Bad times for LEICA S- guess they will be severely hurt

[Doug Peterson]

Mmmh, maybe different raw converter or processing? I was talking about x-pro 1 in LR vs Leica M in LR.

Have you tried your X Pro 1 files in Capture One Pro? I've been a happy X Pro 1 owner for a while now and couldn't imagine processing the raws anywhere else.

[Paul2660]

I Find that C1 does a bit better job on areas of green against blue but it still can't really begin to pull out the details that available. It's an easy enough comparison to see just how much overall detail is being left on the table by LR and C1 by working up a shot in Iridient and then C1 and or LR.  Iridient has no toolset and won't output to a dng so I don't use very often.

I find that neither C1 or LR can really define finer details like bare branches against a blue sky. LR does worse as it creates a red smudy look to the finer details. However C1 only offers the 1 stock profile and LR attempts to work with several of the in camera film/slide settings.

IMO is a bit tragic as the Fuji files can produce amazing details as shown by Iridient.

Paul

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Eric,

I decided a couple of days ago to take you of my ignore list, I sort of thought that you wouldn't mind.

Regarding measuring the loss of MTF at small apertures, I did this the first weeks I owned the Hasselblad V/P45+ combo. I even published the figures:

.

I would think these figures were developed without sharpening.  It seems that the lens performed best at f/5.6 and lost significantly at f/16. The loss of MTF can be compensated by increased sharpening. So shooting f/16 on a P45+ and increase sharpening may be a good way to reduce aliasing effects.

The full article is published here:  http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey

Best regards
Erik

The truth is your memory may be the shorter one .... Don't you remember that we agreed to ignore each other?

Anyhow, I think you missed where I was going with the Imatest comment.  I was suggesting you make a little test to discover for yourself how little detail you would have actually lost stopping down to f/16 with the p45.  Was it worth keeping your lens at the f/stop that would result in aliasing just to avoid a little diffraction loss?  That's the question I was hoping you would answer for yourself.

I know with the 80mp back which has even smaller pixels than the p45, I just don't miss that much at f/16 even though I know diffraction starts at f/8.   And when its really important, I can get back some of that with various software sharpening tools that recover diffraction loss.     It seems from the comments of others, they either are experiencing aliasing to the degree you do, or are not bothered by it, or work around it.  I'm certainly in that camp.   Color aliasing just isn't a problem for me and in my work, I almost never think about it.  

For that reason I don't see color aliasing as enough motive by itself to drive the decision to make sensors with smaller pixels when the trade offs, as I explained already, are loss of DR, and less range of working DOF (for a given sensor format).   If a camera maker also shrinks the sensor size with the pixels then maybe it will work out for the DOF usability concerns, but even then the system will be reliant on expensive ultra fast lenses.      I'm more in favor of a larger sensor with 7um or bigger pixels, hopefully 6x6 or 6x7 in size or even bigger. 4x5 large format sensor?  Yes please!

Back to the topic of the Leica S,  I think the camera competes in a different market than the DSLR's even though it is like one.  The S offers a much nicer viewfinder, a bigger sensor, high build quality and a very nice set of lenses. I certainly wish Leica well. They've done an amazing job to develop a whole new camera system and lenses.   I'd like to have one myself, but so far have resisted because I already have too many cameras and not enough time.


  

[SecondFocus]

Very funny! Well said!

The graveyards of the internet are filled with the bones of Leica's doomsayers.

[JV]

I Find that C1 does a bit better job on areas of green against blue but it still can't really begin to pull out the details that available. It's an easy enough comparison to see just how much overall detail is being left on the table by LR and C1 by working up a shot in Iridient and then C1 and or LR.  Iridient has no toolset and won't output to a dng so I don't use very often.

I find that neither C1 or LR can really define finer details like bare branches against a blue sky. LR does worse as it creates a red smudy look to the finer details. However C1 only offers the 1 stock profile and LR attempts to work with several of the in camera film/slide settings.

IMO is a bit tragic as the Fuji files can produce amazing details as shown by Iridient.

Paul

Paul,

Even with the latest version of C1?  I personally think that v8 does a better job than V7.  I still prefer Iridient though.

Thanks, Joris.

[Paul2660]

Paul,

Even with the latest version of C1?  I personally think that v8 does a better job than V7.  I still prefer Iridient though.

Thanks, Joris.

