Leica S2 thoughts

[TMARK]

Great blog, an aggregator of great photography.  

I would shoot film for this look.  In fact, I do shoot film for this look.  I've tried so many things, so many digital cameras, software trying to copy a specific camera/lens/film set up, and its rarely ever happened.  Which leads, once again, to something you and/or your doppelganger have asked for for years, and that's real styles labeled PORTRA 400NC, and PORTRA 400NC, -1, and E100g, etc. that actually look like Portra shot a stop over.  I find it easier, on a low volume production, to shoot film.  Send it to Duggal with a rush and have your C41 back in an hour, an hour and a half with contacts.  Make selects with teh client, have the selects drum scanned or a print made, and BOOM! Done. This works when there are maybe 10 images to be selected.  Any more, and well, its 1995 all over again but with a 2010 schedule.

Let us know how the pink cam works for you.  I would seriously be interested.

T

A friend sent me this link.  (I hope it doesn't mind me posting it).

http://feaverishphotography.com/blog/

I like most of this work and even see some commercial applications to it, but when you look at it and think about cameras, what camera would you chose for this style/styles?

Probably about anything that shot film, but film is in my past, at least on the days I make money so what "digital" camera would one of these photographers on this blog chose and would "ultimate image quality" be part of this equation?

Personally I think I'd use my first 1ds1, or maybe a Leica M8 with the sliders moved over to very soft, but then I think heck why not just get one of those pink panasonic cameras.

It shoots stills and video, you can put a pl mount on it and laugh all you want about a pink camera, but what Life Guard is  gonna bust you at Will Rogers Beach shooting with a pink camera?

I almost went over to Samy's and bought one today but ran out of time.  Yea Pink, the NO PERMIT NEEDED camera.

I really think this stuff is just getting back to where film cameras were a long time ago, where the cameras have hit a plateau, (at least with still capture).

Sure you could change things by changing film, though today photoshop is the digital film, a 23" monitor is the canvas.

Still looking at this blog the thing that really strikes me is  . . . it ain't the camera.

BC

[gwhitf]

watched this yesterday...the full helmut&june documentary on youtube.....a guy and a camera....i love how he keeps shooting on automatic.....i also want his printer btw.....

If you really want to be overwhelmed with ASA 400 film grain, check out the Archives at that site. Make a strong pot of coffee, put on an old Janis Joplin record, and let the past wash over you.

http://feaverishphotography.com/blog/archives/

It occurs to me though, that we've come to a junction in the road, and the people guys are clearly being separated from the landscape guys. The landscape guys want "resolution"; the people guys want "feeling". It's time for us to leave now. TMark, Schefz, LargeCooter -- hit the road. Leave these guys in peace.

I thought it was interesting that the most striking image in that Print Exchange here was John's image that looked like it was shot with a tilt shift lens, or something wacky. Blurred to no end. By far the most compelling. Yet it was probably 35, with a funky lens, handheld, wide open. But some guys want to count the rocks on that mountaintop from 300 meters away; it's a free country. But it seems a shame to come here, and talk to manufacturers about our needs and desires, when megapixels seem to the the only item on the menu. Very frustrating, but it seems to be the case. There just ain't no more blood in that turnip; it's time to abandon MF and wait for the next Nikon/Canon/Pinkie.

[fredjeang]

Hi,
Sorry if I'm a little heavy, but I think (again, as it has been said a lot here), that The "MF-against-35mm" or micro-four-third or whatever is a sterile debate.
In film age, MF and LF where CO-existing with the smaller formats and nobody was questioning or complaining, they were just shooting.

I do not see what is the problem to own at the same time a large format 8x10 and also a pink miniaturized camera?

Yesterday, I realized that the Pentax 6x7 and 645 are still on sale new, and ask the dealer...yes they sell these because these are great tools. If some photographers are willing to buy these camera new in 2010 is because they feel it is the tool they need, and there is nothing to critize about that.

If a photographer feels that he needs or wants Hasselblad it might be for other reason than strictly pixel counting. Why would I try to convince him that he is foolish, that he should save his money and better buy a cheap pink Panasonic or yellow Pentax KX because it is not the camera but the photographer? (sounds like Ken Rockwell...)
That does not make sense. Why do you wear these expensive shoes and not these cheap ones? if it is all about walking...

In fact, there is a very personal sensation, call it ergonomic, animal, organic, that is PERSONAL TO EACH individual being.
I tend to like as Guy Mancuso pointed before in this thread, heavier bodies and lighter lenses. Others will hate it.
Ones feel confortable with a system or another, or you just already had the gear, you're use to it, it became a "second nature".

But again and again and again, targeting Medium Format owners because it is overpriced, unnecesary or whatever are the reasons. Dividing, separating, with uncertain arguments: you are on the "right" side or in the "wrong" one...Who the duck are they to tell long life professional photographers how stupid they are with their MFD ?!?  

