Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts  (Read 6860 times)

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2010, 12:25:31 am »

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Sure you can get one program and get the best you can think out of it but do you really know what you might be leaving behind.
__________________

Thanks Guy, this raises some interesting questions, I think I'll have a word with the Leica folks and see if I can find out more.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2010, 02:28:52 am »

Hi,

Leica may not have the resources to develop two cameras (the M9 and the S2) simultaneously and also develop raw-conversion software. It may be a better idea to cooperate with a raw-converter software vendor and help them tune the software to work optimally with the S2. To my understanding the camera firmware for the M9 was developed by a contractor (Jenoptik?) while the firmware for the S2 was developed in house.

Vendors software has been around a long time, would Leica develop new software it would be 1.0 version which used to be bug ridden. I don't know if there is some secret sauce, the crucial factor is the spectral characteristics of the color grid array in front of the sensor.

It is well know that Adobe worked together with Panasonic on lens corrections for the GH1, which were available in LR2 although official support for lens correction was only added in LR3, so it's quite obvious that Adobe is open to cooperation.

I guess that it would be difficult for Leica to partner with Phase One on raw conversion, Phase being one the main competitors.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Guy Mancuso
I have gone over this more times than I can count but I actually quote myself here on a thread. Bottom line nothing will beat a dedicated back to a dedicated sensor software package. Hassy and Phase have this and anyone shooting either system that knows how to raw process will almost always turn to there dedicated software package to squeeze the best out of those files.

I was replying to someone but you get it what I am talking about here.

 Lets point out a few things almost every cam has dedicated software even Nikon and Canon. Hassy and Phase do within there programs. Now my reasoning is very simple and i know this all too well. Just for example bring a Phase file in LR and it is not very good at all and the same with Hassy files will always be better in Phocus. The point here is the software is finely tuned and dedicated to that sensor. This takes in many things that simply are overlooked or other programs can't do. It is not just about a better profile but a completely written program that squeezes every drop out of those files. This is in regard to tonal range, sharpness, noise, DR, color, color tone, corrections if needed, exif data, tethering, color editors, styles and the list goes on. Secondly if your going to spend that kind of money and all your competitors are providing dedicated software than they will have the advantage. Trust me there is nothing special whatsoever about a DNG file. It was a good concept from Adobe but almost all OEM's said sorry to bad we want our own and we want to put our own special sauce in our files.

Now sure one can say it is a open format and any program can process it but it will never ever be as good as a dedicated software program BUILT for that cam and there algorithms and firmware. Example just noise control alone my Phase files is Sooooooooo much better in C1 than in LR or any other program. To me this kind of reasoning is on a Professional level that takes us past the general processing routines and profiles made for cams. Honestly IMHO this is where men go to work and the boys go play.

Also don't you think you deserve a dedicated software to squeeze every drop out of the money you spent on it when everyone around you has there dedicated software. Maybe better said in all this it uses generic raw processing. Also from what I seen and by your own tests barrel distortion and light falloff and you don't have corrections for that when the OEM says this stuff is built into the design. Maybe it is and i believe they did BUT I did not see that.

Just look at the M9 which IMHO looks far better from a C1 file than a LR files. Not saying C1 is the king of the roast but if your seeing differences coming from different programs than your not getting consistent or tuned images from the sensor. This is what Phocus for Hassy and C1 for Phase, Leaf Capture for Leaf, Sinar not sure of the name are all about. Even Nikon people see differences with Nikon Capture over other programs and Canon red(Color) has always been better out of DPP than any other program. Although this may have changed.