Hello Joris

I just started using C1 8 on the Fuji files so I will do some more detailed checking.

Paul

[uheck]

Very funny! Well said!

Uhm- no

my topic was never generalizing LEICAs condition as a whole.
I strictly meant the MF division, where the units and R & D spending count.
I´m shure Leica will be successful the coming years in their core business, but NOT MF.
This is now a new era, and there will be tons of lens alternatives available on the Canon/Nikon side of things, let alone premium players like Zeiss
(and ambitious SIGMA).

[chrismuc]

The question is which percentage of Leica S cameras are sold to professional photographers and which percentage to rich Chinese photography enthusiasts. I guess the second kind of customer is nowadays more important for Leica (same for the M) and they won't buy a Nikon 810 or Canon 5Ds (R) alternatively but additionally to the S.

[Telecaster]

The question is which percentage of Leica S cameras are sold to professional photographers and which percentage to rich Chinese photography enthusiasts. I guess the second kind of customer is nowadays more important for Leica (same for the M) and they won't buy a Nikon 810 or Canon 5Ds (R) alternatively but additionally to the S.

Not sure why you've singled out rich Chinese enthusiasts…they may be more recent comers to the luxury goods party, but that party has been swingin' for a long time. Leica has of late positioned itself as a luxury brand, so the overall question becomes something like: Do luxury buyers care much about how capable CaNikon cameras are, and if so will this influence their buying? My suggested answer to both parts of this, having some familiarity with folks in this market segment, is: No, not much. Recently I've run across more such folk buying Sony A7 series cameras "because they have Zeiss lenses!"  

Hey, post #1000.  

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This may be an interesting point. I got the impression that some folks buy Leica as a high resolution DSLR, an MFDB in a practical weather proof package. Some folks may like the user interface. Nothing wrong with that.

Regarding Zeiss lenses on Sony, I am not so sure about it. There is some collaboration between Zeiss and Sony for sure. The lenses are certified by Zeiss, but it seems they may have wide manufacturing tolerances.

That said , I have two ZA lenses, the 16-80/3.5-4.5 and the 24-70/2.8, both are OK, pretty good in the sweet spot and not so ugly outside. The sweet spot is decently large.

Looking at tests and MTF charts it is quite obvious that the 85/1.4 ZA is a very different lens from the Zeiss 85/1.4, good enough that I am considering to buy it. What I would buy immediately would be an 85/2 APO. I don't need 1/1.4 but I would appreciate an 85/2 lens usable at full aperture with no colour fringing on out of focus detail.

Best regards
Erik

Not sure why you've singled out rich Chinese enthusiasts…they may be more recent comers to the luxury goods party, but that party has been swingin' for a long time. Leica has of late positioned itself as a luxury brand, so the overall question becomes something like: Do luxury buyers care much about how capable CaNikon cameras are, and if so will this influence their buying? My suggested answer to both parts of this, having some familiarity with folks in this market segment, is: No, not much. Recently I've run across more such folk buying Sony A7 series cameras "because they have Zeiss lenses!"  

Hey, post #1000.  

-Dave-

[Theodoros]

The best thing that may happen for Leica S bettering its sales further, ....is if more high resolution DSLRs will appear! 

[Joe Towner]

After chatting with my local rep, they see the Leica S as more a rich enthusiast, and yet they don't even stock a S to H adapter so as they can rent out more of the H glass.  I think that Leica will continue exist for years, without regard to what else is going on in the camerasphere.

The pros whom shoot it love it, the glass is amazing, and there isn't a technical reason not to use it.  I would not be surprised if they were the first to a mirrorless MF system given their experience in the M line.

[ErikKaffehr]

Interesting idea. The sensor design would make sense with a mirrorless design, allowing more compact lenses.

Best regards
Erik

The pros whom shoot it love it, the glass is amazing, and there isn't a technical reason not to use it.  I would not be surprised if they were the first to a mirrorless MF system given their experience in the M line.