Of course that this is not first the Camera but the photographer! That is not the car but the driver. An average photographer like me won't do better with a Phase than with a compactcam...but if I want the Phase because I can afford it, because I feel "home" with its ergonomic and feeling, or it fits my client need standard, then who has something to say about that?

This is not because Panasonic or Olympus have released a Micro-format that everybody should just jump and lighten our bags and stayed at 12MP because sensors have supposed to reach maturity. I do not want MFT, neither I need to lighten my bag, my choice is going LF, MFD, FF, and Micro...if I could buy all of these different tools I would do it just right now and use them according to my needs that are changing and diverses...so as the tools. I even shoot with my mobile phone cam, but in the process to buy a large format 8x10, and when and if I have the money, an all MFD system as well. I do not critize anybody because ones buys a Micro-four-third camera, (although I do think that it is a dead end format that will disapear, but that is a personal evaluation), it is fine, it is right, you enjoy it? you want it? go for it!! The same with MFD. You enjoy your Hasselblad? Go for it and thanks we have that choice.

I do not know how MFD photographers still handle this kind of discrimination, they must be very patient...or maybe
They master enough they photography to take that with a wised smile  

Now, hope that the Pentax at 6500, 40MP will be true.

Fred.

[tho_mas]

It occurs to me though, that we've come to a junction in the road...

Obviously you love guides and pithy polarizing simplifications.
So little self-confidence?  

[Guy Mancuso]

Let me add a different take on this. First some folks are specialized in there work and with that some things obviously will be much harder to work with . Obviously your sports shooter taking a MF to a event maybe the death of him even though it can get done just not the best tool for the job. Myself I went MF for several reasons obviously yes bigger files but it was a need from clients or lets say a embarrassment on my part. Providing a M8 Canon or Nikon file to a client than they turn around and make wall prints the size of 18 wheelers just buried those files terrible. Or the art director taking a small snip of a frame and blowing it up double truck. Sure you can maybe get away with it but it bugged me to death and when I switched my clients after telling them bigger files are coming they let me know they where needed. Now they never said anything until after I mentioned it because they liked my work but they where not getting enough file to work with. Now I may do there advertising and when working with corporate clients you still have to do there BS work as well like a event, ceremony , awards dinner or whatever. So you have to do both or you won't get the good work. I do all kinds of different work so diversity is important, I would not call myself a landscape shooter but I certainly am on my workshops and actually enjoy it and do nice work with it. But my issue is a need for two systems and I refuse to do that, call me hard headed call me crazy but I ain't stupid either. I picked a back that I actually can do both or many things. The P40+ with sensor binning is actually a need for me . One second I can shoot 10 mpx very clean and plenty of file on some things than switch to full res. On many others. I actually have two different setups in one back and I really like this. The Sensor Plus stuff is also very clean right up to 1600 ISO and I mean clean even if I had to uprez up it still is very good. Now will it handle all types of 35mm type jobs. No it will not it is faster more responsive to work with but it's still not a Canon but it is good enough for the type of work I apply it too.

I think that really is the trick here , It seems some folks want the MF to fly like a Canon or at least close. It has gotten better but still not there. I think I can go 1.2 seconds on full res and 1.8 FPS on sensor plus which is maybe one of the fastest out there although I think the new leaf 40 maybe faster. Regardless things seem to be speeding up as the technology grows admittedly it is a slow road and I do see some frustration from some shooters and totally understand there dilemma's. Also the call for more speed and options from the OEM's is certainly a valid complaint. All of them can improve for sure and frankly the new DF is what it should have been all along. The AFD and AFDII suck. The AFDIII was better but still had shutter lag and drove me nut's. The DF is much better as the new HD4 maybe a much better cam as well, yes both slow to get here and that is the nature of MF and even the new S2 the hope for something different was put forth. But again it's really not correct right now with buffer and very large files that can't get pushed through the buffer and tethering issues and lenses that seem to be on some freight boat on Mars. No Pro is going to buy that system yet given 2 lenses and still some fundamental firmware and hardware issues not solved yet. Than we look at Canon and Nikon with tons of people and tons of money to invest in the latest technology and we wonder why not so much in MF. Now to me they are just boring systems to shoot, now you can call me crazy but I just get no joy from them and honestly how much have they improved from the 1ds which i STILL think was there best cam out there except for noise which became the holy grail for these OEM's to overcome and they ruined it. Now i am talking the look of the file the 1ds had it and it's replacements sucked. Today I don't now have not shot them recently or care too and maybe they have improved. Last 35mm DLSR i had was the D300 which was okay. But I just don't enjoy shooting them anymore, I actually like the challenge of shooting MF it makes me think better. Now I chose to buy MF and i can rent any 35mm within about a 15 minute drive any time of the day so why own it when i don't have to. Now i do have 2 GF1's one of them is IR dedicated but they are just fun to play with. Actually I just got the IR the other day and here is a test shot which I think this should be interesting to goof off with for some nice B&W stuff I'm planning to do . Anyway gear is gear and I honestly try not to think about it much anymore. I just want to shoot you pick your poison and go with it

This is the GF1 IR cam that I just got . Kind of interesting look

[narikin]

The naysayers are not wrong, your cons are why the S2 is not a viable option for working professionals. This camera was not intended to be a pro's (i.e. need to shoot for money) camera. This is a camera for hobbyists.

says who - you from your perspective?
 
