Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: nad54 on March 10, 2010, 08:37:37 am
-
So the Pentax 645D uses a Kodak chip 44mm x 33mm and is reasonably priced. THe Leica S2 uses a Kodak chip 45mm by 30mm and rather less reasonably priced.
Anyone care to explain.....
-
The Pentax features 'automatic red dot removal'.
-
I wonder if it's because on is made by Leica and the other is made by Pentax?
Michael
-
So the Pentax 645D uses a Kodak chip 44mm x 33mm and is reasonably priced. The Leica S2 uses a Kodak chip 45mm by 30mm and rather less reasonably priced.
Anyone care to explain.....
Some random thoughts:
- Leica had also to develop a new line of lenses, Pentax has several on the shelf and has more time to renew designs were needed.
- Pentax expects to sell well and got a good volume discount from the sensor supplier (or fabs the sensor in license at lower cost and to own specs)
- Leica had to do more asic design as pentax had more stuff on the shelf from the SLR camera's they make
- Pentax may be happy with a smaller margin/profit per body then leica.
- I think I read that Leica has farmed out part of fabrication, maybe Pentax does much more in-house and at lower costs
- Pentax may have designed the camera for good tolerances and limited need for manual calibration, Leica maybe choose to hit higher standards but that involves more calibration
- and so forth and so forth.
-
Wouldn't be the first time there was a price discrepancy for similar CCD.... Remember the Mamiya ZD back? Same Dalsa CCD as the Aptus 22 but for something like half the price. Of course the Aptus 22 was a fantastic back with great image quality and the ZD back simply was neither.
Until we see the Pentax in the field who knows if its any good, but ultimately price will come down to...
-quality of materials
-tolerances and overall quality requirements
-desire to make a profit on the camera, or on the otherhand take a loss or just break even and use it as a marketing tool for the consumer level DSLR they sell.
-
What I find amazing (if the sensor is the same or similar) is the price difference.
The Pentax £6,300
THe Leica S2 £14,500
Now I know the Leica will be beautifully made but over £8,000 difference in cost?
-
So the Pentax 645D uses a Kodak chip 44mm x 33mm and is reasonably priced. THe Leica S2 uses a Kodak chip 45mm by 30mm and rather less reasonably priced.
Anyone care to explain.....
Well, I do not think this can really be compared. From what I know 44x33cm is a pretty "standard" chip size giving 4:3 ratio (also used in other backs e.g. Sinar eSprit 65LV), while the 45x30 was custom-made for Leica in order to preserve the 3:2 image ratio. So, economies of scale on sensors make a difference. This has nothing to do with red dot or not.
-
Well, I do not think this can really be compared. From what I know 44x33cm is a pretty "standard" chip size giving 4:3 ratio (also used in other backs e.g. Sinar eSprit 65LV), while the 45x30 was custom-made for Leica in order to preserve the 3:2 image ratio. So, economies of scale on sensors make a difference. This has nothing to do with red dot or not.
Does the chip in the pentax have microlenses? Anyhow I am relieved to read that they used a 3::4 ratio and not the same 3::2 ratio as the S2 has. This is the biggest downfall of the S2 for me. I really don't like the 3::2 ratio any more.
-
What I find amazing (if the sensor is the same or similar) is the price difference.
The Pentax £6,300
THe Leica S2 £14,500
Now I know the Leica will be beautifully made but over £8,000 difference in cost?
2:1 is pretty standard in European vs. Japanese product pricing.
Edmund
-
Anyhow I am relieved to read that they used a 3::4 ratio and not the same 3::2 ratio as the S2 has. This is the biggest downfall of the S2 for me. I really don't like the 3::2 ratio any more.
Eric, having used (and still using) Leica gear for many years with the traditional 3:2 ratio of 35mm film, I also got used to the 4:3 ratio of 645 MF film, although I still prefer by far the square 6x6 images, which make MF really stand out compared to 35mm. It is also what makes me doubt so much on the Leaf AFi-II 10 vs 7 (3:2 vs 4:3 respectively). The only gripe I have is that, when printing 4:3 MF sizes the lab uses standard 20x30cm A4 or other related A sizes (3:2), which lead to quite some crop on the top and bottom of negatives.
