Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process  (Read 2335 times)

glenerrolrd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« on: June 28, 2010, 07:32:40 am »

This question seems important enough to risk a battle royal over.  Its really in two parts:

                  1.  As I understand mark s methodology...he used C1 for the P65+ and LR3 for the S2.  Please bear with me but does this mean that the std settings in the software were used.   For example LR3 starts with brightness at 50 and contrast at 25.  Can I also assume that the P65+ picked up all the camera and lens specific settings in C1 and that in Lr3 ..the embedded profile was used ?  No efforts were made to tune the profile,presets etc used with either camera?   While this is clearly done to eliminate a key variable in the process...doesn t it handicap the S2 due to the lack of camera/lenses specific settings in the raw conversion?  Isn t the S2 handicapped because the P65+ has the benefit of proprietary software product that has had several iterations of refinement ?  

                  2. Since I am really interested in the S2 files.....the S2 files were found to be excellent (from the perspective of a reviewer that should know and took the time to study the files all the way thru large prints).  In fact the S2 files were great and really didn t require much of any work and this was reported as an advantage of the S2.  

I obviously have a different point of view on both of these questions ....in the face of much greater technical expertise ..please educate me .

The question I would ask if we were face to face.....OK now if you did your best raw conversion...how good were those S2 files?  
Logged

narikin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1371
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2010, 07:47:16 am »

I've tested the S2 and the P65+ back to back, and found the Phase back to be significantly above the S2 in color, dynamic range, and of course, larger/higher resolution.  How much of that is due to better Raw conversion in C1Pro, I dont know, but that is the way the package worked. It was not mentioned in the review, but the Phase 80mm D lens is an excellent lens too, and holds up pretty well against Leica's reputation (plus its 1/4 the price)

rather surprised at this 'thin' review - its old news and doesn't add much to the debate, other than Lens hood gripes. (sorry, but you have to call it how it is)

Yes Leica's body/sensor package is admirable to some, and we badly need more choice in MF digital, but:

- the sensor is an odd size for pro MF work.
- while the camera body is well conceived, the lens' are very large and heavy (compare an 80D phase with the 70mm Leica)
- the sensor resolution is not that much by 2010 MF levels, and should have been at least 10Mp higher. Canon will be at its heels in months, Phase will jump to 70Mp+ soon too.
- the lack of C1

add to this the fact that any USA buyer can get an S2 20% cheaper shipped to them from the EU, than buying in the USA, and you will have a camera that is not selling as it should in the worlds biggest market.  M9's are still at a premium on eBay and hard to find in a store, but... I can get an S2 tomorrow.


Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2010, 07:54:49 am »

Quote from: narikin
I've tested the S2 and the P65+ back to back, and found the Phase back to be significantly above the S2 in color, dynamic range, and of course, larger/higher resolution.  How much of that is due to better Raw conversion in C1Pro, I dont know, but that is the way the package worked. It was not mentioned in the review, but the Phase 80mm D lens is an excellent lens too, and holds up pretty well against Leica's reputation (plus its 1/4 the price)

rather surprised at this 'thin' review - its old news and doesn't add much to the debate, other than Lens hood gripes. (sorry, but you have to call it how it is)

Yes Leica's body/sensor package is admirable to some, and we badly need more choice in MF digital, but:

- the sensor is an odd size for pro MF work.
- while the camera body is well conceived, the lens' are very large and heavy (compare an 80D phase with the 70mm Leica)
- the sensor resolution is not that much by 2010 MF levels, and should have been at least 10Mp higher. Canon will be at its heels in months, Phase will jump to 70Mp+ soon too.
- the lack of C1

add to this the fact that any USA buyer can get an S2 20% cheaper shipped to them from the EU, than buying in the USA, and you will have a camera that is not selling as it should in the worlds biggest market.  M9's are still at a premium on eBay and hard to find in a store, but... I can get an S2 tomorrow.
I agree 100%.
Although the difference is that here in Spain, you can't get an S2 tomorrow. In fact, we don't even know a real time laps. Nothing but silence. Wired...
Logged

glenerrolrd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2010, 09:18:26 am »

Really I am most interested in comments on the raw conversion .  It would seem that the s2 is handicapped by the lack of a well tuned raw conversion and yet the evaluation indicates that the files were pretty great without refinement in LR3.
Logged

David Saffir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 172
    • http://davidsaffir.wordpress.com
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2010, 10:58:58 pm »

I tried LR and C1 and found C1 to give better results overall.

David


Logged
David Saffir
[url=http://davidsaffir.wor

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2010, 11:12:44 pm »

Quote from: David Saffir
I tried LR and C1 and found C1 to give better results overall.

Probably most fair/helpful if you were to state which version of LR and which version of C1 and maybe point out a few things that you felt were better/worse.

Conner999

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 932
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 10:02:36 am »

Well put.

Quote from: narikin
I've tested the S2 and the P65+ back to back, and found the Phase back to be significantly above the S2 in color, dynamic range, and of course, larger/higher resolution.  How much of that is due to better Raw conversion in C1Pro, I dont know, but that is the way the package worked. It was not mentioned in the review, but the Phase 80mm D lens is an excellent lens too, and holds up pretty well against Leica's reputation (plus its 1/4 the price)

rather surprised at this 'thin' review - its old news and doesn't add much to the debate, other than Lens hood gripes. (sorry, but you have to call it how it is)

Yes Leica's body/sensor package is admirable to some, and we badly need more choice in MF digital, but:

- the sensor is an odd size for pro MF work.
- while the camera body is well conceived, the lens' are very large and heavy (compare an 80D phase with the 70mm Leica)
- the sensor resolution is not that much by 2010 MF levels, and should have been at least 10Mp higher. Canon will be at its heels in months, Phase will jump to 70Mp+ soon too.
- the lack of C1

add to this the fact that any USA buyer can get an S2 20% cheaper shipped to them from the EU, than buying in the USA, and you will have a camera that is not selling as it should in the worlds biggest market.  M9's are still at a premium on eBay and hard to find in a store, but... I can get an S2 tomorrow.
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
S2 Test ...How important was the Raw Conversion Process
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 11:03:34 am »

Quote from: glenerrolrd
Really I am most interested in comments on the raw conversion .  It would seem that the s2 is handicapped by the lack of a well tuned raw conversion and yet the evaluation indicates that the files were pretty great without refinement in LR3.

When I tested it, I found C1 gave a far better detailed file than LR3, but the color was off --- fortunately a good profile would address that latter issue.  LR3 gave slightly better color, but the file was full of conflicting artifacts -- some areas over-sharpened, others over-smeared like excessive NR, all present in the same file.   Disclaimer:  I was testing early this year with a pre-public-release test camera with pre-release firmware.

But given what I see and read from existing users, it appears things have not improved much with the new firmware and LR3 updates...
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 11:14:57 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/
Pages: [1]   Go Up