Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: peterv on July 29, 2015, 06:10:29 am
-
I know Mr. Chambers is a thorough and knowledgeable reviewer, but as of late he seems to have an extra large ax to grind with Leica. Most of his reviews of Leica products are quite negative.
He just tested a Leica S and encountered AF problems. Incidentally, he also reported AF problems in his original S2 review. I've used my S2-P for 2,5 years now and like most other S system owners, I can confirm that AF is very, very accurate.
If he has these AF errors, assuming Mr. Chambers knows how to operate the camera, he has a faulty camera and he should not publish a review that hurts Leica. I understand he's not pleased because he feels his valuable time was wasted, but that doesn't mean he should bad-mouth a complete system like this.
I had planned to become a subscriber again, just to read his thoughts on the S system, but I guess I'll hold off for now.
-
If you don't like what you hear, shoot the messenger. I have been following Lloyd Chambers for years. He is well versed in photographic equipment and his comments regarding the technical attributes of the items he reviews are usually quite accurate. The prospective buyer would be wise to seriously consider his opinion before making a purchase.
-
I don't have a problem with Lloyd Chambers reporting failures and defects. I subscribed to his site for a while. I let it lapse when it became clear that he was not as knowledgeable as his writings would have us believe (e.g. his revelation that color contrast filters might cause focus shift, something black and white film shooters have known for decades), and that he allowed his personal skill shortfalls and bias (e.g. his chronic inability to accurately focus a Leica M rangefinder) to inform his 'findings.'
-
We're all amateurs at differing levels of incompetence.
-
Lloyd Chambers is extremly competent at analyzing the tonality and texture of every brick in a given wall.
-
For the record if anyone wants to send me $5 I'll happily rave about their chosen system for them.
Edit: That was a joke, I just got several emails from Phase asking for my Paypal details. :D
-
Lloyd Chambers is extremly competent at analyzing the tonality and texture of every brick in a given wall.
I would agree. The guy has absolutely no imagination. If he found a bug then there was a bug.
The colors on his S pictures are wonderful. He does very nicely capture what is in front of his camera.
Edmund
-
He typically tells it like it is. I've never used a piece of equipment delivering results significantly different from those he reported about. His focus on standardized tests is relevant for a tester.
But he could have had a bad sample.
He has been very positive about the S system overall.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For me, the only issue regarding LLoyd's blog is the accuracy of his technical findings and how they might influence my buying decisions. The Ricoh GR proved to be stellar and if I am not mistaken he was one of the first to comment on the Sony a7R shutter vibration issue. It certainly had an impact on me; passing on this purchase and eventually pre-ordering the a7RII. I only wish he had published a review of my first wife before I walked down that isle.
-
I only wish he had published a review of my first wife before I walked down that isle.
I just spit coffee all over my screen. LOL!
-
Hi,
Lloyd has issues with AF on most cameras. If you recall the original S2 review, he shot five series of images and found that two of those were OK. He reported similar results for Canon, Nikon, Pentax 645.
Lloyd prefers to use magnified live view for focusing, that is a technique that is quite accurate, mostly.
I don't think Lloyd is partial against Leica, but it seems the system doesn't work for him.
Part of the issue may also be that Lloyd works with a lot of systems, like now the 5dsR with Zeiss Otus lenses, so his references for accuracy of focus and image sharpness may be different to other users/testers.
Best regards
Erik
I know Mr. Chambers is a thorough and knowledgeable reviewer, but as of late he seems to have an extra large ax to grind with Leica. Most of his reviews of Leica products are quite negative.
He just tested a Leica S and encountered AF problems. Incidentally, he also reported AF problems in his original S2 review. I've used my S2-P for 2,5 years now and like most other S system owners, I can confirm that AF is very, very accurate.
If he has these AF errors, assuming Mr. Chambers knows how to operate the camera, he has a faulty camera and he should not publish a review that hurts Leica. I understand he's not pleased because he feels his valuable time was wasted, but that doesn't mean he should bad-mouth a complete system like this.
I had planned to become a subscriber again, just to read his thoughts on the S system, but I guess I'll hold off for now.
-
I like Lloyd. He is super thorough and gets to issues with cameras very quickly. I don't always agree on everything he writes but i do read it with great interest and respect it for honesty and thoroughness. I think he is probably one of the better reviewers for identifying issues, and not been worried to tell people what they are.
-
Actually those results would line up with my own experience over the years. Lloyd may be borderline obsessive, but painstaking attention to detail, and the ability to repeat the same gestures over and over again are a positive trait for a tester.
I've had a bunch of decent dSLRs that would vary from supersharp to decently in focus from shot to shot, with some inexplicably going completely OOF in a whole series.
Furthermore, after investigating the issues I also found that some lenses don't have enough servo-focus clicks around infinity, so in fact they simply cannot be set super-accurately to focus on something more than 20m or so away. This does impact landscape because they eye perceives the point of perfect focus in the print.
Edmund
Hi,
Lloyd has issues with AF on most cameras. If you recall the original S2 review, he shot five series of images and found that two of those were OK. He reported similar results for Canon, Nikon, Pentax 645.
Lloyd prefers to use magnified live view for focusing, that is a technique that is quite accurate, mostly.
I don't think Lloyd is partial against Leica, but it seems the system doesn't work for him.
Part of the issue may also be that Lloyd works with a lot of systems, like now the 5dsR with Zeiss Otus lenses, so his references for accuracy of focus and image sharpness may be different to other users/testers.
Best regards
Erik
-
If he has these AF errors, assuming Mr. Chambers knows how to operate the camera, he has a faulty camera and he should not publish a review that hurts Leica.
Why not? He is a reviewer, hiding it and protecting Leica damages his credibility.
He is very opinionated and has a specific idea of what makes a good camera, when a camera comes along that then doesn't exactly meet this he seems to slam it with very emotive language. His idea of photography is also rather odd (landscapes shot wide open) but of the reviewers out there he is the most thorough and critical.
-
Hi,
Roger Ciala at LensRentals has looked into this on Canon and Nikon. He found that neither system could focus accuaretely at full aperture, in general. With the latest generation of Canon cameras and lenses he found that focus was near perfect.
My take is that phase detecting AF is not accurate enough to achieve critical sharpness at large apertures in most cases.
It is a bit like the shutter related vibrations Lloyd has detected on the A7r, lot of users went into denial mode, but the issue was very much detectable. On the other hand, the issues were not very obvious, more like having 24 instead 36 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Actually those results would line up with my own experience over the years. Lloyd may be borderline obsessive, but painstaking attention to detail, and the ability to repeat the same gestures over and over again are a positive trait for a tester.
I've had a bunch of decent dSLRs that would vary from supersharp to decently in focus from shot to shot, with some inexplicably going completely OOF in a whole series.
Furthermore, after investigating the issues I also found that some lenses don't have enough servo-focus clicks around infinity, so in fact they simply cannot be set super-accurately to focus on something more than 20m or so away. This does impact landscape because they eye perceives the point of perfect focus in the print.
Edmund
-
This certainly does seem to be an emotional issue for many.
-
This certainly does seem to be an emotional issue for many.
It's a purely practical issue in landscape photography - if one is obsessive about one's art or hobby, buys $10K+ equipment and enlarges to large sizes, one needs to be aware that AF may not cut it, and use checks and workarounds.
I think this is first a question of design parameters and test conventions. Camera and lens designers design the camera AF path and EACH lens servo control for certain purposes. But they don't publish those specs. People like DxO will typically test a lens/AF system at a multiple of the focal distance, eg 50x which for a 50 mm will give you 2.5m. Any precision and repeatability issues at long distance won't show up on those test reports.
As a result, that portrait lens with the superb test results may never deliver at long distances, in practice.
Try the following: Wait for the evening, pick your favorite short tele eg. 85mm, walk to the side of a road, point the tele along the road at a roadsign 50m or so away, and take a few pics. You'll be surprised at what ends up being and not being in focus. The only photo course I ever took in my life was a one-hour Xrite-sponspored walk at Photokina. The instructor said "always shoot the hell out of it because of AF". He was right.
My friend Norman Koren who runs Imatest learnt this lesson very painfully one day when he tried to take landscape images in Paris with a 5D2 and kit lens. He laughed when I warned him, he was very angry when he saw his pictures.
Frankly, I think the only focus that is GUARANTEED to work at long ranges is directly geared manual focus with an enlarged liveview. Oh wait, that is exactly what the cinema geeks, tech cam guys and CMOS dSLR owners with MF lenses are doing. At medium distance, good cameras are often pretty good. Or not.
Edmund
PS. As I wear a tinfoil hat, I think one of the reasons modern AF lenses focus so badly at infinity is that manufacturers don't want people using the crop feature to zoom, they want them to buy the longer lens where they make lotsa profit. But that's just the cynic in me speaking.
-
Hi,
Most lens testers use some form of focus bracketing to find best focus.
The graphs below show the focusing accuracy of AF compared to focusing with a focusing rail.
(http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/zaftest.gif)
Taken from this article: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm
Roger Ciala discusses some aspects accurate focusing, ths time on Canon. The combination of late generation cameras (5DIII, 1Dx) and late generation lenses seem to focus pretty well.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras
Neither article says anything about the Leica S, of course, but they both offer some insight in the limited accuracy of AF-systems.
Stopping down hides a lot of focusing errors. Stopping down beyond optimum gives up quite a bit of lens sharpness, which may matter or not.
