Leica S2 vs. Hasselblaud H4D-40

[craigrudlin]

I would like to make the move from 35mm to MF.  I photograph nature, landscape and abstract.  I do not do studio work.
I want to make (and even now often do) prints 20x30 and preferably larger.  I do appreciate the "micro contrast" look for MF.
I am considering the Lecia S2 and the Hasselblaud H4D-40.  (I am "coming from" the Nikon 35 mm world.) 

I am trying to weigh the pros/cons, the advantages/disadvantages of these two systems.  I have been fortunate enough to
use the Leica for 4 days and must admit that I was extremely impressed by the image quality and of course, its form factor
is very similar to the Nikon D3X, so it did feel "familiar" to me.  I have not been able to try the Hasselblaud, although I am
trying to arrange that. 

But a couple days of use is not the same as weeks or months, and I would deeply appreciate  comments or advice from
anyone who has had the opportunity to work with both of these systems "in the real world."  I am interested in comments
relating to (a) the body/back and (b) the "glass". 

I know that this is somewhat an "open ended" request, and that there is not a conclusive or absolute "answer", but I accept this.

I must also in fairness admit, that my greatest hesitancy with regard to the Leica is the price and this is especially noteworthy
since it is  a single integrated system, without an obvious upgrade pathway and from a company without a track record in MF
(i.e. may or may not stay in this format).

Thank you, I deeply appreciate your help.

[design_freak]

I would like to make the move from 35mm to MF.  I photograph nature, landscape and abstract.  I do not do studio work.
I want to make (and even now often do) prints 20x30 and preferably larger.  I do appreciate the "micro contrast" look for MF.
I am considering the Lecia S2 and the Hasselblaud H4D-40.  (I am "coming from" the Nikon 35 mm world.) 

I am trying to weigh the pros/cons, the advantages/disadvantages of these two systems.  I have been fortunate enough to
use the Leica for 4 days and must admit that I was extremely impressed by the image quality and of course, its form factor
is very similar to the Nikon D3X, so it did feel "familiar" to me.  I have not been able to try the Hasselblaud, although I am
trying to arrange that. 

But a couple days of use is not the same as weeks or months, and I would deeply appreciate  comments or advice from
anyone who has had the opportunity to work with both of these systems "in the real world."  I am interested in comments
relating to (a) the body/back and (b) the "glass". 

I know that this is somewhat an "open ended" request, and that there is not a conclusive or absolute "answer", but I accept this.

I must also in fairness admit, that my greatest hesitancy with regard to the Leica is the price and this is especially noteworthy
since it is  a single integrated system, without an obvious upgrade pathway and from a company without a track record in MF
(i.e. may or may not stay in this format).

Thank you, I deeply appreciate your help.

If you really are going to do landscapes. Unfortunately both these cameras are not the happiest choice.(this is obviously my personal opinion) You should probably aim towards Alpa / ArcaSwiss + Phase One DB / Leaf + HR optics.
OR
SEITZ http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

In these applications, such as H body will only be an unnecessary element of the system. (It will disturb / certainly will be upset)

Devices such as H4D40/Leica s2 of course are very good tools, very versatile. But if you do not do fashion  or  studio work , you will not have from them any benefits. Remember for every job, you need the right tools. It's like go out to race on a treadmill in wellingtons 

[design_freak]

I think it's best to ask Thierry Hagenauer about it.

[theguywitha645d]

Craig, you may want to try the GetDPI forum. There a a few S2 shooters there as well as Hasselblad. (The S2 folks are divided between the Medium-format and Leica sections on the board, but the question should work well in the medium-format section.) The Alpa rep, Thierry Hagenaurer, also is at GetDPI.

[TH_Alpa]

craig,

Please feel free to contact me or ask here freely.

If you don't know the Alpa cameras yet, here the link to the webpage, giving you some basic information:

Alpa

Like "design_freak", I don't think your plans are the best choice for the kind of work you will need your camera for.