-
What I find amazing (if the sensor is the same or similar) is the price difference.
The Pentax £6,300
THe Leica S2 £14,500
Now I know the Leica will be beautifully made but over £8,000 difference in cost?
It's really no worse than the Sony A850 at $1999 US and the M9 at $7999 US. It is worth it to some.
-
Eric, having used (and still using) Leica gear for many years with the traditional 3:2 ratio of 35mm film, I also got used to the 4:3 ratio of 645 MF film, although I still prefer by far the square 6x6 images, which make MF really stand out compared to 35mm. It is also what makes me doubt so much on the Leaf AFi-II 10 vs 7 (3:2 vs 4:3 respectively). The only gripe I have is that, when printing 4:3 MF sizes the lab uses standard 20x30cm A4 or other related A sizes (3:2), which lead to quite some crop on the top and bottom of negatives.
I really have come to like the square format too. After using the Rollei 6000 and TLR, and some Mamiya RZ, I could not feel comfortable with the DSLR's anymore. Looking back through my earlier images I see that a lot of my 35mm shots could have been improved with less rectangular format. That's just me and my experience though. So when new cameras like the Pentax come out more square than rectangle, I'm relieved. I never would have considered the AFi-10 because of the format or the S2 for that matter.
-
I'm okay with 2:3 ratio for landscape orientation (horizontals),
but prefer 4:3 (ideally 5:4) for portrait orientation (verticals).
How Nikon solves this with their 5:4 crop mode in their D3 is genius.
-
I think digital back prices have little to do with sensor price. Few years back I contacted Kodak for MF sensor pricing (thinking I should maybe try building one myself ). To my surprise the most expensive sensors (39mp at the time) were only around $1000 more expensive the cheaper ones (22mp) and the price a fraction of the $30.000-$40.000 list price. It was also a surprise they had prices in bulks of 2, 5, 10 and 100 pieces. I had somehow imagined getting prices for maybe 100 an 1000 units. My conclusion is that MF backs sell in very low volumes and the high price is needed to cover R&D, low volume manufacturing, marketing, etc. Now we have Pentax confident enough to think they will sell thousands of units and thus making the design/manufacturing/marketing part much less part of the equation.
And I want one!
Hrannar
-
I think digital back prices have little to do with sensor price. Few years back I contacted Kodak for MF sensor pricing (thinking I should maybe try building one myself ). To my surprise the most expensive sensors (39mp at the time) were only around $1000 more expensive the cheaper ones (22mp) and the price a fraction of the $30.000-$40.000 list price. It was also a surprise they had prices in bulks of 2, 5, 10 and 100 pieces. I had somehow imagined getting prices for maybe 100 an 1000 units. My conclusion is that MF backs sell in very low volumes and the high price is needed to cover R&D, low volume manufacturing, marketing, etc. Now we have Pentax confident enough to think they will sell thousands of units and thus making the design/manufacturing/marketing part much less part of the equation.
A common misconception is that you need high prices and margins to recoop R&D. If you're able to manufacture and sell high volumes with low margins you can get the same financial results as selling low volumes with high margins - and it appears that's what Pentax is betting on.
In addition to your points, I'm confident that the main price driver of MFDBs is price discrimination*. The difference of the cost-price for each of their newer and older products are minimal, but the margins on their flag ship products are much higher than their older ones. H and P ask for tens of thousands of euros for their flag ship products because they can. Then they have products with lower specs, offering something for almost every wallet in the MFDB space.
645D might just change all that and force them to adapt to relying on volume rather than high margins to keep their contribution margins and market share.