Best regards
Erik
It's a purely practical issue in landscape photography - if one is obsessive about one's art or hobby, buys $10K+ equipment and enlarges to large sizes, one needs to be aware that AF may not cut it, and use checks and workarounds.
I think this is first a question of design parameters and test conventions. Camera and lens designers design the camera AF path and EACH lens servo control for certain purposes. But they don't publish those specs. People like DxO will typically test a lens/AF system at a multiple of the focal distance, eg 50x which for a 50 mm will give you 2.5m. Any precision and repeatability issues at long distance won't show up on those test reports.
As a result, that portrait lens with the superb test results may never deliver at long distances, in practice.
Try the following: Wait for the evening, pick your favorite short tele eg. 85mm, walk to the side of a road, point the tele along the road at a roadsign 50m or so away, and take a few pics. You'll be surprised at what ends up being and not being in focus. The only photo course I ever took in my life was a one-hour Xrite-sponspored walk at Photokina. The instructor said "always shoot the hell out of it because of AF". He was right.
My friend Norman Koren who runs Imatest learnt this lesson very painfully one day when he tried to take landscape images in Paris with a 5D2 and kit lens. He laughed when I warned him, he was very angry when he saw his pictures.
Frankly, I think the only focus that is GUARANTEED to work at long ranges is directly geared manual focus with an enlarged liveview. Oh wait, that is exactly what the cinema geeks, tech cam guys and CMOS dSLR owners with MF lenses are doing. At medium distance, good cameras are often pretty good. Or not.
Edmund
PS. As I wear a tinfoil hat, I think one of the reasons modern AF lenses focus so badly at infinity is that manufacturers don't want people using the crop feature to zoom, they want them to buy the longer lens where they make lotsa profit. But that's just the cynic in me speaking.
-
Try the following: Wait for the evening, pick your favorite short tele eg. 85mm, walk to the side of a road, point the tele along the road at a roadsign 50m or so away, and take a few pics. You'll be surprised at what ends up being and not being in focus.
Yes, but cameras are not equals. If I do that with my Nikon, the focus will indeed vary a little bit between takes. If I do that with my Hasselblad, the focus will be spot on all the time. And on this particular forum, we should be discussing the Hasselblad, not the Nikon.
The Nikon is, of course, much faster on moving subjects and will focus automatically on faces even if they are not at the center of the frame. The Hasselblad AF is simply unusable in such cases.
-
It is a bit like the shutter related vibrations Lloyd has detected on the A7r, lot of users went into denial mode, but the issue was very much detectable. On the other hand, the issues were not very obvious, more like having 24 instead 36 MP.
Erik, that’s a good example. The thing is, he really did find an issue with the A7r that was repeatable. It’s not like he had a faulty A7r with a shuttershake problem, created FUD and gave the camera a bad name though he was the only one with that problem.
I’ve been following all the news around the S system since it was announced at PK ’08. Since then I’ve read every thread about the S system here, on GetDPI and LUF (English and German) If there would have been "a very high error rate often with huge errors” AF problem typical for the system, like the A7r shuttershake, I’d have known about it.
I don’t feel I need to defend the S system, it’s got lots of quirks like any other system out there and electronics are not particularly Leica’s forte, but AF problems - though they have been reported - have not been a structural problem with every S camera/lens. On the contrary, most S owners find AF though not the fastest, very accurate.
-
I personally am very glad I never invested one penny in Mr Chambers' website.
He said the M240 was unreliable... As far as I know quite a few people are using it with great success...
His review of the Leica Q led to pages and pages of comments on the Leica forums...
From his review of the Leica T:
But the Leica T is ideal for a champagne and caviar reception (but I have no way to field test this idea).
I can’t stand the T. Intensely frustrating grip with badly-placed twiddly toy controls and tiny type on a touch screen I can’t see because my finger is on the spot containing the 5-point text I’m supposed to read (try reading “JPG + DNG” if you’re anywhere close to presbyopia).
I wonder why Jonathan Slack, a respected Leica reviewer, bought this camera then, after having had a loaner from Leica for 2 years...
Over and out. I have no longer any interest in Mr. Chambers's opinion.
-
In my experience trying autofocus, manual focus, ground glass, live view zoom focus and focus peaking, the most accurate and repeatable system I have found is a laser distance finder and the ALPA HPF rings (I'm sure the Arca system is just as good or better). It just never misses.
It seems crazy to me that after all that technology development, the most accurate process is a glorified tape measure and a dial. And of course the time to do it.
:-\
Dave
-
Yes, but cameras are not equals. If I do that with my Nikon, the focus will indeed vary a little bit between takes. If I do that with my Hasselblad, the focus will be spot on all the time. And on this particular forum, we should be discussing the Hasselblad, not the Nikon.
Actually I did try that with both my Canon 85 1.2 and the superb Hassy 100mm F2.2, with very similar results. Good close focus, medium focus, issues at very long distance.
The lenses seem to have servo actuators, and these have a finite number of "steps" near infinity, which actually correspond to quite large (tool arge) focus distance steps.
Of course it is possible that since I tested cameras and lenses have now been updated, but there are certainly still a lot of old lens designs floating around.
And BTW, before you get me wrong, I would like to say that my tests of Hasselblad focus for "people" use have always shown that their system works very well. Wide open with a fast lens at long distance is indeed a special case, but it can bite you sometimes eg. at events. Which may be a good reason for resorting to a lens marketed as a "tele" not because of the reach but because the focus design may mitigate precisely this issue.
I guess also that modern lenses lack a hard "infinity" mark, So effectively your infinity will never be more accurate than the precision of your AF system, which is not exactly designed for people intending to make 44" landscape prints :)
Edmund
-
No matter what the subject matter, I am always amazed how "offended" many are these days, especially when they are exposed to an opinion that is at variance with their own. The great thing about blogs like LLoyd's is that they present other ways at looking at the same data which eventually benefits all in a free and open marketplace. Of course, when you put down a lot of hard earned cash to buy a piece of equipment and someone tells you that you were an idiot for having done so, you are offended.
-
I read about Lloyd Chambers that some people think he is biased because of his sponsoring… Now in this thread he is accused of not liking Leica.
I think in this case he just wants a camera from Leica - costing so much- to be as good or better than the other cheaper cameras, but obviously that is not always the case…
In making digital cameras Leica is often not as good as in making lenses, still they charge you as if they are.
In general i like his no nonsense approach in his reviews and often i can confirm his findings. Then of course he is just one person with one mind. I admire his gift to surprise me with finding technical flaws that i would never have discovered myself, but are evident and important.
-
I read about Lloyd Chambers that some people think he is biased because of his sponsoring… Now in this thread he is accused of not liking Leica.
I think in this case he just wants a camera from Leica - costing so much- to be as good or better than the other cheaper cameras, but obviously that is not always the case…
In making digital cameras Leica is often not as good as in making lenses, still they charge you as if they are.
In general i like his no nonsense approach in his reviews and often i can confirm his findings. Then of course he is just one person with one mind. I admire his gift to surprise me with finding technical flaws that i would never have discovered myself, but are evident and important.
He wants what most forum folk want. A Mirrorless Camera with the A7RII sensor, Canon ergonomics, reliability, service and lens selection, 5-axis IBIS, Vibrationless shutter plus an amazing EVF, all for about $2500. Heck, ill take two of those, today.
-
Actually I did try that with both my Canon 85 1.2 and the superb Hassy 100mm F2.2, with very similar results. Good close focus, medium focus, issues at very long distance.
The lenses seem to have servo actuators, and these have a finite number of "steps" near infinity, which actually correspond to quite large (tool arge) focus distance steps.
Of course it is possible that since I tested cameras and lenses have now been updated, but there are certainly still a lot of old lens designs floating around.
This has not been my experience on my H4D-50. This has been my experience on the D800 and indeed I can relate to the idea of "finite number of steps near infinity" on that camera. On the H4D-50, my experience is different or maybe the camera has simply enough "steps".
Hasselblad has upgraded the focus on the H4D series, so it is possible that you tried an older camera. I don't know about those. I had less reliable focus on an H3D loaner, but maybe the camera was simply miscalibrated.
-
Hi,
I agree, absolutely.
Best regards
Erik
No matter what the subject matter, I am always amazed how "offended" many are these days, especially when they are exposed to an opinion that is at variance with their own. The great thing about blogs like LLoyd's is that they present other ways at looking at the same data which eventually benefits all in a free and open marketplace. Of course, when you put down a lot of hard earned cash to buy a piece of equipment and someone tells you that you were an idiot for having done so, you are offended.
-
What's not to like, he's a measurbator's wet dream.
Klaban,
I think I can go on vacation, knowing I have a worthy replacement. :)
Edmund
-
He does have a track record of finding errors and anomalies. What annoys me is is tactic of crying wolf on his blog after just getting a camera in his hands, and then referring to his paid site for a more elaborate evaluation, that may be more balanced. His blog is open and the site that will be referred to, the discussion/evaluation is closed, that way the negative sticks.
-
Diglloyd. Overpriced for what you get. Nasty attitude to go with it.
-
No matter what the subject matter, I am always amazed how "offended" many are these days, especially when they are exposed to an opinion that is at variance with their own. The great thing about blogs like LLoyd's is that they present other ways at looking at the same data which eventually benefits all in a free and open marketplace. Of course, when you put down a lot of hard earned cash to buy a piece of equipment and someone tells you that you were an idiot for having done so, you are offended.
