Leica S2 Field Report by Michael

[Ray]

It must be all in the lenses. Having read Michael's field report on the S2, I can't see anything much to rave about.

As an amateur, when I look back on the photos I've taken throughout the years, stretching back to my first 'proper' camera, the Pentax Spotmatic, (but excluding very basic cameras such as the Brownie Box camera which I briefly used as a kid), I find that the rejects are never due to lack of resolution of the lens/film/sensor, but always due to other factors such as (1) too slow a shutter speed, (2) inappropriate aperture for DoF requirements, (3) uninteresting lighting, (4) uninteresting composition (5) lack of a suitable focal length of lens for the subject, (6) blown highlights, (7) noisy and degraded shadows, ( wrong exposure, (9) misfocussing etc, etc. I could go on, but you get the picture.

This is why I'm sympathetic towards Ken Rockwell's controversial point that the camera really doesn't matter, but it's a point not to be taken too literally because obviously you cannot take a shot which requires a telephoto lens if you don't have such a lens, and you cannot take a photo at all if you don't have a camera.

To the extent that the camera does matter, the features that I find most useful are the features which make it easier for me to avoid at least some of those pitalls mentioned above. The invention of the image stabilised lens (or anti-shake sensor) was a great leap forward in Photography. Brilliant high-ISO performance is another great leap forward. (A lens like the new Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro with its 4 stop advantage, coupled with a camera like the Nikon D3s would be very appealing).

Fast and accurate autofocussing, a fast frame rate, autobracketing of exposure and ISO, are all features that makes it easier to capture the moment sharply and with full dynamic range when the SBR of the scene is high. A high resolution LiveView LCD screen provides no excuse for not obtaining absolutely accurate manual focussing under conditions which allow for tripod use.

The Leica S2 just doesn't make the grade for me. No image stabilisation; no LiveView; no autobracketing; slow frame rate; maximum ISO of only 1250 which looks rather noisy; and a dismal 93-95% coverage in the viewfinder.

What's going on here?

[BernardLanguillier]

The Leica S2 just doesn't make the grade for me. No image stabilisation; no LiveView; no autobracketing; slow frame rate; maximum ISO of only 1250 which looks rather noisy; and a dismal 93-95% coverage in the viewfinder.

What's going on here?

On the other hand, two additional very critical factors for successful photography are:
- the match between photographer and tool in terms of interface,
- the look of the images resulting from the way the lenses draw.

I believe that Leica has come up with a great solution with the S2 from this double standpoint.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that what you say is characteristic of MFDBs. The two situations were they are to their greatest advantage is shooting in studio with electronic flash and demanding work on tripod outside.

That said I certainly wish I had more Pixels when shooting in Yellowstone 2005 or on Iceland 2006. On the other hand I may have found that 12 MPixels is enough for what I do and the way I print. Many pictures can be improved by cropping and that is wasting a lot of pixels. One reason for that is use of central point in autofocus, so just habving better and reliable autofocus with easily selectable AF-points  may actually help a lot.

One intresting observation I had that when I was shooting Pentax 67 for street shooting my images were worse than what I would have with 135. For the more exacting work I used to do with the Pentax the 67 results were much superior.

Best regards
Erik

It must be all in the lenses. Having read Michael's field report on the S2, I can't see anything much to rave about.

As an amateur, when I look back on the photos I've taken throughout the years, stretching back to my first 'proper' camera, the Pentax Spotmatic, (but excluding very basic cameras such as the Brownie Box camera which I briefly used as a kid), I find that the rejects are never due to lack of resolution of the lens/film/sensor, but always due to other factors such as (1) too slow a shutter speed, (2) inappropriate aperture for DoF requirements, (3) uninteresting lighting, (4) uninteresting composition (5) lack of a suitable focal length of lens for the subject, (6) blown highlights, (7) noisy and degraded shadows, ( wrong exposure, (9) misfocussing etc, etc. I could go on, but you get the picture.

This is why I'm sympathetic towards Ken Rockwell's controversial point that the camera really doesn't matter, but it's a point not to be taken too literally because obviously you cannot take a shot which requires a telephoto lens if you don't have such a lens, and you cannot take a photo at all if you don't have a camera.

To the extent that the camera does matter, the features that I find most useful are the features which make it easier for me to avoid at least some of those pitalls mentioned above. The invention of the image stabilised lens (or anti-shake sensor) was a great leap forward in Photography. Brilliant high-ISO performance is another great leap forward. (A lens like the new Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro with its 4 stop advantage, coupled with a camera like the Nikon D3s would be very appealing).