Best regards
Thierry

I would like to make the move from 35mm to MF.  I photograph nature, landscape and abstract.  I do not do studio work.
I want to make (and even now often do) prints 20x30 and preferably larger.  I do appreciate the "micro contrast" look for MF.
I am considering the Lecia S2 and the Hasselblaud H4D-40.  (I am "coming from" the Nikon 35 mm world.) 

I am trying to weigh the pros/cons, the advantages/disadvantages of these two systems.  I have been fortunate enough to
use the Leica for 4 days and must admit that I was extremely impressed by the image quality and of course, its form factor
is very similar to the Nikon D3X, so it did feel "familiar" to me.  I have not been able to try the Hasselblaud, although I am
trying to arrange that. 

But a couple days of use is not the same as weeks or months, and I would deeply appreciate  comments or advice from
anyone who has had the opportunity to work with both of these systems "in the real world."  I am interested in comments
relating to (a) the body/back and (b) the "glass". 

I know that this is somewhat an "open ended" request, and that there is not a conclusive or absolute "answer", but I accept this.

I must also in fairness admit, that my greatest hesitancy with regard to the Leica is the price and this is especially noteworthy
since it is  a single integrated system, without an obvious upgrade pathway and from a company without a track record in MF
(i.e. may or may not stay in this format).

Thank you, I deeply appreciate your help.

[theguywitha645d]

I wonder why the dis of Leica and Hasselblad. Those camera types have had a long history of creating nature/landscape/abstract.

Alpa is fine as well. It also introduces plenty of problems too. I find my integrating system of my Pentax 645D much less of a hassle than my Phase back on a technical camera, especially in the field. One does not produce better images than the other.

Alpa is certainly an option (and I understand we have two personal opinions (with one of those from the manufacturer)), but it is not a replacement for what the OP is looking at. I certainly cannot think that either of those cameras would be "wrong" for the OP (but perhaps the others here know Craig and the work he does).

[mtomalty]

I'm sorry, but to imply that only a Tech camera is the 'right' choice for landscape work is a bit of a red herring.

Without question, they offer options (tilt/shift) not readily available in a DSLR format Medium format system and ultra fine detail
resolution at the wide end that is a step above current MF options but the vast majority of landscape photographers working in
the medium format medium are not using Tech cameras.

Unfortunately, the gains come bundled with their own raft of compromises- from costs that will easily rival the S2, significant color cast issues that
need to be dealt with, and system versatility limitations with regard to shooting options.
Also, probably won't be a very satisfying experience using a 40Mp microlense'd sensor.

Don't get  me wrong, a Tech camera is in my near future but only as a supplement to a DSLR-styled system.

If you are a generalist, I think your most interesting options would be to compare the H4D-40 and the Phase P40+
That said, a previous generation, lightly used   'full frame'  Phase back like a P45+ or P65+ would provide excellent quality
on one of their cameras as well as offering you the possibility to add a Tech camera down the road if the need arises

Mark
www.marktomalty.com







 

[TH_Alpa]

Mark,

I didn't want to imply that the cameras mentioned by the OP are a bad choice or cannot be used for that.

But you say it yourself: "... they (tech cameras) offer options (tilt/shift) not readily available in a DSLR format Medium format system and ultra fine detail
resolution at the wide end that is a step above current MF options ..."

All is said here, for me, especially when shooting landscapes and nature. I am not saying this with my Alpa hat, but as a photographer who has worked for 20 years with tech and LF cameras with movements. For me landscape/nature photography is first synonym of fun when shooting, thinking about the image and building it up slowly with my eyes first, and then with the camera and its almost unlimited possibilities. And, still for me, this means to use a camera with which I am not limited by any means on the technical side, being able to move my sharpness plane precisely, by tilting, by swinging, to shift when necessary a few mm either to get something in or may be out of the frame from a given viewpoint, or to shift for a panoramic view when the subject allows it, to use the finest lenses with the highest possible resolution and image circles allowing these movements, and to have a camera that is built to get the most out of the current sensors without any compromise concerning precision.