Hi,
I agree, absolutely.
Best regards
Erik
No offense but to me it sounds more like the subscribers to his site are offended...
-
Hi,
Yes and now. To begin with, there is a tendency if there is a bad news, shoot the messenger.
On the other hand, those who has followed Lloyd's testing for many years know his methods and foibles.
The A7r vibrations was an example of that. Many users could not observe it, as the effect was subtle - essentially reducing the sharpness of the A7r to A7 levels. The issue was essentially almost non observable, as the images still looked sharp, but very easily measurable. So, now that weakness of the A7r is widely known, but when news about it came out they were widely sneered at by some "experts".
Now, Lloyd has a foible for large apertures. For testing it is a good thing, for large aperture work shows the weaknesses of a system. I presume that we don't buy 6000$ lenses just to shoot them at diffraction limited f/11? Personally, I shoot mostly f/8, which is also limited by diffraction on most of my lenses. Using f/8 instead of full aperture covers up a lot of subtle focusing errors.
Now, I think Lloyd gets things wrong some times. A good example of this is that he makes a bit to much noise about Sony raw compression. He observed some artefacts and attributes it to the raw compression. In this case I would guess he may be in error. But, the Sony raw compression can create artefacts. *) So, it is good Lloyd makes some noise about it, but some of that noise may be misinterpretation of his observations.
Best regards
Erik
*) Sony has actually two intertwined methods of raw compression. One is a tone curve, that is basically sound, the other one is a "delta compression" that can cause artefacts where local contrast is very high.
No offense but to me it sounds more like the subscribers to his site are offended...
-
Hi,
I am not a great believer in those steps. I would argue that it starts with the AF-sensor having a finite resolution, after that comes the alignment of sensor and play in the mechanical gears. BTW, I just had hands on a Leica S something like three days ago. The AF was quite noisy, so it is definitively using a geared mechanism.
Lloyd has tested one of the Hasselblad HD models, and it was essentially the only modern MFD camera he did not have focusing issues with, but he didn't particularly like it. Anyway, he didn't note focusing problems.
Regarding Leica S, he actually likes the camera. But he cannot use live view for focusing and he has found the AF was not accurate enough on any of the samples he tested. Personally, I also use live view when shooting on tripod. Lloyd has found issues with focusing on DSLRs, too.
Best regards
Erik
This has not been my experience on my H4D-50. This has been my experience on the D800 and indeed I can relate to the idea of "finite number of steps near infinity" on that camera. On the H4D-50, my experience is different or maybe the camera has simply enough "steps".
Hasselblad has upgraded the focus on the H4D series, so it is possible that you tried an older camera. I don't know about those. I had less reliable focus on an H3D loaner, but maybe the camera was simply miscalibrated.
-
Michael seemed impressed with the S2:
https://luminous-landscape.com/leica-s2-first-impressions/
"It is immediately obvious that the Leica autofocusing system is far superior to any current Medium Format system"
"autofocus on the S2 is deadly accurate."
"After several days of shooting, I did not find one single image where the S2 autofocus system failed. I tried to make it fail and it never did. I have never experienced this with any other camera (35 mm size DSLR’s included)."
Hard to believe the S went rapidly downhill in this respect?
-
Chris,
Michael seemed impressed with the S2...
The article you link to was written by Mark Dubovoy, not Michael. Lloyd Chambers' comment on it can be found here (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2010/20101221_2-LeicaS2Focusing.html)
-
Indeed my bad, thanks for the correction and the link. I was taking the first line: January 13, 2009 by Michael Reichmann
I remember reading it at the time and had Michael down in memory as author, apologies to Mark Dubovoy for the mis-attribution.
So who was correct? Or were both too polarised at the extremes and the answer was under some circumstances bad under others good?
I have never read Mr Chambers before, I don't think I will be a regular reader, we didn't "gel".
-
Hi,
I remember Mark's article and also Lloyds. To begin with I don't think focusing on DSLRs works like described by Mr Mark, I don't think that there a a lot of zones, that is a compact camera thing. I would suggest that modern AF is using servos, that by nature are continuous, but I am really not an expert on this.
Now, Lloyds page is description only and a bit on the expensive side. I am not interested in Leica as I can not afford them anyway, but also because I don't feel they go in a good direction, so I don't subscribe to that site. I do subscribe to DAP and to Zeiss lenses, I think. I had an S in my hands a few days ago, and I did not feel enthusiastic about it. AF was very noisy, and that really indicates that it is a mechanical device, nothing like USM or the linear motors used on Sony A7. This may matter or may not, I don't know.
Lloyd Chambers shows a lot of images,mostly even at actual pixels. I also have some raw images from him. I would say we see very little of that on the web.
The best way to find out is to buy some gear and shoot with it a year or two…
Best regards
Erik
Indeed my bad, thanks for the correction and the link. I was taking the first line: January 13, 2009 by Michael Reichmann
I remember reading it at the time and had Michael down in memory as author, apologies to Mark Dubovoy for the mis-attribution.
So who was correct? Or were both too polarised at the extremes and the answer was under some circumstances bad under others good?
I have never read Mr Chambers before, I don't think I will be a regular reader, we didn't "gel".
-
Erik, there seem to be as many implementations of AF as models of cameras and lenses and firmware versions. But here for your entertainment is a link from "that site". (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5402438893/busted-the-myth-of-open-loop-phase-detection-autofocus) I particularly like the quote from near the end:
"When you're trying to solve focus problems, the wrong understanding will lead you to the wrong answers"
Remove "focus" from the equation, and one gets a nice motto to live by :)
Edmund
Hi,
I remember Mark's article and also Lloyds. To begin with I don't think focusing on DSLRs works like described by Mr Mark, I don't think that there a a lot of zones, that is a compact camera thing. I would suggest that modern AF is using servos, that by nature are continuous, but I am really not an expert on this.
Now, Lloyds page is description only and a bit on the expensive side. I am not interested in Leica as I can not afford them anyway, but also because I don't feel they go in a good direction, so I don't subscribe to that site. I do subscribe to DAP and to Zeiss lenses, I think. I had an S in my hands a few days ago, and I did not feel enthusiastic about it. AF was very noisy, and that really indicates that it is a mechanical device, nothing like USM or the linear motors used on Sony A7. This may matter or may not, I don't know.
Lloyd Chambers shows a lot of images,mostly even at actual pixels. I also have some raw images from him. I would say we see very little of that on the web.
The best way to find out is to buy some gear and shoot with it a year or two…
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.
I no longer subscribe to the Leica pages at Diglloyd as I am not a potential Leica customer, but it is quite obvious that he has a lot of problems with focusing errors on the Leica-S. It seems that a client of his also had a lot of problems. He also says he demonstrated those problems for a Leica representative and reported the issues to Leica.
That said, Lloyd is often critical about focusing precision on equipment he reviews. I would guess it has to do with his testing. High quality equipment needs to be evaluated at large apertures and pixel peeping magnifications. That is the information he is selling. It is not like writing that "it is a great camera and shoots great 600x800 pixel images at f/16 and hyperfocal distance".
I have some images shot by a friend of mine, they don't blow of my socks, but they were all shot at f/11.
A couple of days ago I played a little bit with the Leica S in a studio in Luxemburg. I also saw some medium size prints, they were not that impressive but I did not really pixel peep.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, there seem to be as many implementations of AF as models of cameras and lenses and firmware versions. But here for your entertainment is a link from "that site". (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5402438893/busted-the-myth-of-open-loop-phase-detection-autofocus) I particularly like the quote from near the end:
"When you're trying to solve focus problems, the wrong understanding will lead you to the wrong answers"
Remove "focus" from the equation, and one gets a nice motto to live by :)
Edmund
-
... but it is quite obvious that he has a lot of problems with focusing errors on the Leica-S. It seems that a client of his also had a lot of problems.
Not to play devil's advocate, but all that indicates is precisely nought other than, possibly, a lack of competence on Chamber's part. Cooter uses this camera extensively and has never reported such an issue - nor has Tom Munro, to name but two, (if you don't know who Tom is, try doing a google image search). I could add more , these are professional photographers who make a living out of using cameras. I could name at least a dozen others.
Eric Hiss also, IIRC, spent a day with him and wasn't impressed by his testing procedures.
A couple of days ago I played a little bit with the Leica S in a studio in Luxemburg. I also saw some medium size prints, they were not that impressive but I did not really pixel peep.
Were you meant to and again even if you were and did, what does that prove ?
-
Mr Manoli, you beat me to it.
Apologies, Keith. ;D
M
-
It would seem there's a camera tester posting landscape shots on his pay for site that are rather unremarkable. It would seem he dismisses many cameras as flawed and not of a standard he'd care to use.
There's a photographer posting on Luminous Landscape who consistently posts rather remarkable fashion images using the Leica S, a camera dismissed by the camera tester as sub standard. I don't doubt the aforementioned fashion photographer could use a Kodak box brownie and still deliver remarkable images.
My, what a topsy-turvy world.
--
Mr Manoli, you beat me to it.
But the Leica S (and M) don't even have Sony sensors..., they couldn't possibly be good cameras, could they...?
-
Hi,
Most users are pretty much ignorant about any issues their equipment has. For sure, I am. Some lenses are better than others, bayonets and sensor are not in alignment, and so on. Very clearly, BC (James Russel) is not very much about pixel peeping, he is pretty clear on that. But, if you want to do really large prints some pixel piping may be helpful. Critical users test five lenses and cherry pick the best one. I am not there.
