Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Atina on January 29, 2014, 06:15:18 am
-
Why do you think The New Leica S is a camera less mentioned and with low adoptions rated, apart from its price? Is it a case of offering too little for too much? Is it a camera for "rich orthodontists", with insufficient usability for "real pros", whatever your definition of a "pro" is?
What do you find to be its advantages, and what its flaws?
Do you know of any professional photographers who use it as their main workhorse camera?
-
Why do you think The New Leica S is a camera less mentioned and with low adoptions rated, apart from its price? Is it a case of offering too little for too much? Is it a camera for "rich orthodontists", with insufficient usability for "real pros", whatever your definition of a "pro" is?
The user base on this forum is not so large, but it's a good system. The 30 x 45 mm sensor is not always considered 'real' MF. The S lenses are very good, no question. It's a relatively new system but it gets more and more regocnition amongst 'pro's' and 'highend amateurs' alike.
Do you know of any professional photographers who use it as their main workhorse camera?
http://s-league.net/ceemes/en/home.html
-
Why do you think The New Leica S is a camera less mentioned and with low adoptions rated, apart from its price? Is it a case of offering too little for too much? Is it a camera for "rich orthodontists", with insufficient usability for "real pros", whatever your definition of a "pro" is?
What do you find to be its advantages, and what its flaws?
Do you know of any professional photographers who use it as their main workhorse camera?
I moved from Hasselblad to the Leica S a year and a half ago, shooting architecture tethered with Leica Image Shuttle 2 and LR5. Rock solid reliable, never ever a crash while tethered or a lens connection issue, (two things that beleaguered me for many years with H), beautiful color, exceptional lenses from center to edge, batteries that last forever, excellent and supportive dealer network, and it's completely weather proof (which proved useful for an exterior shoot in Canada where it snowed and sleeted for days). Yeah, it's my workhorse.
-
I moved from Hasselblad to the Leica S a year and a half ago, shooting architecture tethered with Leica Image Shuttle 2 and LR5. Rock solid reliable, never ever a crash while tethered or a lens connection issue, (two things that beleaguered me for many years with H), beautiful color, exceptional lenses from center to edge, batteries that last forever, excellent and supportive dealer network, and it's completely weather proof (which proved useful for an exterior shoot in Canada where it snowed and sleeted for days). Yeah, it's my workhorse.
Did you continue to use your Hasselblad lenses with an adapter? Or switch entirely to Leica lenses?
-
The draw of the leica s lenses is exceptional, truly 3 dimensional, with superb micro contrast.
The camera itself is extremely comfortable-- the handling of a pro dsrl with the output of MF.
The ergonomics are excellent, simplicity itself. You can concentrate on your image and not on
the camera per se. I use it professionally for landscapes, abstracts, old buildings, etc. (not
studio, fashion or product). It is definitely a pro camera. See www.rudlinfineart.com under
galleries-> portfolios and then look at iceland, carrie furnace, old cars, old trucks as these
portfolios were shot with the Leica S2.
-
Personally I would never even consider the Leica S, simply for the 2:3 aspect ratio which I really dislike.
-
I moved from Hasselblad to the Leica S a year and a half ago, shooting architecture tethered with Leica Image Shuttle 2 and LR5.
What are you using for perspective control - post processing?
-
Did you continue to use your Hasselblad lenses with an adapter? Or switch entirely to Leica lenses?
Initially I used my H lenses and HTS with the s->h adapter. That was fine, but eventually I bought the 30-90 Elmar-S, truly an exceptional zoom, then a 24 Elmar-S.
-
I have used ad handled the Leica S and a few Lenses briefly. It is an excellent DSLR. Wow. The body feels very high quality, ditto the lenses. But the image quality of the sensor is not extraordinary although it is very good. In the end since I wanted a system mainly for landscapes I chose the IQ160 which had image quality well above and beyond the Leica S. But If I were looking for a system for photographing mainly people but also some architecture and landscape in a wide range of situations the Leica S is a really good choice (Mainly because of the Lenses and also the AF and handling). For the ultimate in Image Quality the PhaseOne backs are still the choice though. Some people do prefer a weather sealed, integrated system and so far the Leica S is the best of that type. Me I wanted/needed the versatility of a digital back which I can use on a SLR body but also on a tech camera whenever I want.
-
Personally I would never even consider the Leica S, simply for the 2:3 aspect ratio which I really dislike.