[Theodoros]

A mirrorless MF system (meaning an MF digital rangefinder) is a bad idea... MF is the only system the offers separate cameras and MFDBs... MFDBs are mirrorless by definition... What's the point of having an MF alternative to Sony A? ...Tech & modern view cameras are mirrorless, one can add an MFDB on them and have digital... What's the purpose of having an MF rangefinder? To have (even) better sharpness or more resolution? ...what's the point? ...IQ on current FF is already better than MF film rangefinders of the past and will improve further with time...
More resolution doesn't improve one's photography, nor does better sensors... photography has been proven to be offered nothing by better sensors over the past decade...
 MF mirrorless... HA! ...new series of lenses, no price reduction, just for some (more) show-offs "playing" the photographer by using a new toy... No wonder why none (maker) wants to commit suicide by risking a new line of products (huge investment) just because some - that would never buy it - want it to exist... 

[DanielStone]

A mirrorless MF system (meaning an MF digital rangefinder) is a bad idea... MF is the only system the offers separate cameras and MFDBs... MFDBs are mirrorless by definition... What's the point of having an MF alternative to Sony A? ...Tech & modern view cameras are mirrorless, one can add an MFDB on them and have digital... What's the purpose of having an MF rangefinder? To have (even) better sharpness or more resolution? ...what's the point? ...IQ on current FF is already better than MF film rangefinders of the past and will improve further with time...
More resolution doesn't improve one's photography, nor does better sensors... photography has been proven to be offered nothing by better sensors over the past decade...
 MF mirrorless... HA! ...new series of lenses, no price reduction, just for some (more) show-offs "playing" the photographer by using a new toy... No wonder why none (maker) wants to commit suicide by risking a new line of products (huge investment) just because some - that would never buy it - want it to exist... 

Theodoros,
Not sure why you think that (options) are a bad thing? There are many photographers who enjoy using an EVF, why would a high-end product from Leica(or anyone) be a "bad" idea?
I'm all for flexibility between systems, but if one is capable of running multiple systems simultaneously, why not?
Kinda like saying "I can drive a big 400hp pickup truck, because it's more flexible across multiple situations" when you only need a 3cyl hatchback to run down to the market because you're out of eggs

The "truck" CAN be used for this, but I think we can both agree, it isn't always the ideal/proper "tool" for the job

-Dan

p.s. I'm a GX680 user/lover. I love the system (for) its flexibility, but I also use other, more "nimble" cameras when I do not want the bulk, or full capabilities of the larger system.

[Theodoros]

What's the difference for one using ELV now (say on an ALPA for example) or use it on other MF rangefinder? MF market has shrunk than 10 years ago to some 6-7000 units... what share can (another) rangefinder have? Who is the maker that will invest in developing a new camera with a series of new lenses and accessories just to make and sell a few hundred of cameras annually?

[Joe Towner]

What's the difference for one using ELV now (say on an ALPA for example) or use it on other MF rangefinder? MF market has shrunk than 10 years ago to some 6-7000 units... what share can (another) rangefinder have? Who is the maker that will invest in developing a new camera with a series of new lenses and accessories just to make and sell a few hundred of cameras annually?

I'll try this - cost.  Yes, you can do the Alpa, or a Cambo or an A series Phase, but it's designed around an existing MF back that folks aren't putting up to their face.  The ideal that folks are looking for in a MF Rangefinder is like a Mamiya 7, or an oversized Leica M / Sony A styled body around a 33x44 50MP sensor for around $10k.  Leveraging a legacy glass mount would please lots of folks, but as long as it can be adapted to, things would be fine.

[Gel]

On the subject of a medium format rangefinder.

I wouldn't play this down. There are plenty of people who would utilise such a thing if it was correctly implemented. I'm always looking to use lighter kit, especially as I advance in years. Factor in how far technology has come since 2005 and the possibility of a medium format rangefinder with a speedy refresh EVF and a global shutter could be 1, 3, 5 or 10 years away.

Near infinite flash sync speed and lightweight. Most wedding photographers would peak an interest at such a thing providing the AF was snappy and the lens choices were there.

[Chris Valites]

Definitely less about the image sharpness and more about the image usability. A lot of the misconceptions floating around the amateur sites about the A-series were based off this. Medium format is not a great kickaround workflow, but if they could get a body sized like a Mamiya 7II that weighs that much, I think you'll get a lot of people pulled into the MFD discussion based on aesthetics, not IQ. I specifically think of all the adventure lifestyle guys like Chris Burkard that I'd love to show off MFD, but constantly talk about traveling light and shedding poundage on multi-day hikes.

[paratom]

The Point of a mirrorless MF would be fast and accurate Focus compared to todays techcams, and smaller size Body compared to todays SLR-MF-bodies.