I have seen Eric Hiss comments on Lloyds testing, but I would suggest that Eric my be slightly partial. It may be that Eric doesn't understand testing. For instance, he uses two stages of sharpening before calculating MTF using Imatest. Serious users measure MTF without sharpening. Why, because with sharpening you can achieve any result you want. The best way to do this is to use a raw processor that applies no sharpening.(Now, he who is without sin may throw the first stone. I have also used some sharpening in many of my tests. But I now realise that correct testing needs to be without sharpening, not least because raw processors apply different amounts of sharpening for different systems.)
BTW, have you seen any raw image posted by Mr. Eric Hiss? I strongly feel that we need to see raw images before jumping conclusions. I would say that Lloyd should also release raw images. The best source of raw images now is Imaging Resource and DPReview but they don't test many high end MFD systems. Personally I try to post raw images when it may be relevant. I have posted well over one hundred.
Just to say, I have read both Eric's comments and Lloyd's test pretty carefully. I would be clear, Lloyd would be better not publishing that test. Why? Because he did not spend enough time with the camera. Would more time with the camera affect the review? I don't think so. Very clearly, he would be able to do more tests, like the church mosaic at Stanford. With the Pentax 645z he spent several months and so did he with several samples of the Leica S2.
But, the tests he has done show issues that only show up in correctly made test. Very accurate detail in on focus detail. Aliasing effects that only arise with accurate focus and so on.
Have you read the test and looked at all of the images? Did you analyse them at actual pixels? If you did not, you actually don't know what you talk about. Focusing may matter little, you find the part that is actually in focus and analyse surrounding detail. There is always a curvature of field, that is the reason Lloyd shoots 3D subjects.
Just to make a point, Lloyd complains about AF accuracy on almost all systems. Canon 5DII, Nikon D800, Pentax 645D, Leica M, Sony Alpha 900 just to mention a few. Truth is simply that AF systems don't used to be that accurate. It may seem that some recent generation AF systems combined with some recent generation lenses may be accurate. (Roger Ciala at LensRentals has an article on that).
Getting back to focusing accuracy, one of the frequent posters here shooting an MFD back on a Linhof uses a 30X loupe for accurate focusing, but still feels the need to stop down to f/11 for optimal sharpness. On the other hand he stops down to f/16 to eliminate aliasing.
So, what I say is that Lloyd Chambers is a bit over-analytic, but he may know what he is doing.
Personally, I feel that manual focusing with magnified live view is the only way to achieve exact focus. Contrast Detect AF on sensor is a good alternative.
If you feel that Lloyd Chambers is less then competent, please post some proof demonstrating the accurate focusing of at least two samples of the Leica S under demanding conditions.
These two articles are a couple years old but they may still have some relevance for today's systems:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Just to explain, Lloyd Chambers prefers magnified live view as focusing method. He found, however, that the Sony A7 series do correct AF using contrast detection AF (CDAF). Similarly, Roger Ciala has found that CDAF does match manual focus at live view. This makes a lot of sense, as CDAF uses the actual signal from the sensor instead of the signal from an AF device that has two moving mirrors in it's optical path.
I would expect that Roger's findings apply to all CDAF systems, they are accurate but slow and they may miss correct focus at all.
Not to play devil's advocate, but all that indicates is precisely nought other than, possibly, a lack of competence on Chamber's part. Cooter uses this camera extensively and has never reported such an issue - nor has Tom Munro, to name but two, (if you don't know who Tom is, try doing a google image search). I could add more , these are professional photographers who make a living out of using cameras. I could name at least a dozen others.
Eric Hiss also, IIRC, spent a day with him and wasn't impressed by his testing procedures.
Were you meant to and again even if you were and did, what does that prove ?
-
Did you analyse them at actual pixels? If you did not, you actually don't know what you talk about.
Erik,
I have no doubt you're correct on that - the difference between myself and some others, though, is that I admit it.
;D
M
-
Yes,
But the very same photographer is more concerned about image sizes required by customers, shoots mostly in controlled light conditions and freely says that all cameras from Panasonic GH3, over Canon 5D and Leica S2 can do the job.
A photographer who is shooting outdoors, make large prints and shoots subject with fine detail may have a different view.
Add to that, Lloyd has a faible for shooting large apertures, I don't know why, but if you buy large aperture lenses for serious money it sounds like a bright idea to verify the focusing system keeps up with it.
Best regards
Erik
It would seem there's a camera tester posting landscape shots on his pay for site that are rather unremarkable. It would seem he dismisses many cameras as flawed and not of a standard he'd care to use.
There's a photographer posting on Luminous Landscape who consistently posts rather remarkable fashion images using the Leica S, a camera dismissed by the camera tester as sub standard. I don't doubt the aforementioned fashion photographer could use a Kodak box brownie and still deliver remarkable images.
My, what a topsy-turvy world.
--
Mr Manoli, you beat me to it.
-
It's not about what the test results are, it's about what you test. I haven't seen anyone here doing realistic tests of lenses and focus systems at distances appropriate for landscape, although I guess the photoreconaissance guys do (http://ilikethisart.net/?p=15272) ...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b_9QyO-oeAc/UR5X16kg5AI/AAAAAAAAJ4Y/nB9byHdnrGk/s1600/calibrate1.jpg)
Edmund
PS. Btw, I went to Boulder and took the Imatest course, so I probably have as much right to measurebate as the others here.
-
Manoli,
...all that indicates is precisely nought other than, possibly, a lack of competence on Chamber's part.
From here (https://luminous-landscape.com/zeiss-135mm-apo/):
...in my opinion the best reviewer of lenses working today is Lloyd Chambers at Diglloyd. If you want in-depth technical reports on lenses, especially Zeiss, his subscription-only site is well worth the investment.
-
Hi Edmund,
You are right on the issue. Recommendations for lens testing is about 50 times focal length, I don't know how good approximation that is for infinity. But, lenses are often used at intermediate distances. Lenses built for infinity doesn't need to focus, except to correct for thermal expansion and things like that.
Much of the research on resolution is probably coming from arial reconnaissance, that is probably the cause we live by the USAF test target.
Best regards
Erik
It's not about what the test results are, it's about what you test. I haven't seen anyone here doing realistic tests of lenses and focus systems at distances appropriate for landscape, although I guess the photoreconaissance guys do (http://ilikethisart.net/?p=15272) ...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b_9QyO-oeAc/UR5X16kg5AI/AAAAAAAAJ4Y/nB9byHdnrGk/s1600/calibrate1.jpg)
Edmund
PS. Btw, I went to Boulder and took the Imatest course, so I probably have as much right to measurebate as the others here.
-
A photographer who is shooting outdoors, make large prints and shoots subject with fine detail may have a different view.
Such as Sebastião Salgado ?
-
Hi,
Does he shoot Leica S and does he use large apertures? I honestly don't know.
Best regards
Erik
Such as Sebastião Salgado ?
-
Does he shoot Leica S and does he use large apertures?
'Genesis' was shot almost entirely, if not entirely, on Leica S.
-
Erik,
If I may be allowed to make a suggestion.
Wait for delivery of your new A7rII.
All this discussion about SLR style AF systems will be quasi-obsolete.
M
-
Thanks!
Best regards
Erik
'Genesis' was shot almost entirely, if not entirely, on Leica S.
-
Hi,
I don't see how my A7rII is relevant to any discussion of Lloyd Chambers findings about AF-accuracy/repeatability on the Leica S-series.
It may be more relevant to find some reasonable explanation that Lloyd Chambers has issues with AF and most other users don't. Just to say, he demonstrated the issue for a Leica representative and also reported the problem to Leica, so if he had a handling issue I guess he would been advised how to avoid it.
Let's put it this way, I am quite a bit puzzled with this issue, but I have seen Lloyd's original articles on the S2.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
If I may be allowed to make a suggestion.
Wait for delivery of your new A7rII.
All this discussion about SLR style AF systems will be quasi-obsolete.
M
-
Erik,
If I may be allowed to make a suggestion.
Wait for delivery of your new A7rII.
All this discussion about SLR style AF systems will be quasi-obsolete.
M
Actually I'm astonished how well my GH4 focuses. Progress certainly has come to mirrorless.
Does anyone know who actually makes the Leica S? I looked at a sensor assembly for an S2 and it looked like a european design, unsophisticated, heavy, conservative, and doubtless very robust so I suspect the electronics were Jenoptik.
On some days I conjecture that Dalsa and Angenieux were authorised to sell the soviets sensors and optics in the interests of the stability guaranteed by mutual inspection. Which would explain why Jenoptik are so good at making robust digital backs :) Of course, these days the Russians sell the US most of the rocket engines they stockpiled back then :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
Leica works together with Jenoptik. The M9 firmware is coming from Jenoptik, so I guess you may be right.
Nothing wrong with european design, though, as long as it works.
Regading AF, I would suggest that there are quite a few areas that are criticial:
- The resolution of the AF-sensor may be lower than the resolution of the camera sensor.
- Size of the sensitive area vs. the markings in the finder.
- Line sensors may focus on detail in front of or behind the subject if subject detail has wrong orientation
- If several AF-points are available the firmware needs to decide which one to use
- Mechanical alignment is important, especially as lightpath to the AF-sensor goes over two flipping mirrors
Mirrorless cameras use contrast detecting AF, mainly, which excludes alignment problems as the actual sensor is used for focusing. Newer sensors have phase detection on sensor which is helpful in finding coarse focus.