Now lets be clear I love Leica products and owned many but I have always seen different quality coming from different software packages and after extensive testing the S2 is no different just like any other cam. For Leica to succeed with this S2 program they can't be like any other cam out there and be generic. Anyway I agree we certainly may have different opinions on this which is great but I will not buy into this system if I can't squeeze every drop out of that sensor with processing. Everything so far I have seen is a compromise between DR, Color artifacts , over sharpening, color , tone etc etc. Sure you can get one program and get the best you can think out of it but do you really know what you might be leaving behind.
__________________
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2010, 02:37:48 am »

From what I gather the camera's output is specifically tailored for Lightroom. Leica have taken, IMHO, a sensible route in working closely with an existing software vendor and so this should then not be a 'generic' result like you get if you process Phase files in LR (although my current tests don't show a huge difference anyway). If there is any secret sauce in the S2 files that I'm NOT seeing by processing in LR3 then that would take the files from superb to legendary.


Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Leica may not have the resources to develop two cameras (the M9 and the S2) simultaneously and also develop raw-conversion software. It may be a better idea to cooperate with a raw-converter software vendor and help them tune the software to work optimally with the S2. To my understanding the camera firmware for the M9 was developed by a contractor (Jenoptik?) while the firmware for the S2 was developed in house.

Vendors software has been around a long time, would Leica develop new software it would be 1.0 version which used to be bug ridden. I don't know if there is some secret sauce, the crucial factor is the spectral characteristics of the color grid array in front of the sensor.

It is well know that Adobe worked together with Panasonic on lens corrections for the GH1, which were available in LR2 although official support for lens correction was only added in LR3, so it's quite obvious that Adobe is open to cooperation.

I guess that it would be difficult for Leica to partner with Phase One on raw conversion, Phase being one the main competitors.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Mike Sellers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • Mike Sellers Photography
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2010, 08:53:04 am »

Quote from: michael
Watch for Mark Duboboy's S2 "First Impressions" review here on Monday.

As for Puts, while I have great respect for his lens testing, I and a number of others feel that he misses the mark when it comes to testing digital cameras.

With regard to the M9, I know of no one other than Mr. Puts who thinks that the M9 is anything other than stellar, and far superior to the A900 or other 24MP DSLRs. Not even close.

Ps. I own and regularly use both an M9 and an A900 and can tell you that as good as the A900 is, the M9 smokes it in IQ. Similarly when it comes to lenses. The Sony / Zeiss lenses are excellent, but not in the same league as Leica's M glass.

BTW; readers should not infer from this that these differences are huge. They're not. They're subtile, and possibly not even obvious to someone not looking for them. At this level of performance we are talking about small and incremental differences that may not be critical to all users. To some though, they will.

Michael

Can someone please explain to me why Leica doesn`t put the sensor from the M9 into -lets say- an R10? The removeable DMR back would be a great idea with the M9 sensor in it! Think of all those R8 and R9 cameras as well as the great R lenses out there!
Mike
Logged

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2010, 09:37:08 am »

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
I have gone over this more times than I can count but I actually quote myself here on a thread. Bottom line nothing will beat a dedicated back to a dedicated sensor software package. Hassy and Phase have this and anyone shooting either system that knows how to raw process will almost always turn to there dedicated software package to squeeze the best out of those files.

Does anyone serious about shooting RAW use Canon's or Nikon's own software? Or Olympus's or Panasonic's or Sony's? The first thing I do when I open a camera box is to toss the useless CD.

What I'm saying is that S2 (or any other system) is not held back due to lack of dedicated software. In fact, Leica is probably better off offloading the software development to a company specialized in it - they are a hardware manufacturer after all.

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2010, 10:16:02 am »