Lots of photographers shot film with RB67 Mamiya, yes - that was a camera for professionals. so we should ALL have used that, right?
but wait, so was a Rolleiflex TLR. which had a fixed lens on it. that was for professional too.
oh, and so was a Canon 1 series, that was for professionals too.
oh and so was a Koni-Omega 6x7 rangefinder, with just 4 lenses. that was for professionals too.
wait, and Hassleblad...

I know it may seem unbelievable, but there are other photographers in the world who  dont have exactly the same needs as you do.
Crazy world eh? I know, I can't believe it either, but it is true.

[eronald]

Everybody here seems to agree that the 5DII is the perfect backup for digital MF. Most here seem to own one.


Edmund

[bcooter]

This is the GF1 IR cam that I just got .

Did you get a pink one?

I asked the dxo lab people to test the pink vs. the black bodies but haven't heard back.

I think pink will shoot better because it's in between red and black.

Think about it.

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The pink bodies have a color gamut optimized for pink. The black bodies are optimized for monochrome.

Best regards
Erik

Did you get a pink one?

I asked the dxo lab people to test the pink vs. the black bodies but haven't heard back.

I think pink will shoot better because it's in between red and black.

Think about it.

BC

[yaya]

I think pink will shoot better because it's in between red and black.

You mean Red and White...does that change things?

[Guy Mancuso]

Did you get a pink one?

I asked the dxo lab people to test the pink vs. the black bodies but haven't heard back.

I think pink will shoot better because it's in between red and black.

Think about it.

BC

Tried really hard to get a Pink . Said to have better DXO, better noise, better speed no AA filter. Oh wait they take that out anyway and above all else it shows up white in IR. Cool plus I can tell which one is IR or not. Not happy and had to settle for black.

[bcooter]

You mean Red and White...does that change things?

Your right but they don't make a white one, so that means I'd have to buy an olympus and to do that I've got to start comparing, all those charts, all those blue channels, crap, I'm still working out the shadow noise patterns on the 1ds2's which is kind of hard cause I sold em.

I might just make my own pink medium format camera.   I was at the auto body shop the other day and they said they'd paint it for $200 though they don't mask off the lens.  I thought that might be a new look, pink photographs.

BC

[vgogolak]

. Now the S2 LCD is far better for sure but I also do not like a 3:2 format over a 4:3 format. I thought that would be easy to revert back but I did not and I shot 35mm for decades.

Guy,
I have seen comments like this from several people, but I suspect it is a pro position. Also I wonder if age is a factor, since many of us either did 35mm or go back to 620 prints!
From and aesthetic POV 3:2 is clearly supperior (1.5) if you at least give a 'nod' to the golden ration (1.61). At 1.33 the 4/3 seems almost square but not quite. Is it better for Catlogs? Portrait? (yes, 8x10 seems more popular than 8x12)
In print, I wonder is there a column ratio that 4/3 is closer to than 3/2?
Otherwise, I guess the preference for 4/3 I can see making a difference if portrait is a large component of work, as the golden ratio does not seem to apply.

just wondering...

Victor

[narikin]

Price including taxes is 21900 body only for the S2-P with 70 2.5 3590 = more than 25000 euros, if you want the 70 2.5 CS price is 4650.

yes, but pro photographers get that tax back, so its ex-tax prices we should look at.  
the S2 body + standard is significantly cheaper in Europe than it is in US at moment.

ps: can we keep this on topic people - it is a thread about the Leica S2. if you want to discuss pink Panasonic cameras, then start a new thread on that, please.

[Guy Mancuso]

It's actually called Cherry Blossom but hey Pink is Pink.

I think a rebate program for US buyers maybe a great idea. How to implement that is another story but certainly something can be done or a credit for another lens. Hope my friends at Leica still love me after that one. LOL

Seriously though I think it's a nice idea to kick back the extra costs due to our crappy dollar. I know some would argue that and I understand. Folks in Australia pay a fortune for gear

[paulmoorestudio]

Your right but they don't make a white one, so that means I'd have to buy an olympus and to do that I've got to start comparing, all those charts, all those blue channels, crap, I'm still working out the shadow noise patterns on the 1ds2's which is kind of hard cause I sold em.

I might just make my own pink medium format camera.   I was at the auto body shop the other day and they said they'd paint it for $200 though they don't mask off the lens.  I thought that might be a new look, pink photographs.

BC

fashion shooters!
I can just see the next reality show.."project photo district" I can't decide if bc will play the tim gunn or michael kors..I think tim, then they could have michael thompson be the other michael, with inez, steven maisel doing some guest judging..or get annie, she may need the cash.