Best regards
Erik
Actually I'm astonished how well my GH4 focuses. Progress certainly has come to mirrorless.
Does anyone know who actually makes the Leica S? I looked at a sensor assembly for an S2 and it looked like a european design, unsophisticated, heavy, conservative, and doubtless very robust so I suspect the electronics were Jenoptik.
On some days I conjecture that Dalsa and Angenieux were authorised to sell the soviets sensors and optics in the interests of the stability guaranteed by mutual inspection. Which would explain why Jenoptik are so good at making robust digital backs :) Of course, these days the Russians sell the US most of the rocket engines they stockpiled back then :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
Leica works together with Jenoptik. The M9 firmware is coming from Jenoptik, so I guess you may be right.
Yeah, I looked at an old Leaf Aptus 22 back once, and that one was an interesting double-box concept which looked suitable for military use in dusty locations. The stuff which comes out of Japan on the other hand is usually designed for 100% humidity conditions.
As an engineer it's always interesting to decipher other engineer's handwriting ...
Edmund
-
If these articles are true, then Salgado shot Genesis with Canon ..
Thank you for those links, Johannes.
Though the article does say
" For the Genesis project Sebastião Salgado used medium format cameras but since 2008 he has been using Canon’s EOS-1Ds Mark III, adapted so he sees a 645 frame. "
Who to believe ?
-
Perhaps he used MF film camera?
Best regards
Erik
Thank you for those links, Johannes.
Though the article does say
" For the Genesis project Sebastião Salgado used medium format cameras but since 2008 he has been using Canon’s EOS-1Ds Mark III, adapted so he sees a 645 frame. "
Who to believe ?
-
Perhaps he used MF film camera?
The Leica S2 was announced 23-d september 2008, a bit to late for "Genesis", unless Salgado was a beta tester.
Best regards
Erik
-
Who to believe ?
So you have to ask him personally
Perhaps he used MF film camera?
So the consensus is: we have no idea from looking at the work which system he used. Yet again it is shown that the mind behind the camera is far more important than the equipment, but on we (I'm as much to blame) drone about how well, or not, the Leica S autofocuses in someone else's experience, where is BC when you need him?
-
I don’t know if BC will chime in. If he stays out, I find that quite understandable, it’s a bit of a mess down here.
This forum is frequented by pro’s and amateur photographers alike, but as of late we also have amateur psychologists:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841424#msg841424
To begin with, there is a tendency if there is a bad news, shoot the messenger.
Than we have the following strange reasoning; Diglloyd says so, thus S system owners have to prove otherwise:
If you feel that Lloyd Chambers is less then competent, please post some proof demonstrating the accurate focusing of at least two samples of the Leica S under demanding conditions.
As the OP, I posted my opinion three pages ago, which was somehow, maybe conveniently, overlooked:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841135#msg841135
Anyway, there’s not much point in going on like this, BC’s input is very welcome, but I doubt even he can convince some here the S system is worthwhile.
BTW, here's an interesting first impressions on the a7rII vs the Leica S:
http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/03/387-sony-a7rii-review-first-impressions/
-
Hi,
I have read and reconsidered your response to mine.
Let's make it clear, I have read Lloyd's original review of the S2, but not the present one.
Lloyd generally feels that AF-systems are not accurate enough. He shoots often at maximal aperture and generally AF-systems used to be not accurate enough. He was complaining about the Pentax 645d, Canons and Nikons, too. But, those focusing errors were relatively small. Lloyd, like myself, see live view as a solution to focusing problems.
Shooting medium apertures reduces the need for focusing accuracy. Just to say, Erwin Puts (the author of the Leica Lens Compendium) also indicated that focusing systems were not accurate enough at least on Leica M and the Nikons he compared.
I no longer subscribe to the Leica pages on Diglloyd, so I cannot comment on his latest tests.
He published an image on his blog that was gravely defocused, that may have been an issue with AF locking on the wrong subject.
I also would say that he (Lloyd) had a fair share of problems with Leica's and that may affect his opinion. So my take is that he is quite credible when he talks about minor but significant issues with focusing at large apertures, but less so when he talks about gross errors.
Even small focusing errors are important, you play a lot for having lenses that are almost perfect at full aperture and focusing errors degrade them significantly.
It would be useful to find out what is causing the focusing problems he reports, don't you think?
Best regards
Erik
I don’t know if BC will chime in. If he stays out, I find that quite understandable, it’s a bit of a mess down here.
This forum is frequented by pro’s and amateur photographers alike, but as of late we also have amateur psychologists:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841424#msg841424
Than we have the following strange reasoning; Diglloyd says so, thus S system owners have to prove otherwise:
As the OP, I posted my opinion three pages ago, which was somehow, maybe conveniently, overlooked:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102470.msg841135#msg841135
Anyway, there’s not much point in going on like this, BC’s input is very welcome, but I doubt even he can convince some here the S system is worthwhile.
BTW, here's an interesting first impressions on the a7rII vs the Leica S:
http://www.dearsusan.net/2015/08/03/387-sony-a7rii-review-first-impressions/
-
It would be useful to find out what is causing the focusing problems he reports, don't you think?
Absolutely! And I think you gave the answer further up in this thread. Resolution of the AF and user error, which are not problems confined to the S system.
I think it’s as simple as this: AF is convenient and can be very helpful. But like for example Auto Exposure, it can easily be fooled into making the wrong decision. The camera operator needs to help guide the camera’s choices for AE, AF, AWB, etc. All these auto-functions are aids which can be very useful but if the camera makes the wrong decision, ultimately, it’s the operator’s fault. Now some camera’s are better at AF, others are better at AE. The operator needs to know his/her camera and understand it’s shortcomings in decision making, which is where the Diglloyd-site comes in.
Mr. Chambers is in the business of finding shortcomings and selling that info. He needs to motivate his buyers by his writings on his free blog. Maybe there’s an economic incentive to make matters look worse than they actually are. Anyway, “Tell it like it is” is a good slogan.
I don’t think there’s a problem with AF in the S system, but I know from experience the system’s AF can be fooled, which is nothing new. Much like any other camera’s auto-function, I guess.
-
There are those who change their partners or cameras more often than their underwear. An occupational hazard for the gigolo or camera tester. But perhaps there's something to be said for a more intimate and lasting relationship? Certainly more knowing and fragrant.
It would seem that for a gigolo photographer a lasting relationship can be quite productive (http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2010/11/bettencourt-part-2-201011) ($1B).
On the other hand, a slight fragrance of scandal certainly helps sell magazines. (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2006/12/enfant-terrible-200612)
Edmund
-
I haven't read this entire thread. But in general, I am skeptical of his conclusions with all of the medium format equipment he has used. I'm not saying that he's 100% wrong or that he hasn't had any issues. But I have used some of the same equipment that he has and have not had the same poor results. I even offered to met up with him with my H4x and phase back several year ago, so he could test that and he said he wasn't interested and that medium format wasn't his focus or interest (paraphrasing here), so he didn't want to. I have followed his mac/computer and views and think that is pretty accurate though.
Also, I saw Salgado's exhibit twice and up close you can tell the difference between the film shots and digital shots. I mean when you look at the grain closely, from a foot away. It didn't effect the impact of his images and you couldn't really tell from farther away. But it was a fun little game to guess and see if I was right when I got closer to it. I d think the exhibit said that he shot with canons when he switched to digital for the project. It was one of the best exhibits I've ever seen.
-
I haven't read this entire thread. But in general, I am skeptical of his conclusions with all of the medium format equipment he has used. I'm not saying that he's 100% wrong or that he hasn't had any issues. But I have used some of the same equipment that he has and have not had the same poor results. I even offered to met up with him with my H4x and phase back several year ago, so he could test that and he said he wasn't interested and that medium format wasn't his focus or interest (paraphrasing here), so he didn't want to. I have followed his mac/computer and views and think that is pretty accurate though.
Also, I saw Salgado's exhibit twice and up close you can tell the difference between the film shots and digital shots. I mean when you look at the grain closely, from a foot away. It didn't effect the impact of his images and you couldn't really tell from farther away. But it was a fun little game to guess and see if I was right when I got closer to it. I d think the exhibit said that he shot with canons when he switched to digital for the project. It was one of the best exhibits I've ever seen.
I think that at this point one should talk about team Salgado.
Edmund
-
J,
I would like to compliment you on the superb layering in the setup of this image.
The lighting and the styling are perfectly complementary. Bravo.
Yes, in your hands the Leica draws well.
I think the guy who compared AF to AE was the one who nailed it - we admit every AE system has limitations and quirks, yes shots get wrecked, and we learnt to check histograms. In the same way we should learn to deal with the quirks of AF, and just get on with our lives.
Edmund
I' ve stayed away from this, because we've been very busy and there seems to be a lot of conjecture about just about everything.
I'd never talk someone into buying a camera.
Why?
All I know is the S2 works for me, does what I want and in regards to autofocus, It works well with Contax and Lecia lenses. It's not a sports camera, but it's accurate and fairly quick.
In fact of all the cameras I've owned and used, which is way too many, the best autofocus was the Nikon F5, D3, D4 and the Canon 1dx, and they will miss focus under certain situations.
The best medium format camera I've used with autofocus is the Leica.
I've included one photo, prior to any real post production, just adjust and thrown up as a jpeg around 4,000 pixels tall.