* It's done by Canon and Nikon, and almost every industry where possible. Microsoft and Sony sold gaming consoles for years at a loss, relying on their games to cover their margins. Something like that would be harder in the photography industry: you could have proprietary lens mounts and sell dirt cheap backs but expensive lenses, but there would surely be adapters for off-brand lenses no matter how many encrypted chips you put on the back.
-
Regarding it there is also a thread on Photoclubalpha.
One idea there is that it is better to buy A850 with a comprehensive list of Sony and Zeiss lenses.
Arun Gaur
Visit My Website (http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com)
-
A common misconception is that you need high prices and margins to recoop R&D. If you're able to manufacture and sell high volumes with low margins you can get the same financial results as selling low volumes with high margins - and it appears that's what Pentax is betting on.
Same financial result for the company selling the back, but a huge difference for the company selling the sensors.
Since the sensor is the most important part in backs it would appear to me that the future of MF is in large volumes that will enable the sensor manufacturer to invest in R&D.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
There can be many aspects. It's not only the chip but the system built around. Also, the idea is not to sell products at the manufacturing cost with some margin but to sell the product at the maximum price at which enough customers are willing to pay. To be able to charge high prices you need to have features or perceptions the customer would be paying for.
Look at the Nikon 3Dx, it used to be much more expensive than the Nikon 3D or the Nikon D700. Nikon could easily put 3Dx electronics in a D700 like chassis. That would be good for customers but Nikon has little incentive to make it's technology cheaper until there is some competition. So you make a product and set the price so you can sell enough of them. You could of course increase production, but it's not really easy. Building cameras in small series requires craftmanship, and experienced craftmen don't grow on trees.
This of course also applies to Pentax. They obviously feel that they can compete at a lower price point. They can probably reuse technology from other product lines.
Regarding quality and performance against the alternatives, the market will decide. For that decision, we have to wait.
Best regards
Erik
So the Pentax 645D uses a Kodak chip 44mm x 33mm and is reasonably priced. THe Leica S2 uses a Kodak chip 45mm by 30mm and rather less reasonably priced.
Anyone care to explain.....
-
So the Pentax 645D uses a Kodak chip 44mm x 33mm and is reasonably priced. THe Leica S2 uses a Kodak chip 45mm by 30mm and rather less reasonably priced.
Anyone care to explain.....
1) Leica tend to abuse their customers (do you remember the Panaleicas? The same camera than Pana, double price).
2) Pentax only distributes and supports the camera in Japan, so costs of distribution and support are quite low. Leica tries to distribute and support the camera (at a "pro" level) worldwide, and that is very expensive.
1) and 2) explain far lower margins.
3) Pentax uses components shared with their small DSLR cameras. Those are components bought at large volumes.
2) and 3) Explains lower costs.
The S2 would be a great competitor for the real "pro" segment if the price is "correct". That strategy was discarded in favor of a chimeric "competition of titans" with Hasselblad (Will Hasselblad resist?). Now, Pentax did it.
-
going back, it was the same between a leica R6 and a Pentax 24x36... they did share the same... film !
not really surprising, not really the same body and lenses... not the same customers as well !
Anyway, i still think that Leaf backs are the way to go if image and color quality is important.
And the price is just between the pentax and the leica.
With both pentax and leica, you can't use the back on a technical camera !
-
With both pentax and leica, you can't use the back on a technical camera !
Yes, that's a big point, and also the 44x33 crop factor, but for the price...it would be criminal to ask for more.
I think that Pentax is not targeting experienced MFD o LF users but much more the high-end dslr users and the less wealthy amateurs (in a noble way).
As someone post in another room, it will allow the access to MFD to a lot more people, but their target is not the professional who has already invested in others and more versatiles systems. In that sense I do not think it will be a game changer if we talk about a possible threat for Hasselblad and Phase etc...
Yes it will probably be a game changer in bringing more people less experienced or less wealphy to MF, and that is a good point.