I don't need (and I don't want) AF or all the settings such DSLR MF cameras are offering to the users, and I don't need nor want to shoot at the speed that such cameras almost force me to (or may be I should rather say that the tech camera forces me to slow down).

Color cast issues can be dealt with very quickly and efficiently, when using the right software. It simply needs an additional shaded shot with each image taken. To deal with this later on the software level is almost no deal, for me and IMO. And one does not have to deal with it with all lenses, most of them are not showing color casts.

I don't see any shooting option limitations with a system like the Alpa. Alpa is building cameras and accessories which are very versatile and part of an integrated and complete system, interchangeable and usable on all Alpa 12 cameras, this since now more than 15 years.

But this is only my opinion, that's the way I understand landscape and nature photography and want it to be for me, having time with my camera and remember later this time I had to create my image, step by step.

Best regards
Thierry

I'm sorry, but to imply that only a Tech camera is the 'right' choice for landscape work is a bit of a red herring.

Without question, they offer options (tilt/shift) not readily available in a DSLR format Medium format system and ultra fine detail
resolution at the wide end that is a step above current MF options but the vast majority of landscape photographers working in
the medium format medium are not using Tech cameras.

Unfortunately, the gains come bundled with their own raft of compromises- from costs that will easily rival the S2, significant color cast issues that
need to be dealt with, and system versatility limitations with regard to shooting options.
Also, probably won't be a very satisfying experience using a 40Mp microlense'd sensor.

Don't get  me wrong, a Tech camera is in my near future but only as a supplement to a DSLR-styled system.

If you are a generalist, I think your most interesting options would be to compare the H4D-40 and the Phase P40+
That said, a previous generation, lightly used   'full frame'  Phase back like a P45+ or P65+ would provide excellent quality
on one of their cameras as well as offering you the possibility to add a Tech camera down the road if the need arises

Mark
www.marktomalty.com







 

[fotometria gr]

If you really are going to do landscapes. Unfortunately both these cameras are not the happiest choice.(this is obviously my personal opinion) You should probably aim towards Alpa / ArcaSwiss + Phase One DB / Leaf + HR optics.
OR
SEITZ http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

In these applications, such as H body will only be an unnecessary element of the system. (It will disturb / certainly will be upset)

Devices such as H4D40/Leica s2 of course are very good tools, very versatile. But if you do not do fashion  or  studio work , you will not have from them any benefits. Remember for every job, you need the right tools. It's like go out to race on a treadmill in wellingtons 

+1. By the way... what scanner would you recommend if I was to use an 135mm lens on my 220vr? Now I use my 9000ed and cut the images every 17cm with a very thin razor! I'm looking for an old S/H scanner, I won't be scanning more than 20-30 images annually (I don't do much shooting over 240deg), most of the rest I am doing with the 17-35 Nikkor of which I have mastered the nodal point at 4 zoom points and the CZJ 65 flektogon (with a nikon shift adapter). Regards Theodoros, www.fotometria.gr

[Graham Welland]

Craig,

If you are coming from the 35mm world and are looking for a similar level of sophisticated camera system and lenses then certainly any of the Leica S2, Hasselblad HxD or also Phase One/Mamiya DF or Pentax 645D would be familiar platforms. Leica vs Hasselblad? Either would provide you with a great shooting platform with Hasselblad arguably having the larger system for lenses and accessories. You would also have the ability to use the back on a technical camera in the future as well.

Whilst I understand the advice here about technical cameras (I shoot landscape with an Alpa STC myself), I definitely wouldn't agree that this is the 'ideal' choice of platform if you've never used them before or had experience with 4x5 etc. The results can be fabulous but it takes work - partly the reason why I shoot with it actually as I often enjoy the process as much as the results. Since you mention moving from 35mm I'd personally only go to a technical camera platform if I were sure that landscape was all that I would be shooting and that I was sure that I could live with the shooting style. There's a lot to be said for the versatility of a DSLR platform whether 35mm or MF. I find it very useful to shoot with my Phase One back on my DF as well as on the Alpa and if I didn't have the DF I'd have kept my D3x for this type of faster more fluid shooting. If slow deliberate shooting style isn't your thing you're not going to enjoy shooting with a technical camera, regardless of how good the results can be.