I'd never put up an image this large because I know I'll hear there is ca, or something, but for focus it makes a point as it was shot at F 4.8 and 1/12th of a second, 640 asa, with a medium tripod and a gitzo fluid head that I keep totally loose for stills.
Obviously the subject is fairly still, the tripod though very very loose helps, but as still as the actor was, the subject moves more than a brick wall.
S2, no sharpening applied, 55mm contax lens.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/rocker_s2_focus.jpg)
It's a smooth camera with great mirror dampening and I like the ccd look.
Now with the new cmos version, I doubt if I'd pay over $10,000 for it but that's not because of leica, I don't think I'd ever pay over 10 grand for any cmos "still" camera again. Those days are past, at least in my view, but if I did it would be the S version.
Saying that, I'd buy another S2 in a heartbeat.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
Yes I agree. But, you buy this very well corrected lens for 6k$ and have no option to focus it correctly.
- AF has limitations
- Focusing on view screen is often difficult. Some can do it admirably well. I use 9X magnification on my Hasselblad V and accurate focus is still hit or miss. Good enough focus is something different.
- No live view AF
Just to say, I have no problems with AF on my Sonys the way I shoot, but when I shoot other stuff like a group of people I often miss AF. Grave focusing problems are probable caused by non optimal usage, but critical focus is not a given with AF and all systems are not created equal.
Best regards
Erik
J,
I would like to compliment you on the superb layering in the setup of this image.
The lighting and the styling are perfectly complementary. Bravo.
Yes, in your hands the Leica draws well.
I think the guy who compared AF to AE was the one who nailed it - we admit every AE system has limitations and quirks, yes shots get wrecked, and we learnt to check histograms. In the same way we should learn to deal with the quirks of AF, and just get on with our lives.
Edmund
-
Erik, you seem to argue very passionately against a camera that by your own admission you have never used (or at least not extensively), regarding a review you have not read, in the face of several owners of the system who are trying to tell you that it works just fine...I would encourage you to try one for a longer test if you get the opportunity, as you may find your own experience different than Lloyd Chamber's.
I am not sure what exactly happened with Lloyd Chambers, but I can tell you from my own experience, the S2 and S focus very accurately, and more accurately than any other DSLR I have used. I produce large exhibition work (1mX1.5m) for museums and galleries, and have shot extensively with an S2 and S for the last three years. My working apertures tend to be around 5.6-11, but I have often worked wide open as well. The S and S2 are very accurate indeed, and I find they will easily and accurately focus on the moon or city lights in the distance even at night (when I do a lot of my work). Of all the cameras I have ever used, it is the S that I would trust the most to come back with a well-focused, tack sharp image.
I think the issue that Lloyd may have is that the AF sensor is a bit larger than the cross in the center and can be provoked into misfocusing if it is not placed correctly. The sensor has a tendency to read the closest thing in its path, so if something slightly forward of your intended focus point protrudes into the AF area, you might get poor or inconsistent results.
Regarding the AF motors, I believe David Farkas had an interview with Peter Kaarbe, the head lens designer at Leica. In it he talks about the S lenses and why they were designed the way they were. As far as I remember, he said they initially wanted to use ultrasonic motors, but they found that they were not accurate enough for the heavy lens elements, so they used very high precision stepping motors that could move the lens elements quickly, but also stop them exactly where they need to stop. In the S, I believe they also worked in firmware to increase the speed that the motors run at, and then calculate the drift between the onset of breaking in the motor and the exact stopping point, so that they could run the motor at full speed and cut it, and the stopping distance would wind up exactly at the point of optimal focus. Additionally, each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs so that they can compensate for each other's deviation from ideal. I am not saying that it is always perfect, nor that other manufacturers don't do something similar (though I have not heard of it), but personally my confidence is more in the technicians at Leica and in my own experiences than it is in Lloyd Chamber's reviews. But honestly, it is unfortunate that he did not have a better experience. I hope he was just unlucky with the body and or lens that he got, but if it is not working for him, that is fine for him to say so. Still, the people using the gear day in and day out are probably more authoritative...
If you want to pixel peep some S prints, you are welcome to contact me next time you visit Iceland.
Stuart
-
Stuart,
...each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs...
If memory serves, lens focus-shift is also coded.
-
In the S, I believe they also worked in firmware to increase the speed that the motors run at, and then calculate the drift between the onset of breaking in the motor and the exact stopping point, so that they could run the motor at full speed and cut it, and the stopping distance would wind up exactly at the point of optimal focus. Additionally, each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs so that they can compensate for each other's deviation from ideal. I am not saying that it is always perfect, nor that other manufacturers don't do something similar (though I have not heard of it)
I have read similar stories about the Hasselblad H system. For example, I have read that the H system focusses at full aperture, but uses lens dependent tables to correct for focus shift when the aperture is closed. Indeed I find that the AF on my camera is perfectly accurate. I would expect the Leica S to be just as good.
-
I am not as subscriber, so I can't read digilloyd's evaluation after the initial cry wolf about the S AF. But he is now into evaluation of the S lenses. Abot the 24mm he says:
"This is a truly outstanding performance probably unequalled by any lens for the 35mm format. To see it on medium format 45 X 30mm sensor is very impressive. The particularly high cost of the Leica 24mm f/3.5 Super-Elmar-S ASPH is neatly explained by this example. But cost should not be confused with value—this is as good as it gets for a lens this wide (19mm equiv in the 35mm format) and thus the 24/3.5 SEM is surely a must-have lens for the S shooter."
I can only agree.
About the 45 (that I don't have) he says:
"I liked the Leica 45mm f/2.8 Elmarit-S ASPH a lot and found it very appealing in the field. Highly recommended for Leica S shooters."
About the sensor itself he says:
"The CCD sensor on the S006 is superb."
The S007 is now rumored to be released Aug 31. I know the first samples are out for testing, looking forward to the first reviews.
-
Hi,
I did read the original S2 review, and I even got some raw images from Lloyd Chambers.
But you are right that I have not read the present S review. What I have tried to point out is that Lloyd had issues with several samples of S-series cameras, but also that he essentially finds AF-accuracy a problem on most systems.
The AF errors he finds are usually a bit subtle, this was the case in the original article on the S2. He does talk about gross focusing errors on the S in his blog and that would probably relate to either a faulty camera or the focus locking on the wrong subject. In the blog he refers to at least two cameras, the one he tested and another one belonging to a customer. So he reports issues with at least three cameras, the original S2, the one he tested and the customers camera. I am pretty sure he had another S2 he tested earlier. What he misses is really is a well implemented live view. The new CMOS based backs from Phase, Leaf and Hassy have it and it is a great help for many users.
Another point that should be pointed out is that he actually likes the Leica system very much.
A small observation may be that an optimally focused image on the S should generate a lot of aliasing artefacts, according to basic laws of signal processing. I see a lot of these on my images with the Hasselblad, even with 20 year old lenses, but I have not seen any reports on aliasing, except on Lloyds site. So, if Leica does not produce these artefacts, there must be an explanation, some candidates:
- Subject lacking fine detail
- Small aperture. Lloyd found that f/11 is sufficient to suppress aliasing errors, on my P45+ I need f/16
- Anything reducing resolution. Mirror caused vibration, shutter vibration, defocus and so on.
Good lenses combined with large pixels should produce large amounts of aliasing. If this is not the case, there must be some factor limiting sharpness.
This image is a good example of that: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Nyquist1.jpg
One area where I see this kind of aliasing problems is water surfaces and rigs on sailboats. As I am living and working in the Swedish archipelago I often make these kinds of shoots.
This image is a good example of it: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/seawater_a.png
I may also add that I am seeing more of this kinds of artefacts now than say a year ago as I have improved my focusing skills.
On the other hand, if the sensor "ouresolves" the lens or the subject, you won't see artefacts, so it also depends on subject choice.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, you seem to argue very passionately against a camera that by your own admission you have never used (or at least not extensively), regarding a review you have not read, in the face of several owners of the system who are trying to tell you that it works just fine...I would encourage you to try one for a longer test if you get the opportunity, as you may find your own experience different than Lloyd Chamber's.
I am not sure what exactly happened with Lloyd Chambers, but I can tell you from my own experience, the S2 and S focus very accurately, and more accurately than any other DSLR I have used. I produce large exhibition work (1mX1.5m) for museums and galleries, and have shot extensively with an S2 and S for the last three years. My working apertures tend to be around 5.6-11, but I have often worked wide open as well. The S and S2 are very accurate indeed, and I find they will easily and accurately focus on the moon or city lights in the distance even at night (when I do a lot of my work). Of all the cameras I have ever used, it is the S that I would trust the most to come back with a well-focused, tack sharp image.
I think the issue that Lloyd may have is that the AF sensor is a bit larger than the cross in the center and can be provoked into misfocusing if it is not placed correctly. The sensor has a tendency to read the closest thing in its path, so if something slightly forward of your intended focus point protrudes into the AF area, you might get poor or inconsistent results.