I agree completely, especially 2:3 verticals. It's a deal-breaker. Man, I wish they would add another 4mm to the short side of the sensor, making it 45 x 34. Obviously the lenses have the image circle. Of course it would involve some body changes, but it would make it a lot more appealing. As it is, I'd be cropping it down to a 4:3 ratio, effectively making the useful part of the sensor 40 x 30, only a few mm bigger than 35mm in either dimension. Not worth it.
-
What are you using for perspective control - post processing?
For some years I've used the HTS with Hasselblads and Phocus. Just fine. I found the HTS also worked with the Leica (even had auto focus working with the HTS, 28 & 35 and Leica!) along with post in LR5, and final work in CS6 - No Phocus and DAC of course. But my evaluation was that the HTS, in conjunction with H lenses (even with the Phocus DAC corrections), has never delivered as good a file as The Leica and the S lenses on their own with LR5 and pc post. But that's just me. Everyone has their own position on this. I work the way that's comfortable for me, that delivers what I consider superb images. AND I like to work efficiently, so although I come from decades of view camera experience (Linhof, Sinar, Arca), technical cameras were never a direction I wanted "revert" to. You could say I've found my work flow "sweet spot" with the Leica S.
-
Interesting, thanks. I agree that all things considered, post-correction is sometimes the best choice.
-
I just bought an S2 as my main still camera, mostly to use with my contax lenses.
I thought about the 2:3, went through a body or recent images for the last few years and 67% were shot horizontal, so though I like a 43 format, the facts are the facts, we're now working in a horizontal world, at least I am.
It made me think why even go from 35mm if I was going to shoot 2:3 bud I did it for the look of the file, no other reason. Detail is fine, I'm not a pixel staring, graph making guy, I just look at the image.
But remember if your cropping a 2:3 Leica down to 4:3, you doing the same with a dslr so there is a difference in frame size, but once again, I bought the camera for the look of the file, not microscoptic study.
Now I will follow this answer with a lot of words so if you don't won't to read any further then . . . to cut to the chase, the S2 with my Contax lenses, really is the finest still camera I've used. It has beautiful build quality, very analog in it's methods (which is good and bad) and shoots a beautiful file.
So far, and I've only had it a few days, the focus is as good if not better than the Contax, the lenses to body are completely sharp and the screen is large and detailed enough to manually focus.
It also shoots the some of the prettiest skin tones out of camera I've seen.
I've tested it with my 35mm, 45mm, 55mm 80mm, 120mm, 140mm and 210mm contax zeiss, all fine, sharp and pretty. I've also used the pentax 67x lenses and the beautiful Hasselblad manual focus 110 F2. That lens is beautiful and the S2 is the only ovf camera I can routinely hit focus with shooting on manual focus.
The cameras is substantial but physically not as large as my Canon 1dx, it does feel different.
The only concern I had was the 2:3 format as I like 4:3 for stills, but today we shoot so much horizontal, that's not an issue.
So far in early testing 640 iso is easy, 800 is good I think It can go higher once I work it in post processing.
The Contax lenses are fast and obviously so are the Leica lenses and I'll probably add some Leica lenses to my Contax Zeiss lenses, but so far I'm covered across the range.
The lcd is pretty, not 2 million pixel detailed, but very good very pretty, easy to check focus.
The camera is great to hold and shoot. It's just feels like pure quality and I hope will last, as it seems very robust.
So far I'm a fan, I love that it extended the life of my contax lenses which I think are the best medium format lenses available, to this day. I'm always amazed at how sharp and modern they are after all these years.
The S2 will also bring my contax cameras back into play which are still amazing cameras.
If the camera has any liability it's the fact that it's under advertised and I think the worry about how expensive anything with the word leica is.
It's really a good deal in medium format terms and Leica glass is not that more expensive than most.
In testing it shoots smooth with the same results as the contax in regards to vibration in mirror and shutter, which is a heck of a feat considering how smooth the Contax is, so unless something drastically changes I think the S2 is a heck of a deal.
I haven't tethered it yet, I hear it's a little slow in tethering, but that's not the main goal and instant tethering isn't high on my list for a lot of reasons I don't want to go into here.
I also bought it at this time because I like the CCD look, find it special and I would guess Leica will go to cmos, so I thought i'd buy when the buying time is right.
Actually the only cmos cameras whose file I like is the Olympus omds and the RED cameras. Everything else is just kind of ok, but doesn't look special out of camera, or in heavy post.
I'll probably add another body as I always have two of everything.