As regards Leica, my impression is that they are in the medium format business for the foreseeable future and their lenses are as good as you can get. Period. Will they update the S2 to a larger sensor or more megapixels? Statements in the press suggest not as they regard the 37mp resolution adequate and state that they are putting their efforts into different imaging characteristics than resolution. Certainly Hasselblad and Phase One have a different approach. If you were worried about making the 'safe' choice then probably Hasselblad is a good option.

As Mark Tomalty mentioned, the vast majority of medium format landscape shooters are not using technical cameras, or at least, not ONLY using technical cameras.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Many good points. Another point, Leica has chosen a relatively small sensor size. MF sensors come in different sizes. Leica has chosen a size and builds their system around it. With Hasselblad and Phase a sensor with a higher resolution is often a larger sensor. The only way Leica can increase resolution is by changing pixel size, but doing that makes a lot of sense.

The Pentax 645D is in many senses quite similar to the Leica S2, but without the Leica lenses. Some 645D lenses are stellar and many are not.

Lloyd Chambers has a long evaluation of Pentax 645D and Leica S2 on DAP, http://dap.diglloyd.com/ , it is a pay site, but well worth the investment before shelling out 30k$ for an MF equipment. Here are Lloyds finding in short:

- Pentax 645D is a great camera with some very good lenses but many mediocre ones, too
- He essentially loves the Leica S2, but has difficulties achieving correct focus
- With Hasselblad he didn't find the two lenses he tested good enough

Best regards
Erik

Craig,

If you are coming from the 35mm world and are looking for a similar level of sophisticated camera system and lenses then certainly any of the Leica S2, Hasselblad HxD or also Phase One/Mamiya DF or Pentax 645D would be familiar platforms. Leica vs Hasselblad? Either would provide you with a great shooting platform with Hasselblad arguably having the larger system for lenses and accessories. You would also have the ability to use the back on a technical camera in the future as well.

Whilst I understand the advice here about technical cameras (I shoot landscape with an Alpa STC myself), I definitely wouldn't agree that this is the 'ideal' choice of platform if you've never used them before or had experience with 4x5 etc. The results can be fabulous but it takes work - partly the reason why I shoot with it actually as I often enjoy the process as much as the results. Since you mention moving from 35mm I'd personally only go to a technical camera platform if I were sure that landscape was all that I would be shooting and that I was sure that I could live with the shooting style. There's a lot to be said for the versatility of a DSLR platform whether 35mm or MF. I find it very useful to shoot with my Phase One back on my DF as well as on the Alpa and if I didn't have the DF I'd have kept my D3x for this type of faster more fluid shooting. If slow deliberate shooting style isn't your thing you're not going to enjoy shooting with a technical camera, regardless of how good the results can be.

As regards Leica, my impression is that they are in the medium format business for the foreseeable future and their lenses are as good as you can get. Period. Will they update the S2 to a larger sensor or more megapixels? Statements in the press suggest not as they regard the 37mp resolution adequate and state that they are putting their efforts into different imaging characteristics than resolution. Certainly Hasselblad and Phase One have a different approach. If you were worried about making the 'safe' choice then probably Hasselblad is a good option.

As Mark Tomalty mentioned, the vast majority of medium format landscape shooters are not using technical cameras, or at least, not ONLY using technical cameras.

[paratom]

IMO shooting a S2 vs shooting a technical camera is different but bot better or worse.

With the technical camera:
+ you are forced to take more time for composition etc.
- you need more time to shoot, sometimes light situations come and go fast!
+ you can T/S

with an S2 (or comparable camera)
+ much faster to "setup"/use (better for catching the (light)moment)
+ weather and dust proof
+ faster lenses

In my case the tech cam leads to more "constructed" images, often with a lot of DOF
and the S2 to more spontanious images, and also more often with shallow DOF as one creative element.