But then, its direct competitors are not willing to be the high-end MFD as expected but probably the next generation of FF from Canon and Nikon (and Sony??? what the truck is doing Sony in 35mm FF ?), and these, have already a lot of lenses and accesories, and that is where Pentax will have to work seriously: the lenses.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
1) Leica tend to abuse their customers (do you remember the Panaleicas? The same camera than Pana, double price).
Double price? When I compared prices at the time when I bought several of the Leica/Panasonic digital compacts there was some price difference, but never to that extent.
-
as much as i dislike the same camera for twice the price there area few differences.
The best example is service / warratee.
i own an lc1 with a failed chip out of warratee.
It was clearly a faulty chip as this happened in large numbers.
Leica replaced their customers chips for free Panasonic did not.
Double price? When I compared prices at the time when I bought several of the Leica/Panasonic digital compacts there was some price difference, but never to that extent.
-
The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?
Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?
Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
-
The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?
Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?
Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
This comes up almost every week here. The 2 last bits on every single 16-bit camera are marketing hype, and do not contain useful information due to A/D converter noise - this is what I've gathered here from those with much deeper technical knowledge.
-
One thing that impress me the most is that the high ISO is far superior to other MF backs, here is a crop (@100%) at 800 ASA from the Pentax 645D. The other thing I like is the all weather seal body which make this to be one of the cheapest MF camera on the market so far (Leica S2 is the other also has an all weather body).
The bit depth is all theoretical, once on print, no one can tell the difference. The camera is quiet and light, in terms of operation, I'll say this is one of the easiest MF to use to date, the option is easily accessible, I have printed a 60" x 40" print from a jpeg file and it looked stunning.
-
Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
My aunt used to say that the 16 bits cakes she was cooking did taste better, but my uncle could never measure the gap.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I don't really think it's a question of bits, more like sensor cooling, signal processing, pattern noise elimination, calibration and so on.
In my view the Pentax may redefine the MF market, if execution is good enough. DxO data on the Pentax 645D is pretty impressive, much better than the Hasselblad H3 DII 39 but not as good as the Phase One P40+. (I include the DR figure, but it also applies to the other graphs).
I also compared with the Nikon D3X on the pixel level. It is quiet obvious that the Nikon sensor and ASIC achieves about 13 steps of "engineering DR" while the Hassy and the Pentax are just below 12 bits. That should really settle the 14 bits vs. 16 bits issue.
It seems, from DxO data, that Pentax did a decent job with the Kodak sensor they are using. Now engineering DR is something that can be measured. In real photography other things count a lot. What about mechanical tolerances, lens quality, AF-precision and internal baffling?
Best regards
Erik
The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?
Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?
Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
-
The chip is similar but didn't I read on DP, the Pentax is only 14bit?
Are all the new 40Mpx 14 bit or is it just Pentax's choice?
Today after harshly abusing a purposely shot highly coloured image, there is a lot of noise and patterns showing up. I assume that 16 bit would have a huge advantage in this. IF true , then I would have to opt for a MF at 16 bit as all the Hasselblads I tested , Phase, Leaf etc.
I guess since they are using the pipeline from their SLR the pipe is 14bit including the A/D. So I don't think it necessary have to do any thing with the sensor.
-
I guess since they are using the pipeline from their SLR the pipe is 14bit including the A/D. So I don't think it necessary have to do any thing with the sensor.
Indeed: the Kodak sensor chips produce analog output in the form of a charge from each photosite, with the camera maker then adding off-chip processing including first charge-to-voltage conversion (possibly of variable gain to adjust "ISO") and then A/D conversion. And as said elsewhere, any bits beyond #14 (and probably #13 and #12 too) are noise anyway.
-
I wonder if it's because on is made by Leica and the other is made by Pentax?
Michael
I find this really captures it; some people read consumer reports, shot at Best buy and consider many purchases from a price/performance POV. Others get both pleasure as well as function from purchases. They find that certain brands just 'fit' their likes and give them pleasure. Over time, some may shift as the brand drifts from what you like or your taste changes.