Regarding the AF motors, I believe David Farkas had an interview with Peter Kaarbe, the head lens designer at Leica. In it he talks about the S lenses and why they were designed the way they were. As far as I remember, he said they initially wanted to use ultrasonic motors, but they found that they were not accurate enough for the heavy lens elements, so they used very high precision stepping motors that could move the lens elements quickly, but also stop them exactly where they need to stop. In the S, I believe they also worked in firmware to increase the speed that the motors run at, and then calculate the drift between the onset of breaking in the motor and the exact stopping point, so that they could run the motor at full speed and cut it, and the stopping distance would wind up exactly at the point of optimal focus. Additionally, each S body and lens is individually coded with their exact sensor position and lens tolerance specs so that they can compensate for each other's deviation from ideal. I am not saying that it is always perfect, nor that other manufacturers don't do something similar (though I have not heard of it), but personally my confidence is more in the technicians at Leica and in my own experiences than it is in Lloyd Chamber's reviews. But honestly, it is unfortunate that he did not have a better experience. I hope he was just unlucky with the body and or lens that he got, but if it is not working for him, that is fine for him to say so. Still, the people using the gear day in and day out are probably more authoritative...
If you want to pixel peep some S prints, you are welcome to contact me next time you visit Iceland.
Stuart
-
I don't think Leica has a price problem anymore, when you can get an S for $5-6K. That's less than a Pentax, and an adaptor gets you a bunch of C or H lenses, as you note. Of course it is not for the penniless artiste but who cares about her anyway? To be fair, I'd heard of an AF issue with landscapes before and your studio experience says nothing much about what happens towards infinity with a given lens - however nobody is stopping prospective purchasers from doing their own testing.
Sony now finally has a nice camera that can do everything - hi ISO, hi rez, stabilised hand held video, internal 4K, silent shutter, compatible with any lens under the sun Canon, Nikon, old Contax Zeiss, you name it, even usable as a back on a shift/tilt cam. The color and skin texture reminiscent of the old 1Ds2, but it's a one-size-fits all. I'm willing to bet you'll have one within 6 months/
I think for a pro sometimes doing video the A7RIIi is ten times more useful to have a spare Sony A7RII in the bag than another Leica S lens - I cannot imagine a single shot you couldn't save/get with that thing as a backup, provided you don't break it with your monkey paws. And as all french men, and all female bag buyers know, even though one can sometimes tell the difference between a fake and the real thing, one can decide that it doesn't really matter :)
Edmund
I don't get it. Talking about resolve, out resolve, artifacts, crap this isn't a science project, it's about a photograph, at least I thought that's what a camera was for.
Then as usual with Leica somebody always mentions money saying for a $6,000 lens it should look good, though the image I posted was with a $900 contax lens and this image with a contax 80mm wide open at f2.0 that probably sells for about $400.
(http://russellrutherford.com/S2_REFLECTION.jpg)
I could show a thousand in focus images with contax and leica glass and I don't mind if people don't agree with the camera, or the price, but why care if your never going to buy or use one?
I think it's pretty cool that Leica built a new system from the lens to the sensor. Especially one so well thought out.
The money for isn't crazy, heck go price out the new sony a7RII and a full set of lenses (most of them F4) and the price is more than using my legacy glass and a S2, so I dunno I guess for me the Leica was a good deal.
And no offense meant but who the hell is digital lloyd?
IMO
BC
-
Hi BC,
No issue with your comment, but I happen to be a non commercial photographer quite interested in the science of photography. Those artefacts are real, as I see it in the pictures I make. So, it may not matter to you but it does matter to me.
My issues arise with Hasselblad lenses on the P45+ I have. Now, this is not a horrible problem, and I can eliminate it with some sloppy workflow, like bad focus, stopping down to f/16, no mirror lockup. Would it be a horrible problem I would have get rid of that P45+ long ago…
But the way I shoot I see it almost all the time, on subjects that are prone to it. I don't see it on flower shots, but often shots including water surface with small waves and also on sail rigs. You won't see it if you are shooting a yacht filling an image but you see it when there are a half dozen sailboats on anchor in a bay you happen to shoot. You should see this according to theory, so when aliasing is visible it is a clear indication that the lens actually outresolves the sensor.
And yes, I clearly see more problems once I have worked on my focusing technique.
I don't have an issue with pricing on the Leica, except that I would not buy one. Clearly smart that the S-series supports lenses from other vendors. Would I have a lot of Contax lenses I would consider buying the Leica S2 as it is available at very low price, but I don't have a lot of Contax lenses but a lot of Hasselblad V-series lenses and a P45+ back. Those lenses are perfectly good enough to cause aliasing on my favourite subjects which happen to be landscape with some ingredients of architecture.
We have a nice guy here on LuLa called Anders Torger. He is shooting a 50 MP back on Linhof and uses it with a 30X magnifier for accurate focus. He feels that he can reach optimal focus at f/11 with that 30X loupe, but he finds artefacts like I do, often on rippled water. So, he shoots f/16 to get rid of those artefacts. My experience with the P45+ is that artefacts are clearly present at f/11 but largely gone at f/16, due to diffraction. Just to say, Anders Torger is a really nice guy who has given us a free tool for generating camera profiles, a fine tool for generating HDR and maintains an interesting raw converter (raw therapy) on the Mac.
You are clearly entitled to an opinion, but please accept that others are also entitled to have another opinion.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Diglloyd is a guy called Lloyd Chambers who publishes a lot of testing on different systems on a pay site called "diglloyd". His testing is quite analytical. Personally, I would say that it may be sane to spend 60$ on his reports if you plan to buy a 6000$ system. Now, reviews are reviews, but I would prefer to read the bad news as well as the good news. For instance, he has tested a lot of the lenses for the Pentax 645 and he publishes detailed analysis of his tests. So if I would consider buying a Pentax 645D, which I did, I would read his tests.
In general he is a bit critical of the systems he tests, that applies to Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Hasselblad, Canon (to some extent). His experience with Leica has been a bit more negative, like stuck aperture on some of the Leica S-lenses, but again he has found issue also with Nikon cameras and Canons and also Zeiss lenses, and those issues have been solved by repairs from Nikon or Zeiss.
I would assume that many lenses and cameras we own have some tolerance related issues, but we don't see it as we don't have a lot of comparisons. Some photographers cherry pick lenses, buy say five samples and return four. I cannot do that.
I don't get it. Talking about resolve, out resolve, artifacts, crap this isn't a science project, it's about a photograph, at least I thought that's what a camera was for.
Then as usual with Leica somebody always mentions money saying for a $6,000 lens it should look good, though the image I posted was with a $900 contax lens and this image with a contax 80mm wide open at f2.0 that probably sells for about $400.
(http://russellrutherford.com/S2_REFLECTION.jpg)
I could show a thousand in focus images with contax and leica glass and I don't mind if people don't agree with the camera, or the price, but why care if your never going to buy or use one?
I think it's pretty cool that Leica built a new system from the lens to the sensor. Especially one so well thought out.
The money for isn't crazy, heck go price out the new sony a7RII and a full set of lenses (most of them F4) and the price is more than using my legacy glass and a S2, so I dunno I guess for me the Leica was a good deal.
And no offense meant but who the hell is digital lloyd?
IMO
BC
-
...the image I posted was with a $900 contax lens and this image with a contax 80mm wide open at f2.0 that probably sells for about $400.
Having recently purchased one to remount to a Phase One body (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/fast-portrait-lens-phase-one) I can tell you the Contax 80mm f/2 does not cost $400 on the used market :).
Beautiful lens! Not clinically sharp for those that want that type of lens, but absolutely beautiful.
-
Hi,
I was subscribing to "Diglloyd" before he split of Leica to separate pages and I have read the original S2-review. His opinion of the S2 was very favorable, but he found that focusing exactly was a major issue. Now, he found focusing a major issue on almost all systems he has tested. It is not about gross focusing errors but about not being able to extract optimum performance at large apertures. Say he can shoot five series of images all are acceptably sharp but some are much sharper than others.
Manual focusing is not a solution either, optimum focus is hard to achieve on ground glass. Large format photographers used to use something like a 15X loupe, but viewfinder magnification is often around 3X. Personally I use a 3X monocular on my Hasselblad that gives me a total of 9X magnification. Still with 9X magnification it can be a challenge to focus on some subjects. If I find a good edge like a flagpole I can nail focus using the split image in the viewfinder, but focusing on the trunk of a tree is much more a challenge.
This article by Joseph Holmes indicates the issues with achieving critical focus, it is a bit old but I would guess some of it still applies. Leica can build a fine camera but they can do little about human vision: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
If the S (Typ 7) implementsa good live view with an adequate display most of the claimed focusing problems may be resolved.
Best regards
Erik
I am not as subscriber, so I can't read digilloyd's evaluation after the initial cry wolf about the S AF. But he is now into evaluation of the S lenses. Abot the 24mm he says:
"This is a truly outstanding performance probably unequalled by any lens for the 35mm format. To see it on medium format 45 X 30mm sensor is very impressive. The particularly high cost of the Leica 24mm f/3.5 Super-Elmar-S ASPH is neatly explained by this example. But cost should not be confused with value—this is as good as it gets for a lens this wide (19mm equiv in the 35mm format) and thus the 24/3.5 SEM is surely a must-have lens for the S shooter."
I can only agree.
About the 45 (that I don't have) he says:
"I liked the Leica 45mm f/2.8 Elmarit-S ASPH a lot and found it very appealing in the field. Highly recommended for Leica S shooters."
About the sensor itself he says:
"The CCD sensor on the S006 is superb."
The S007 is now rumored to be released Aug 31. I know the first samples are out for testing, looking forward to the first reviews.
-
Gee Doug, I didn’t know a dealer wanted to buy an 80mm because the “dealer plan" from Cooter One works differently.
For dealers we sell the Contax 80mm at $400 but it’s locked at F 8.