Adobe is NOT a specialized software developer for 100 cams out there plain and simple. It makes a generic software package ( Although well done) and turns on files that can be used with there program. It is not specialized by any means at the sensor level of development between back and software like Phase or Hassy does with there programs. Very simple fact here. I tested the P40+ when it first came out against my P30+ back ( maybe a year ago) and after some nice testing between the two systems and the P40+ files the color was heavily cyan and the noise levels , tonal range and color depth where just flat out not good at all with C1. A couple months later i tested it again on a workshop and a upgraded C1 and the files where so much better than the previous version. Point here is tuning. Phase in almost all of there latest revisions with C1 and the P65+ and P40+ backs there was always a new enhancement for the backs. Go back and read all there what's in this version package blurbs and it is noted improvements have been made to both the P40+ and P65+. Now after the last test against the S2 the files from the P40+ and latest 5.1 version I believe it was so good I actually bought the P40+ demo from Capture Integration that I used  for the test right smack in the middle of the review. Finally it hit the mark of where I expected it to be, this is fine tuning between the backs and the software. Adobe is not doing this this at the sensor or build level. Look at C1 today how many color profiles do they supply for the P40+ back at least 6 from memory, Tungsten, daylight , flash and so on. The point being here is Phase and Hassy is working from the ground level of there sensors and building a compatible software/ sensor package that deals with the complete final output of those files. Now Nikon , Canon, Pana and all them may not be done to this level and sure they mostly get thrown out and not used because of many reasons mostly workflow. But we do know many Nikon shooters grind there teeth to use Nikon Capture since they feel they are getting better files from it, slow as shit and not a great working program but many comments that it does produce a better file. There is more to this than just making it work within the program. The S2 in C1 sucks and in LR3 a lot better . Just that fact alone means the cam is not designed for the program in C1 it see's it as a generic DNG file and has no clue on what to do with it from the sensor level for noise , artifacts, color and so on. Also even in LR3 the S2 files still needs a lot of work and is off and you can make presets and such for it. But all of this is not being done at the very very beginning of the process of fine tuning the sensor/build to the software. The question remains how much are we leaving on the editing floor as they say in the movie business. How do we really know if what you are doing in LR3 with a S2 file is truly squeezing the last drop out of it. I put more faith in C1 and Phocus of doing this better than anyone else since they have all the reason in the world to make there dedicated product simply the best they can do. Adobe has no reason to do that with 100 cams out there and spend millions of dollars in R&D on each and everyone of them out there. Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar do as there preverbal neck is on the line to produce the best they can or no sales on there systems. Leica chose a path that I do not agree on and maybe for many folks it may not matter to this level of fine tuning and LR3 does a decent job of it but it is not coming from the build of the sensor/software package it is more a add on for lack of a better description. I'm not saying this is all bad but again to what level are we leaving on the editing floor and that is a very big question. Can we get that answer from all of the OEM's without marketing spin on it and from the science of building a system from there very beginning and how that all play's out. I'm sure Phase, Hassy, Sinar and Leaf will tell you this is a big deal and I believe they would be right.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 10:20:50 am by Guy Mancuso »
Logged
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showt

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2010, 10:16:02 am »

Sorry double post, my bad
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 10:16:32 am by Guy Mancuso »
Logged
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showt

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2010, 11:39:55 am »

Guy is not much of a scientist, or pixel peeper, but he is a very very experienced commercial photographer. I am afraid he is right on one thing: LR is simply not the way to extract the most quality from a file; in my experience using a native converter -C1, Canon, Nikon- is equivalent to one "model" upgrade. And actually, you know, I quite like the in-camera Jpegs from the Nikon, and Puts likes the Jpegs from the S2 - maybe the camera guys do have some skills