Fast and accurate autofocussing, a fast frame rate, autobracketing of exposure and ISO, are all features that makes it easier to capture the moment sharply and with full dynamic range when the SBR of the scene is high. A high resolution LiveView LCD screen provides no excuse for not obtaining absolutely accurate manual focussing under conditions which allow for tripod use.

The Leica S2 just doesn't make the grade for me. No image stabilisation; no LiveView; no autobracketing; slow frame rate; maximum ISO of only 1250 which looks rather noisy; and a dismal 93-95% coverage in the viewfinder.

What's going on here?

[Ray]

On the other hand, two additional very critical factors for successful photography are:
- the match between photographer and tool in terms of interface,
- the look of the images resulting from the way the lenses draw.

I believe that Leica has come up with a great solution with the S2 from this double standpoint.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The way the lens draws!! The balance of the camera in the hand!! Made from a superb material called 'unobtanium'!! Are we into mysticism here?

It's simply a camera which has a high resolving sensor that attaches to some, no doubt, superb lenses which are unfortunately flawed because the lenses lack IS.

There was a recent comment from Michael about the necessity of flawless technique in achieving the extra resolution that MFDBs such as the P65 are capabale of, ie, very stable tripod or fast shutter speed when hand-held.

The Leica S2 tries to compete with 35mm in the sense that it's no heavier than a D3x and looks like a 35mm camera, but there the similarity ends. Everything good about it can be offset against everything lacking. It's the net effect that counts, unless you are into status symbols.

[Ray]

Hi,

I guess that what you say is characteristic of MFDBs. The two situations were they are to their greatest advantage is shooting in studio with electronic flash and demanding work on tripod outside.

That said I certainly wish I had more Pixels when shooting in Yellowstone 2005 or on Iceland 2006. On the other hand I may have found that 12 MPixels is enough for what I do and the way I print. Many pictures can be improved by cropping and that is wasting a lot of pixels. One reason for that is use of central point in autofocus, so just habving better and reliable autofocus with easily selectable AF-points  may actually help a lot.

One intresting observation I had that when I was shooting Pentax 67 for street shooting my images were worse than what I would have with 135. For the more exacting work I used to do with the Pentax the 67 results were much superior.

Best regards
Erik

True! What I say is indeed characteristic of MFDBs in general. So what's different about the S2? It's lighter but only without lenses? It has the disadvantage of no 'back-up' DB? It's got slightly greater resolution than a D3x but nothing like the flexibility? Where's the progress?

[BernardLanguillier]

The Leica S2 tries to compete with 35mm in the sense that it's no heavier than a D3x and looks like a 35mm camera, but there the similarity ends. Everything good about it can be offset against everything lacking. It's the net effect that counts, unless you are into status symbols.

I think that you might be missing something here.  

Good lens does not only mean sharp lens with good contrast, no flare and neutral colors. Good lenses map a boring world onto a creamy progressive abstraction where the subject pops into focus in a way that can sometimes generate moderate erections... you, as a Nikanon user, cannot understand these things...  

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

I think that you might be missing something here.  

Good lens does not only mean sharp lens with good contrast, no flare and neutral colors. Good lenses map a boring world onto a creamy progressive abstraction where the subject pops into focus in a way that can sometimes generate moderate erections... you, as a Nikanon user, cannot understand these things...  

Cheers,
Bernard

 

Maybe you're right. I could never experience such sublime qualities unless I were to hire or buy the camera to test for myself. Possibly just holding the camera in my hands for the first time would generate a frisson of exitement down my spine, better even than all my best photos.  

[Ed Jack]

Maybe you're right. I could never experience such sublime qualities unless I were to hire or buy the camera to test for myself. Possibly just holding the camera in my hands for the first time would generate a frisson of exitement down my spine, better even than all my best photos.  

 I don't want to hold one in a shop... I'd be tempted to do a runner - since I can't possibly   pay for it!

[Ray]

I don't want to hold one in a shop... I'd be tempted to do a runner - since I can't possibly   pay for it!

Cameras are much more robust than people give them credit for. A $20,000 camera should be able to withstand a little fall. I once dropped my $800 Sigma lens and watched it roll down a bank. I assumed it was a write-off. But, apart from a few scuff marks on the body, it still seemed fully functional and continued to provide the same quality of pictures for many years, until I eventually replaced it with the Nikkor 14-24 and D700.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

To me MFDBs are more flexible. Would I spend 25K$ on a sensor I'd like to put it on some different stuff. The issues Michael mentions with backup and sensor cleaning are also for real.