If you want full aperture then you send it back to us, we replace the lens with another 80mm for a $2,400 fee. (this is to insure quality workmanship).
Oh yea you want to put a new mount on it, so that also has to be done in house at the Cooter One Labs. (this is for your protection).
That’s unfortunately another $1,200 because we go through rigorous testing and quality control. (We shoot a brick wall and look at the files, unless it's lunch time).
But the good news is we offer a loaner system or as we like to call it Big Cooter’s Value For Us Plan.
If for some reason the lens goes down, we will send a replacement by UPS to you home (no PO boxes please) for you to use for 6 days. (insurance certificate and right thumbprint required).
Sincerely,
Big Cooter
R+D Manager
Cone
I lost my right thumb in a freak accident. It was cut off by the sharp Phase 150/2.8. Do I still qualify for the CCRP (Cooter Certified Replacement Plan)?
-
Hi BC,
Cooter One indeed does an excellent job protecting costumer interest. I wish you good luck with that worthwhile enterprise!
Best regards
Erik
Gee Doug, I didn’t know a dealer wanted to buy an 80mm because the “dealer plan" from Cooter One works differently.
For dealers we sell the Contax 80mm at $400 but it’s locked at F 8.
If you want full aperture then you send it back to us, we replace the lens with another 80mm for a $2,400 fee. (this is to insure quality workmanship).
Oh yea you want to put a new mount on it, so that also has to be done in house at the Cooter One Labs. (this is for your protection).
That’s unfortunately another $1,200 because we go through rigorous testing and quality control. (We shoot a brick wall and look at the files, unless it's lunch time).
But the good news is we offer a loaner system or as we like to call it Big Cooter’s Value For Us Plan.
If for some reason the lens goes down, we will send a replacement by UPS to you home (no PO boxes please) for you to use for 6 days. (insurance certificate and right thumbprint required).
Sincerely,
Big Cooter
R+D Manager
Cone
-
Hi BC,
Cooter One indeed does an excellent job protecting costumer interest. I wish you good luck with that worthwhile enterprise!
Best regards
Erik
Cooter One is indeed renowned for its sharp-tailor-made lenses :)
Edmund
-
We aim to please.
(http://russellrutherford.com/cooter_one_logo.jpg)
J,
You're in a fine mood tonight :)
Edmund
-
You guys had fun last night, but let's get back on topic. I do not know what digilloyd struggled with, as the discussion is on the paid site, neither do I know what the 007 will offer to aid focus in live view. I can only say that my hit rate is very good with AF on the back button, and manual override. Especially the Microprism focusing screen (16001) is very helpful and precise.
- Erling
Hi,
...
Manual focusing is not a solution either, optimum focus is hard to achieve on ground glass. Large format photographers used to use something like a 15X loupe, but viewfinder magnification is often around 3X. Personally I use a 3X monocular on my Hasselblad that gives me a total of 9X magnification. Still with 9X magnification it can be a challenge to focus on some subjects. If I find a good edge like a flagpole I can nail focus using the split image in the viewfinder, but focusing on the trunk of a tree is much more a challenge.
....
If the S (Typ 7) implementsa good live view with an adequate display most of the claimed focusing problems may be resolved.
Best regards
Erik
-
You guys had fun last night, but let's get back on topic.
No, please, let's not. :)
-
Hi,
On the S2 (the first review) it could not consistently yield maximum sharpness on a flat mosaic surface. Of five series two were close to optimal and three were failures. This kind of differences are only obvious if you can compare with an optimally sharp image.
He also found that it was not possible (for him) to achieve optimal focus using the optical viewfinder, as magnification is not high enough. The ability to focus manually probably varies a lot. I guess some are better with it than others. I would believe that microprisms and split wedge can be very useful.
Regarding the second (or third?) review I have not read it, but on his blog he expresses pretty strong dissatisfaction referring to two different samples. I think that may be a bit excessive… If you climb a mountain with a quite heavy camera and don't get pictures that fulfil your expectations you may be a bit unhappy.
As I have no intention to buy a Leica S or Leica S2 I didn't subscribe to Lloyd's Leica pages, but I guess that if I would buy into the S system I would spend those dollars and read his articles.
Generally, the limitations of AF technology (in general) are widely accepted, for that reason, focus bracketing is frequently used in testing. Good reading here: http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm and here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
BTW, this is the mosaic Lloyd uses for many of his reviews:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Stanford_Memorial_Church_May_2011_001.jpg/1280px-Stanford_Memorial_Church_May_2011_001.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
You guys had fun last night, but let's get back on topic. I do not know what digilloyd struggled with, as the discussion is on the paid site, neither do I know what the 007 will offer to aid focus in live view. I can only say that my hit rate is very good with AF on the back button, and manual override. Especially the Microprism focusing screen (16001) is very helpful and precise.
- Erling
-
OK, so you persist …
The problem with your ( or rather Chambers') assumptions and opinions, Erik, are that they're based on a sample size of two(*). Extrapolating the 'alleged' results of a sample size of two, in Leica S terms statistically insignificant, to a blanket condemnation of The 'S' AF system in particular is, at best, unsound.
It's also quite possible that the results are heavily influenced by a failure in technique. All the more so, given the first hand testimony and graphic evidence, both here and elsewhere, of the excellent results the cam, in the right hands, is capable of producing.
Were the camera/lens combinations properly calibrated ?
Had or did Leica recently service and check the equipment for errors ?
After his report to Leica, did they issue a general recall or an advisory ? – No.
Were his findings validated by any of the many S users ? - Not as far as I know.
If you were to base this discussion on the pros and cons of AF technology , as we know it today, it may have some merit. On an uncorroborated sample size of two – less so.
Edit:
(*) or more correctly 2 users 3 cams.
-
Most gear "reviews" are superficial and emotional that could just as well be commercials. I haven't read Lloyd's reviews but at least he seems to try provide some real info. I think the best reviews are actually technically oriented reviews, because the emotional parts, like how you like the placement of buttons etc, you need to find out yourself anyway.
That said of course when you present paid content the readers has the right to demand some extra quality, and making broader samples, contacting the manufacturer if there are issues etc is a quite fair expectation I think.
But when I read a review which start with "this won't be a technical review" I know it will most likely not provide much useful information. For example with my H4D-50 it's nice to know before buy that it cannot do 1/250 synch on copal shutters. That's a piece of technical and very useful information which generally never appear in "this won't be a technical review" type of review.
The great thing about a technical review is that you get to know about technical limitations that you otherwise could have missed even when you try it out yourself. Getting emotional statements like "the color of this camera is just fantastic!" is totally meaningless and only about taste which I need to check with my own eyes anyway.
So the best way when getting new gear is to read some deep tech reviews first, and then try out the camera for yourself. That is at least how I like to do. As I'm into second hand gear I often buy in the blind though, but that is for the brave ;)
-
Hi,
Highly unprobable that Lloyd has 3-4 outliers, or more if you count M series cameras. Have you studied statistics?
This is by no means just a Leica issue, have you read this posting? http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
Interestingly enough, it seems that careful testers/users see this kind of problems while enthusiast and normal users don't observe them. May it be that ordinary users are not careful enough? Some questions?
- Are you using optimal apertures (f/4- f/8)?
- Are you using a magnifier for focusing?
- Are you using mirror lock up?
- Are you using a state of the art tripod and head?
If you answer yes to all of the above questions you have a good starting point to discussing Lloyd's findings. Than, you of course need to post actual pixel samples of any images proving your point, preferably raw. How would you ever judge anything from a JPEG that has lost about 96% of the information?
Personally, I cheat a bit on aperture side as I mostly use f/11 on the Hasselblad, also, my viewfinder magnification is 9X, it is a bit on the low side, as technical camera users often prefer higher magnifications.
Best regards
Erik
OK, so you persist …
The problem with your ( or rather Chambers') assumptions and opinions, Erik, are that they're based on a sample size of two(*). Extrapolating the 'alleged' results of a sample size of two, in Leica S terms statistically insignificant, to a blanket condemnation of The 'S' AF system in particular is, at best, unsound.
It's also quite possible that the results are heavily influenced by a failure in technique. All the more so, given the first hand testimony and graphic evidence, both here and elsewhere, of the excellent results the cam, in the right hands, is capable of producing.
Were the camera/lens combinations properly calibrated ?
Had or did Leica recently service and check the equipment for errors ?
After his report to Leica, did they issue a general recall or an advisory ? – No.
Were his findings validated by any of the many S users ? - Not as far as I know.
If you were to base this discussion on the pros and cons of AF technology , as we know it today, it may have some merit. On an uncorroborated sample size of two – less so.
Edit:
(*) or more correctly 2 users 3 cams.
-
Highly unprobable that Lloyd has 3-4 outliers, or more if you count M series cameras. Have you studied statistics?
If you had studied statistics, an outlier, as you refer to it, is necessarily based on the sample size - which in this case is remarkably small, not to say miniscule – added to which, the last time I looked, Leica M's were not AF. Perhaps you misread both my last paragraph and the title of this thread which is 'Leica S and diglloyd'.
-
(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140130052139/himym/images/a/a2/Emoticon-eating-popcorn-MH900437984.jpg)
-
Erik,
...If you climb a mountain with a quite heavy camera and don't get pictures that fulfil your expectations you may be a bit unhappy.
The mountain isn't going anywhere. Besides, no photograph compares to witnessing the view firsthand.