In theory I assume very good tech lenses should be better than SLR lenses, in reality I dont see how the IQ could be any better than what I get from the S2 lenses.

And then there is the question if you go out: will you shoot landscapes only? Might there happen something you would like to photograph spontaniously?


I find the slow paste of a tech cam can be releafing, but it can also be quite limiting. Ideally I would like to have both.

[theguywitha645d]

Hi,

Many good points. Another point, Leica has chosen a relatively small sensor size. MF sensors come in different sizes. Leica has chosen a size and builds their system around it. With Hasselblad and Phase a sensor with a higher resolution is often a larger sensor. The only way Leica can increase resolution is by changing pixel size, but doing that makes a lot of sense.

The Pentax 645D is in many senses quite similar to the Leica S2, but without the Leica lenses. Some 645D lenses are stellar and many are not.

Lloyd Chambers has a long evaluation of Pentax 645D and Leica S2 on DAP, http://dap.diglloyd.com/ , it is a pay site, but well worth the investment before shelling out 30k$ for an MF equipment. Here are Lloyds finding in short:

- Pentax 645D is a great camera with some very good lenses but many mediocre ones, too
- He essentially loves the Leica S2, but has difficulties achieving correct focus
- With Hasselblad he didn't find the two lenses he tested good enough

Best regards
Erik

Erik, many Pentax and Leica users don't actually concur with Mr. Chambers. Nor do we have the problems in focusing that he does. Pentax has some very good lenses, but SOME of the lenses are not great. The notable dog is the A and FA 45mm. I am not sure how much weight I would put on his condemnation of the Hasselblad optics.

The sensor in the S2 is basically the same size as 40MP sensors in the Pentax, Phase, Leaf, and Hasselblad lines--the difference is in the aspect ratio. You are not getting anything less with the Leica sensor that you would with the other 40MP cameras/backs.

[paratom]

Erik, many Pentax and Leica users don't actually concur with Mr. Chambers. Nor do we have the problems in focusing that he does. Pentax has some very good lenses, but SOME of the lenses are not great. The notable dog is the A and FA 45mm. I am not sure how much weight I would put on his condemnation of the Hasselblad optics.

The sensor in the S2 is basically the same size as 40MP sensors in the Pentax, Phase, Leaf, and Hasselblad lines--the difference is in the aspect ratio. You are not getting anything less with the Leica sensor that you would with the other 40MP cameras/backs.

I am one of those who really likes Loyds website but I can not share his experience regarding focus of the S2.
What I can say is my S2 focuses very accurate in most cases, more accurate than I could focus with my eyes.
 

[Professional]

The only experience with MF i had is with Hasselblad, i am happy with it and i don't see that i want to buy another MF unless i have a to of money, then i will add another system, Phase One or Leaf, i know that Leica and Pentax are great systems, but they came after Phase one and Hasselblad and LEAF in my list.

[NB]

I have used both systems.  The Leica's lenses are sharp at f2.5.  As a matter of fact, most of Leica's lenses are f2.5.  I found the colour of the S2 unsuited to landscape work.  The perennial problem with all Leica gear is that the digital sensors struggle to reproduce blue sky in any manner that resembles well "blue sky".  It looks like some comic book representation of blue sky (and sea) rather than the real thing.  I found that 35mm slide film was better for landscape work than the S2.  120mm and 4X5 better still for landscape work.

The Hasselblad system suffers from lenses that are really at their best at or around f8 rather than f 2.5.  That said, I thnk the Hasselblad colour is (I think) better than the S2.  If you are using he camera for Landscapes, your subject is unlikely to move and f8ish aperture probably won't  be an issue.  Further, the H4D widest lens in the system is 28mm.  the S2 is 35mm.

The S2 is a fashion photographers' tool that works at its best in stage and tungsten light.  It's lighter and easier to hand hold especially in low light over the H4D

The H4D would be a better landscape camera.    The H4D also allows the back to be used on technical cameras (eg alpas and Linhof technikas) with the use of an appropriate adaptor.
I hope this helps.