On the other hand I'd suggest that the S2 is more like a "pro" than an "amateur" camera. A P65 on a Pase One or Arca Swiss with a well adjusted Rodenstock Digitar HR is probably nothing that the Leica S2 can touch, but there are probably a lot of Hasselblads around used for shooting furniture, catalogs etc. Under those condition the Leica S2 may shine bright, because it's about autofocus, viewfinder and operation.

Best regards
Erik

True! What I say is indeed characteristic of MFDBs in general. So what's different about the S2? It's lighter but only without lenses? It has the disadvantage of no 'back-up' DB? It's got slightly greater resolution than a D3x but nothing like the flexibility? Where's the progress?

[Ray]

Hi,

To me MFDBs are more flexible. Would I spend 25K$ on a sensor I'd like to put it on some different stuff. The issues Michael mentions with backup and sensor cleaning are also for real.

On the other hand I'd suggest that the S2 is more like a "pro" than an "amateur" camera. A P65 on a Pase One or Arca Swiss with a well adjusted Rodenstock Digitar HR is probably nothing that the Leica S2 can touch, but there are probably a lot of Hasselblads around used for shooting furniture, catalogs etc. Under those condition the Leica S2 may shine bright, because it's about autofocus, viewfinder and operation.

Best regards
Erik

My first digital camera bought about 5-6 years ago, the Canon D60, 3 fps and autobracketing of +- 2 EV. The latest MF digital camera, the Leica S2; gone forward in terms of resolution, but backwards in terms of fps. Only 1.5 fps and no autobracketing. Wow!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think that there is a lot of bracketing in studio, but a lot of tethered shooting.

Best regards
Erik

My first digital camera bought about 5-6 years ago, the Canon D60, 3 fps and autobracketing of +- 2 EV. The latest MF digital camera, the Leica S2; gone forward in terms of resolution, but backwards in terms of fps. Only 1.5 fps and no autobracketing. Wow!

[Ray]

Hi,

I don't think that there is a lot of bracketing in studio, but a lot of tethered shooting.

Best regards
Erik

I have no problem with specialised cameras for studio work. However, it's not my work.

[John Camp]

From Michael's report, it strikes me pretty much as a typical Leica offering in its area -- good ergonomics, great glass, high price, and relatively impractical for most people. The backup problem alone would probably push me away from it -- you could buy three top-end Canons or Nikons for the price of one body, and as Michael notes, if you use anything else as a backup, that means a whole new set of bodies and lenses. I won't guarantee the numbers, but it seems to me that if you require a backup, you could put ~$100,000 into a basic two-body system, when it gets its full line of lenses. I have some sympathy for Bernard's point -- Leica prints do look different -- but unless you're doing exquisitely high-end art prints, the difference won't really be visible in commercial applications (except perhaps for over-sized prints, like those used in store windows.) Michael's commentary also suggests that there really isn't too much difference between the Leica and its competitors, in terms of image quality. If that's true, then given the other systems' overall flexibility (availability as rentals, wide distribution, proven software, etc.) then I think the Leica is going to have a hard time getting a toe-hold.

JC

[Ray]

From Michael's report, it strikes me pretty much as a typical Leica offering in its area -- good ergonomics, great glass, high price, and relatively impractical for most people. The backup problem alone would probably push me away from it -- you could buy three top-end Canons or Nikons for the price of one body, and as Michael notes, if you use anything else as a backup, that means a whole new set of bodies and lenses. I won't guarantee the numbers, but it seems to me that if you require a backup, you could put ~$100,000 into a basic two-body system, when it gets its full line of lenses. I have some sympathy for Bernard's point -- Leica prints do look different -- but unless you're doing exquisitely high-end art prints, the difference won't really be visible in commercial applications (except perhaps for over-sized prints, like those used in store windows.) Michael's commentary also suggests that there really isn't too much difference between the Leica and its competitors, in terms of image quality. If that's true, then given the other systems' overall flexibility (availability as rentals, wide distribution, proven software, etc.) then I think the Leica is going to have a hard time getting a toe-hold.

JC

John,
I'm no great expert in Photoshop, but I have a hunch, if I were, I could create effects far more significant than the 'Leica look'. Maybe I could in any case, without being a great expert. Provided one has captured that initial resolution, one can do all sorts of things in PS to change the mood, contrast (including micro contrast) and general effect of an image in a way that no lens can mimic.

However, basic resolution is something one cannot create if it hasn't been captured, although one can enhance the resolution that has been captured in all sorts of ways.

The resolution advantage of a 35mp sensor which is 50% larger than the 35mm format, is clear. No dispute there. It's such a pity that the general functionality of the camera seems not nearly as exciting as a Nikon D3X or D3s, for example.