Leica S and diglloyd

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

Cooter One indeed does an excellent job protecting costumer interest. I wish you good luck with that worthwhile enterprise!

Best regards
Erik

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

[eronald]

Hi BC,

Cooter One indeed does an excellent job protecting costumer interest. I wish you good luck with that worthwhile enterprise!

Best regards
Erik

Cooter One is indeed renowned for its sharp-tailor-made lenses

Edmund

[eronald]

We aim to please.

J,

You're in a fine mood tonight

Edmund

[erlingmm]

You guys had fun last night, but let's get back on topic. I do not know what digilloyd struggled with, as the discussion is on the paid site, neither do I know what the 007 will offer to aid focus in live view. I can only say that my hit rate is very good with AF on the back button, and manual override. Especially the Microprism focusing screen (16001) is very helpful and precise.

- Erling

Hi,

...
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.
....

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

[Manoli]

You guys had fun last night, but let's get back on topic.

No, please, let's not.   

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the S2 (the first review) it could not consistently yield maximum sharpness on a flat mosaic surface. Of five series two were close to optimal and three were failures. This kind of differences are only obvious if you can compare with an optimally sharp image.

He also found that it was not possible (for him) to achieve optimal focus using the optical viewfinder, as magnification is not high enough. The ability to focus manually probably varies a lot. I guess some are better with it than others. I would believe that microprisms and split wedge can be very useful.

Regarding the second (or third?) review I have not read it, but on his blog he expresses pretty strong dissatisfaction referring to two different samples. I think that may be a bit excessive… If you climb a mountain with a quite heavy camera and don't get pictures that fulfil your expectations you may be a bit unhappy. 

As I have no intention to buy a Leica S or Leica S2 I didn't subscribe to Lloyd's Leica pages, but I guess that if I would buy into the S system I would spend those dollars and read his articles.

Generally, the limitations of AF technology (in general) are widely accepted, for that reason, focus bracketing is frequently used in testing. Good reading here: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm and here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy

BTW, this is the mosaic Lloyd uses for many of his reviews:



Best regards
Erik

You guys had fun last night, but let's get back on topic. I do not know what digilloyd struggled with, as the discussion is on the paid site, neither do I know what the 007 will offer to aid focus in live view. I can only say that my hit rate is very good with AF on the back button, and manual override. Especially the Microprism focusing screen (16001) is very helpful and precise.

- Erling

[Manoli]

OK, so you persist …

The problem with your ( or rather Chambers') assumptions and opinions, Erik, are that they're based on a sample size of two(*). Extrapolating the 'alleged' results of a sample size of two, in Leica S terms statistically insignificant, to a blanket condemnation of The 'S' AF  system in particular is, at best, unsound.

It's also quite possible that the results are heavily influenced by a failure in technique. All the more so, given the first hand testimony and graphic evidence, both here and elsewhere, of the excellent results the cam, in the right hands, is capable of producing.

Were the camera/lens combinations properly calibrated ?
Had or did Leica recently service and check the equipment for errors ?
After his report to Leica, did they issue a general recall or an advisory ? – No.
Were his findings validated by any of the many S users ? - Not as far as I know.

If you were to base this discussion on the pros and cons of AF technology , as we know it today, it may have some merit. On an uncorroborated sample size of two – less so.

Edit:
(*) or more correctly 2 users 3 cams.

[torger]

Most gear "reviews" are superficial and emotional that could just as well be commercials. I haven't read Lloyd's reviews but at least he seems to try provide some real info. I think the best reviews are actually technically oriented reviews, because the emotional parts, like how you like the placement of buttons etc, you need to find out yourself anyway.

That said of course when you present paid content the readers has the right to demand some extra quality, and making broader samples, contacting the manufacturer if there are issues etc is a quite fair expectation I think.

But when I read a review which start with "this won't be a technical review" I know it will most likely not provide much useful information. For example with my H4D-50 it's nice to know before buy that it cannot do 1/250 synch on copal shutters. That's a piece of technical and very useful information which generally never appear in "this won't be a technical review" type of review.

The great thing about a technical review is that you get to know about technical limitations that you otherwise could have missed even when you try it out yourself. Getting emotional statements like "the color of this camera is just fantastic!" is totally meaningless and only about taste which I need to check with my own eyes anyway.

So the best way when getting new gear is to read some deep tech reviews first, and then try out the camera for yourself. That is at least how I like to do. As I'm into second hand gear I often buy in the blind though, but that is for the brave

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Highly unprobable that Lloyd has 3-4 outliers, or more if you count M series cameras. Have you studied statistics?

This is by no means just a Leica issue, have you read this posting? http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html

Interestingly enough, it seems that careful testers/users see this kind of problems while enthusiast and  normal users don't observe them. May it be that ordinary users are not careful enough? Some questions?

• Are you using optimal apertures (f/4- f/8)?
• Are you using a magnifier for focusing?
• Are you using mirror lock up?
• Are you using a state of the art tripod and head?

If you answer yes to all of the above questions you have a good starting point to discussing Lloyd's findings. Than, you of course need to post actual pixel samples of any images proving your point, preferably raw. How would you ever judge anything from a JPEG that has lost about 96% of the information?

Personally, I cheat a bit on aperture side as I mostly use f/11 on the Hasselblad, also, my viewfinder magnification is 9X, it is a bit on the low side, as technical camera users often prefer higher magnifications.


Best regards
Erik

OK, so you persist …

The problem with your ( or rather Chambers') assumptions and opinions, Erik, are that they're based on a sample size of two(*). Extrapolating the 'alleged' results of a sample size of two, in Leica S terms statistically insignificant, to a blanket condemnation of The 'S' AF  system in particular is, at best, unsound.

It's also quite possible that the results are heavily influenced by a failure in technique. All the more so, given the first hand testimony and graphic evidence, both here and elsewhere, of the excellent results the cam, in the right hands, is capable of producing.

Were the camera/lens combinations properly calibrated ?
Had or did Leica recently service and check the equipment for errors ?
After his report to Leica, did they issue a general recall or an advisory ? – No.
Were his findings validated by any of the many S users ? - Not as far as  I know.

If you were to base this discussion on the pros and cons of AF technology , as we know it today, it may have some merit. On an uncorroborated sample size of two – less so.

Edit:
(*) or more correctly 2 users 3 cams.

[Manoli]

Highly unprobable that Lloyd has 3-4 outliers, or more if you count M series cameras. Have you studied statistics?

If you had studied statistics, an outlier, as you refer to it, is necessarily based on the sample size - which in this case is remarkably small, not to say miniscule – added to which, the last time I looked, Leica M's were not AF.  Perhaps you misread both my last paragraph and the title of this thread which is 'Leica S and diglloyd'.

[DucatiTerminator]

[AreBee]

Erik,

...If you climb a mountain with a quite heavy camera and don't get pictures that fulfil your expectations you may be a bit unhappy.

The mountain isn't going anywhere. Besides, no photograph compares to witnessing the view firsthand.