Regardless, what happens is that a group of buyers who can take the factor of two in price difference never even worry if the "$8000" is worth it, because, if they want the product they will pay, until it is 'unreachable' (or the S.O. say "WTF, you paid WHAT for that!!!?" )
I haven't tried the Pentax, and shoot with the Contax 645 and P65+, yet, with the ergonomics and over 'feel', and a brand trust (not layalty) that the S2 system is going to "Please me" I am seriously considereing it.
The "value proposition" for Leica will always be on pleasure-+-function, not just 'frunction' basis. as with many items-if the brand pleases YOU then it is actually worth it.
regards
Victor
-
The mosaic values for both cameras are 14 bit.
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers has reviewed the Leica S2 in the field. He says that the lenses he tested are magnificent, although a few of the lenses he tested were broken. He writes that the Leica lenses are in a different league than Hasselblad lenses and has MTF-curves to prove it.
He found both cameras to impossible to focus, however. When the Leica is in focus the images are fantastic.
Just to point out, Mark Dubovoy, who is also a sharpness and accuracy freak found that the Leica S2 focuses very well. So we have two very knowledgeable persons arriving at opposite experience regarding AF on the Leica. I actually suggest that both authors know what they are doing, and both are right in their findings. It may be sample differences and/or differences in shooting methodology.
Lloyd Chambers article is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaS2/index.html
DAP is a pay site, but I find it to be worth every penny.
Best regards
Erik
I find this really captures it; some people read consumer reports, shot at Best buy and consider many purchases from a price/performance POV. Others get both pleasure as well as function from purchases. They find that certain brands just 'fit' their likes and give them pleasure. Over time, some may shift as the brand drifts from what you like or your taste changes.
Regardless, what happens is that a group of buyers who can take the factor of two in price difference never even worry if the "$8000" is worth it, because, if they want the product they will pay, until it is 'unreachable' (or the S.O. say "WTF, you paid WHAT for that!!!?" )
I haven't tried the Pentax, and shoot with the Contax 645 and P65+, yet, with the ergonomics and over 'feel', and a brand trust (not layalty) that the S2 system is going to "Please me" I am seriously considereing it.
The "value proposition" for Leica will always be on pleasure-+-function, not just 'frunction' basis. as with many items-if the brand pleases YOU then it is actually worth it.
regards
Victor
-
He writes that the Leica lenses are in a different league than Hasselblad lenses and has MTF-curves to prove it.
Charts are all fine and dandy, but have you ever looked at an image taken with a Hasselblad 100 2.2 or the 35-90 F4 @ 100%? They are ridiculously sharp and little CA, and the colors are fantastic. If what he says about the Leica lenses are true, i'm sure we'll all be hearing more about it soon from different sources.
However, I just cannot fathom a lens being THAT much better than the Hassy's, they are truly fantastic.
-
Hi,
Lloyd has some very impressive images shot with the Hasselblad in the Yosemite. At least they impress me. On the other hand he was also shooting the Leica S2 on the same trip. Both cameras had issues, but Lloyd was very clear that the S2-lenses were another class. Keep in mimd that Lloyd has experience with some of the finest lenses ever built, like The Coastal Optics 60 mm APO and also some of the Leica Apo lenses.
Unfortunately, Lloyd's site is a pay site. I would love to link to hist articles, but most are subscribers only.
Best regards
Erik
Charts are all fine and dandy, but have you ever looked at an image taken with a Hasselblad 100 2.2 or the 35-90 F4 @ 100%? They are ridiculously sharp and little CA, and the colors are fantastic. If what he says about the Leica lenses are true, i'm sure we'll all be hearing more about it soon from different sources.
However, I just cannot fathom a lens being THAT much better than the Hassy's, they are truly fantastic.
-
Hi,
Lloyd has some very impressive images shot with the Hasselblad in the Yosemite. At least they impress me. On the other hand he was also shooting the Leica S2 on the same trip. Both cameras had issues, but Lloyd was very clear that the S2-lenses were another class. Keep in mimd that Lloyd has experience with some of the finest lenses ever built, like The Coastal Optics 60 mm APO and also some of the Leica Apo lenses.
