worked on my focusing technique.

I don't have an issue with pricing on the Leica, except that I would not buy one. Clearly smart that the S-series supports lenses from other vendors. Would I have a lot of Contax lenses I would consider buying the Leica S2 as it is available at very low price, but I don't have a lot of Contax lenses but a lot of Hasselblad V-series lenses and a P45+ back. Those lenses are perfectly good enough to cause aliasing on my favourite subjects which happen to be landscape with some ingredients of architecture.

We have a nice guy here on LuLa called Anders Torger. He is shooting a 50 MP back on Linhof and uses it with a 30X magnifier for accurate focus. He feels that he can reach optimal focus at f/11 with that 30X loupe, but he finds artefacts like I do, often on rippled water. So, he shoots f/16 to get rid of those artefacts. My experience with the P45+ is that artefacts are clearly present at f/11 but largely gone at f/16, due to diffraction. Just to say, Anders Torger is a really nice guy who has given us a free tool for generating camera profiles, a fine tool for generating HDR and maintains an interesting raw converter (raw therapy) on the Mac.

You are clearly entitled to an opinion, but please accept that others are also entitled to have another opinion.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Diglloyd is a guy called Lloyd Chambers who publishes a lot of testing on different systems on a pay site called "diglloyd". His testing is quite analytical. Personally, I would say that it may be sane to spend 60$ on his reports if you plan to buy a 6000$ system. Now, reviews are reviews, but I would prefer to read the bad news as well as the good news. For instance, he has tested a lot of the lenses for the Pentax 645 and he publishes detailed analysis of his tests. So if I would consider buying a Pentax 645D, which I did, I would read his tests.

In general he is a bit critical of the systems he tests, that applies to Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Hasselblad, Canon (to some extent). His experience with Leica has been a bit more negative, like stuck aperture on some of the Leica S-lenses, but again he has found issue also with Nikon cameras and Canons and also Zeiss lenses, and those issues have been solved by repairs from Nikon or Zeiss.

I would assume that many lenses and cameras we own have some tolerance related issues, but we don't see it as we don't have a lot of comparisons. Some photographers cherry pick lenses, buy say five samples and return four. I cannot do that.

I don't get it.  Talking about resolve, out resolve, artifacts, crap this isn't a science project, it's about a photograph, at least I thought that's what a camera was for.

Then as usual with Leica somebody always mentions money saying for a $6,000 lens it should look good, though the image I posted was with a $900 contax lens  and this image with a contax 80mm wide open at f2.0 that probably sells for about $400.



I could show a thousand in focus images with contax and leica glass and I don't mind if people don't agree with the camera, or the price, but why care if your never going to buy or use one?

I think it's pretty cool that Leica built a new system from the lens to the sensor.  Especially one so well thought out.

The money for isn't crazy, heck go price out the new sony a7RII and a full set of lenses (most of them F4) and the price is more than using my legacy glass and a S2, so I dunno I guess for me the Leica was a good deal.

And no offense meant but who the hell is digital lloyd?

IMO

BC

[Doug Peterson]

...the image I posted was with a $900 contax lens  and this image with a contax 80mm wide open at f2.0 that probably sells for about $400.

Having recently purchased one to remount to a Phase One body I can tell you the Contax 80mm f/2 does not cost $400 on the used market .

Beautiful lens! Not clinically sharp for those that want that type of lens, but absolutely beautiful.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I was subscribing to "Diglloyd" before he split of Leica to separate pages and I have read the original S2-review. His opinion of the S2 was very favorable, but he found that focusing exactly was a major issue. Now, he found focusing a major issue on almost all systems he has tested. It is not about gross focusing errors but about not being able to extract optimum performance at large apertures. Say he can shoot five series of images all are acceptably sharp but some are much sharper than others.

Manual focusing is not a solution either, optimum focus is hard to achieve on ground glass. Large format photographers used to use something like a 15X loupe, but viewfinder magnification is often around 3X. Personally I use a 3X monocular on my Hasselblad that gives me a total of 9X magnification. Still with 9X magnification it can be a challenge to focus on some subjects. If I find a good edge like a flagpole I can nail focus using the split image in the viewfinder, but focusing on the trunk of a tree is much more a challenge.

This article by Joseph Holmes indicates the issues with achieving critical focus, it is a bit old but I would guess some of it still applies. Leica can build a fine camera but they can do little about human vision: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

If the S (Typ 7) implementsa good live view with an adequate display most of the claimed focusing problems may be resolved.

Best regards
Erik

I am not as subscriber, so I can't read digilloyd's evaluation after the initial cry wolf about the S AF. But he is now into evaluation of the S lenses. Abot the 24mm he says:

"This is a truly outstanding performance probably unequalled by any lens for the 35mm format. To see it on medium format 45 X 30mm sensor is very impressive. The particularly high cost of the Leica 24mm f/3.5 Super-Elmar-S ASPH is neatly explained by this example. But cost should not be confused with value—this is as good as it gets for a lens this wide (19mm equiv in the 35mm format) and thus the 24/3.5 SEM is surely a must-have lens for the S shooter."

I can only agree.

About the 45 (that I don't have) he says:

"I liked the Leica 45mm f/2.8 Elmarit-S ASPH a lot and found it very appealing in the field. Highly recommended for Leica S shooters."

About the sensor itself he says:

"The CCD sensor on the S006 is superb."

The S007 is now rumored to be released Aug 31. I know the first samples are out for testing, looking forward to the first reviews.

[Doug Peterson]

Gee Doug, I didn’t know a dealer wanted to buy an 80mm because the “dealer plan" from Cooter One works differently.

For dealers we sell the Contax 80mm at $400 but it’s locked at F 8.

If you want full aperture then you send it back to us, we replace the lens with another 80mm for a $2,400 fee.  (this is to insure quality workmanship).

Oh yea you want to put a new mount on it, so that also has to be done in house at the Cooter One Labs.   (this is for your protection).

That’s unfortunately another $1,200 because we go through rigorous testing and quality control. (We shoot a brick wall and look at the files, unless it's lunch time).

But the good news is we offer a loaner system or as we like to call it Big Cooter’s Value For Us Plan.

If for some reason the lens goes down, we will send a replacement by UPS to you home (no PO boxes please) for you to use for 6 days.  (insurance certificate and right thumbprint required).

Sincerely,

Big Cooter
R+D Manager
Cone

I lost my right thumb in a freak accident. It was cut off by the sharp Phase 150/2.8. Do I still qualify for the CCRP (Cooter Certified Replacement Plan)?