Edmund


Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Adobe is NOT a specialized software developer for 100 cams out there plain and simple. It makes a generic software package ( Although well done) and turns on files that can be used with there program. It is not specialized by any means at the sensor level of development between back and software like Phase or Hassy does with there programs. Very simple fact here. I tested the P40+ when it first came out against my P30+ back ( maybe a year ago) and after some nice testing between the two systems and the P40+ files the color was heavily cyan and the noise levels , tonal range and color depth where just flat out not good at all with C1. A couple months later i tested it again on a workshop and a upgraded C1 and the files where so much better than the previous version. Point here is tuning. Phase in almost all of there latest revisions with C1 and the P65+ and P40+ backs there was always a new enhancement for the backs. Go back and read all there what's in this version package blurbs and it is noted improvements have been made to both the P40+ and P65+. Now after the last test against the S2 the files from the P40+ and latest 5.1 version I believe it was so good I actually bought the P40+ demo from Capture Integration that I used  for the test right smack in the middle of the review. Finally it hit the mark of where I expected it to be, this is fine tuning between the backs and the software. Adobe is not doing this this at the sensor or build level. Look at C1 today how many color profiles do they supply for the P40+ back at least 6 from memory, Tungsten, daylight , flash and so on. The point being here is Phase and Hassy is working from the ground level of there sensors and building a compatible software/ sensor package that deals with the complete final output of those files. Now Nikon , Canon, Pana and all them may not be done to this level and sure they mostly get thrown out and not used because of many reasons mostly workflow. But we do know many Nikon shooters grind there teeth to use Nikon Capture since they feel they are getting better files from it, slow as shit and not a great working program but many comments that it does produce a better file. There is more to this than just making it work within the program. The S2 in C1 sucks and in LR3 a lot better . Just that fact alone means the cam is not designed for the program in C1 it see's it as a generic DNG file and has no clue on what to do with it from the sensor level for noise , artifacts, color and so on. Also even in LR3 the S2 files still needs a lot of work and is off and you can make presets and such for it. But all of this is not being done at the very very beginning of the process of fine tuning the sensor/build to the software. The question remains how much are we leaving on the editing floor as they say in the movie business. How do we really know if what you are doing in LR3 with a S2 file is truly squeezing the last drop out of it. I put more faith in C1 and Phocus of doing this better than anyone else since they have all the reason in the world to make there dedicated product simply the best they can do. Adobe has no reason to do that with 100 cams out there and spend millions of dollars in R&D on each and everyone of them out there. Hassy, Phase, Leaf and Sinar do as there preverbal neck is on the line to produce the best they can or no sales on there systems. Leica chose a path that I do not agree on and maybe for many folks it may not matter to this level of fine tuning and LR3 does a decent job of it but it is not coming from the build of the sensor/software package it is more a add on for lack of a better description. I'm not saying this is all bad but again to what level are we leaving on the editing floor and that is a very big question. Can we get that answer from all of the OEM's without marketing spin on it and from the science of building a system from there very beginning and how that all play's out. I'm sure Phase, Hassy, Sinar and Leaf will tell you this is a big deal and I believe they would be right.
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2010, 11:40:22 am »

Hi,

I guess it has to do with making money...

Erik

Quote from: Mike Sellers
Can someone please explain to me why Leica doesn`t put the sensor from the M9 into -lets say- an R10? The removeable DMR back would be a great idea with the M9 sensor in it! Think of all those R8 and R9 cameras as well as the great R lenses out there!
Mike
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2010, 11:54:41 am »

I don't think you can generalize and say that a manufacturer's converter will automatically be the best for any given camera. It's true that there are certain sensor characteristics that manufacturer will have knowledge of - things like spectral response, AA filter design (or lack thereof), etc. But much of this data can be empirically determined even of the manufacturer doesn't want to share.

And to suggest that this knowledge is all it takes to make the best raw converter seems a bit simplistic to me. What makes you think any camera manufacturer will be have the best software guys for taking that knowledge and using it for optimal demosaicing/interpolating, sharpening, NR, etc?

Besides, in the case of somebody like Leica, where the "native" converter is ACR/LR, why would you assume that they're not sharing with Adobe the information needed to make the best raw conversions possible?

Note that I'm not arguing that ACR is the best convertor for Hassy and Phase One backs, I have no idea. But to completely dismiss it as the best for any camera based on those two data points is a bit of a leap.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 11:56:12 am by JeffKohn »
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Leica S2 discussed by Erwin Puts
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2010, 11:54:44 am »

Quote from: Mike Sellers
Can someone please explain to me why Leica doesn`t put the sensor from the M9 into -lets say- an R10? The removeable DMR back would be a great idea with the M9 sensor in it! Think of all those R8 and R9 cameras as well as the great R lenses out there!
Mike

The DMR was an Imacon project, I think. And relations between Hasselblad and Leica have cooled off since.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up