Unfortunately, Lloyd's site is a pay site. I would love to link to hist articles, but most are subscribers only.
Best regards
Erik
Can you elaborate a little more? I understand you have to respect the copyright of the site owner; but in general terms what does he means by "that the S2-lenses were another class"? is he talking about build quality? image quality?.
From his site Loyd Cambers appear to have a good investment in Leica (time mastering etc). If that is the case, his opinions should be very, very relevant.
A simple question, in this context the "Hasselblad" is the H4D-40?
Thanks.
-
Hi,
The camera he used was a Hasselblad H4D-50 on loan from Hasselblad USA along with HC 100mm f/2.2 and HCD 28mm f/4.
My impression is that what he says is that:
Both cameras have issues with achieving optimal focus, but when accurate focus has been achieved the two HC lenses are not as good as the sensor in the Hasselblad. The Leica lenses are almost as good as it gets.
Lloyd has extensive experience with lenses, like Zeiss lenses on Nikon and Leica lenses on Canon using adapters and some absolutely astonishing quality lenses from Coastal Optics. That said, he has a limited experience with MF. He has done extensive testing with S2, and may even consider buying it. But he has issues with focusing. His experience with the Hasselblad is less immersive.
He has a lot of sample images, but no "A/B" comparison between the two systems. To put it shortly, in his view:
- The Leica optics are as good as it gets
- Achieving correct focus with either camera is a real challenge
- The Leica works better for the kind of work he does
Added: November 13
I have revisited the DAP article. Lloyd used the 28 HCD 28/4 and the HC100/2. The 28/4 lens had a misalignment issue but the HC100/2 was OK. He found the HC100/2 to be very sharp at the center but lacking sharpness on edge and corners. He has actual pixel samples clearly showing the problems.
Now, he could obviously have two bad samples on loan from Hasselblad USA. He often finds issue with equipment. On the other hand Lloyd says that his findings are consistent with MTF-s published by Hasselblad and Leica. Lloyd has tested a lot of equipment and has a lot of input from Zeiss and Brian Caldwell (the designer of the Coastal Optics 60/4 APO lens), so he feels he is competent enough to interpret MTF charts.
Best regards
Erik
Can you elaborate a little more? I understand you have to respect the copyright of the site owner; but in general terms what does he means by "that the S2-lenses were another class"? is he talking about build quality? image quality?.
From his site Loyd Cambers appear to have a good investment in Leica (time mastering etc). If that is the case, his opinions should be very, very relevant.
A simple question, in this context the "Hasselblad" is the H4D-40?
Thanks.
-
I have revisited the DAP article. Lloyd used the 28 HCD 28/4 and the HC100/2. The 28/4 lens had a misalignment issue but the HC100/2 was OK. He found the HC100/2 to be very sharp at the center but lacking sharpness on edge and corners. He has actual pixel samples clearly showing the problems.
Thanks a lot. Some times I feel that as quality of the medium format systems grow, the modular design will be forced out of the mainstream.
At a lowering price is very difficult to have align system at this level. And that is today, with 80mpixels sensors at the top and the entry level at 10~15K.
Plus we have the issues with wether protection and the attraction of a system like the Leica to the far more numerous 35mm SLR users.
The problem with technology is resource starvation. If the integrated systems like the Leica and the Pentax sale in significantly larger numbers than the modular systems they will have to compete with far less resources, and they will fail. Even if they remain better, the difference will diminish each day and the appeal of the integrated systems from 35mm houses will increase. Phase one has proved to be a powerful competitor on the high end. They are not slowing down, even as a joke. But on the low end is more complicated. If the Pentax experiment works, I can see Canon or less likely Nikon entering and that could easy become the end of the current MF vendors. On the other hand, massive Pentax sales could trigger and alliance bwt a medium format camera builder and some of the SRL companies. Ok end of rambling. None of this, if ever happen, will do so overnight.