[telyt]

As regards Leica, my impression is that they are in the medium format business for the foreseeable future and their lenses are as good as you can get. Period. Will they update the S2 to a larger sensor or more megapixels? Statements in the press suggest not as they regard the 37mp resolution adequate and state that they are putting their efforts into different imaging characteristics than resolution.

Leica has stated that the lenses will hold up quite well with at least the next two generations of sensors, which suggests something other than your conclusion.

[eronald]

Leica has stated that the lenses will hold up quite well with at least the next two generations of sensors, which suggests something other than your conclusion.

I find it quite coherent with his conclusion: Leica does not believe the sensors in their immediate successor to the S2 will be substantially denser than the present ones, nor their image circle larger, so their lens design is good for 7-8 years at least.

Edmund

[dfarkas]

This is an excerpt from my Leica S2 review, where I interviewed Peter Karbe, head of optics at Leica.

One of my first questions for Peter related to the future of the S System. Was Leica planning on a larger sensor down the road and would the lenses accommodate such a sensor? The answer was that no, the Leica Pro Format of 30x45mm was the limit, as the lenses only have an image circle of 54mm. This got me to wondering (and asking) why the lens mount is so large and what the limits are with 30x45mm. The lens mount is as wide as it is in order to allow for faster aperture, exotic lenses. The teaser here was that the 100mm portrait lens might actually be f/2 or even f/1.8. Not too shabby for a medium format lens. Of course, Hassy had their 110mm f/2 FE lens that is still sought after today. Now imagine what a modern Leica ASPH and/or APO design could accomplish. Yum.

With the 6µm pixel pitch of the S2's sensor the lenses need to be able to resolve 83 lp/mm and I inquired if this was a challenge. This wasn't my first time conversing with Peter. I should have known better than to ask him a question like this. He got that "are you joking?" look on his face, grinned and said in no uncertain words that 80 lp/mm is not a problem, even at full aperture. He pointed out that the S lenses are capable of resolving 40 lp/mm at 80% contrast, wide-open, and estimated that 80 lp/mm could be resolved at about 60% contrast. So, the lenses clearly outresolve the current sensor. What about future generations? Where is the practical pixel limit for 30x45mm? Many have postulated that the next big advance in CCD sensor tech will be a 5µm pixel architecture with a close-to 100% fill rate. This would result in a 54MP sensor at 30x45mm, but with this pixel size, the lenses would need to resolve 100 lp/mm. Will the S lenses be up to the task? Again, Peter flashed his signature grin and casually said that 100 lp/mm would be no problem. In fact, he felt the S lenses could resolve around 50% contrast at this frequency. No small claim, to be sure. My mind had already moved on to the next inevitable question. What exactly is the resolution of the S glass? Peter answered that he didn't know the exact figure, but guessed that the number would be between 200-300 lp/mm. That's a big number and a whole lot of detail.

[dfarkas]

I have used both systems.  The Leica's lenses are sharp at f2.5.  As a matter of fact, most of Leica's lenses are f2.5.  I found the colour of the S2 unsuited to landscape work.  The perennial problem with all Leica gear is that the digital sensors struggle to reproduce blue sky in any manner that resembles well "blue sky".  It looks like some comic book representation of blue sky (and sea) rather than the real thing.  I found that 35mm slide film was better for landscape work than the S2.  120mm and 4X5 better still for landscape work.

In digital photography, a lot depends on your workflow and color profiles. I'd be curious to know what software and settings you tried on the S2. Personally, I use Lightroom and have made a few small tweaks to the standard color profile to better suit my tastes, especially in blue tones. I found that by default the blue tones were just a bit on the red/magenta side. This was easily corrected by applying a -5 adjustment to the blue hue in my S2 preset.

Also, I've found that accurate and pleasing (whether in film or digital) aren't always the same. A lot really depends on the personal tastes of individual photographers.

David