_____________________________________
One note, I'd like to see Phase open C-1 to the Leica. Not because I dislike lightroom, I actually like it a lot, but since I will use the Leica in parallel to my contax/phase backs It would be easier to use the same suite for both cameras, but I guess I'll just set presets for my phase backs in lightroom and only use lightroom db for tethering on the contax and set a hold folder from C-1 to lightroom so I can keep everything in the same suite.
I think this is somewhat Ironic that Leica really does have the most open platform, as it accepts with smart lens adapters; Hasselblad H and V, Contax and Mamiya lenses.
It's kind of funny that phase made a stink about Hasselblad locking out their system, but Leica opens it's body up to everyone's lenses with full functionality while phase locked out hasselblad and Leica with C-1.
That's a business strategy that makes no sense given they open their software up to their largest competitors Nikon and Canon (especially the d800) and that's their call, though I doubt seriously if I upgrade c-1 after this as there is no reason for the cameras I now use.
_____________________________________
I bought the S2 it from Steve Hendrix at Capture integration so in the U.S. I have zero worries about repairs as Steve stands behind everything, but I know in visiting the Leica store in London, they will bend over backwards to find ways to accommodate you.
Leica wants very much for this camera to succeed.
If I have any issue with Leica it's the same I have with most companies in that tethering is not high on their list with smaller cameras like the M series. Same with Olympus and Fuji.
(this is a shame because the Leica M ccd cameras work beautifully with studio flash like profoto. The skintones are just killer good and so far the S2 is a very close match.
If the M series would tether, I could go totally Leica for all my still cameras.
I do know that as far as today this is the end of the line for me on Canon and Nikon. I've never liked their cmos look, though learned to work around it, so today I don't have to.
With the Leicas, Olympus, Contax for stills Panasonic and RED for motion, I have no reason to continue with full frame 35mm.
The Contax and S2 will use my Zeiss lenses, the Olympus, Panasonic and RED can use my Leica M lenses and that's a huge savings in weight and usability.
I will keep my PL's for one of my RED's and the micro 43 lenses for the olympus and panasonic for autofocus, (though they're so small they take up no space when traveling.
Though I'm early in the process, I'm guessing the S2 will probably be my main still camera, because it will cover so much territory.
The only downside to the S2 is as I expand my lens range I guess I'll get lured into the Leica buy a lens system, but there are worst things.
IMO
BC
-
You forgot electrical engineers ;)
No but seriously its a great camera, especially if you wan't medium format without all the fiddly bits. Of course, thats why most people want medium format, the fiddly bits. But it has superior lenses, great adapters (especially for the Hasselblad H-lenses). If you don't need full-frame then its really a great choice. If you don't need to take the back off of your camera its even better. Currently I think its sensor tech is its weakest point since I believe its still the original sensor (though that was still very good, and if its a new sensor someone is more then welcome to correct me). You can check out some of my early thoughts on that camera here: http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2011/12/07/leica-store-mayfair-and-leica-s2-in-depth-review-2/ and also head over to the flickr for ISO range sample and some other images I think.
Honestly, It was between the Leica S2 and the PhaseOne IQ180 when I upgraded from my Hasselblad H3Dii system and the only reason PhaseOne won was because it offered substantially more for the money. For the same money as it would've taken to sell my Hasselblad and build a reasonable Leica S kit, I got a PhaseOne IQ180 + 645DF and 80mm f/2.8 lens and not to mention use of all the Mamiya lenses that I already had from shooting film on the 645AFD and not to mentioned a full-frame 80mp open system medium format digital back versus a <40mp crop sensor in a DSLR body. So needless to say IQ180 wound up winning though it was a difficult decision at the time.
I think as Hasselbald sinks more users will be using the Leica S adapter to retain use of their excellent lenses and be able to enter the S system at a highly affordable price point.
-
What's the difference between the first and second version of the S? There were some AF issues, I remember, but for all I know they were solved by an update?
Edmund
-
I believe version I added like GPS support, maybe some other small features, no real aesthetic changes, and prob some new firmware. I don't think there was anything ground breaking if memory serves.
-
Why do you think The New Leica S is a camera less mentioned
More often than not people post on a photography forum when they have a problem.
-
I agree completely, especially 2:3 verticals. It's a deal-breaker. Man, I wish they would add another 4mm to the short side of the sensor, making it 45 x 34. Obviously the lenses have the image circle. Of course it would involve some body changes, but it would make it a lot more appealing. As it is, I'd be cropping it down to a 4:3 ratio, effectively making the useful part of the sensor 40 x 30, only a few mm bigger than 35mm in either dimension. Not worth it.
When I first started thinking about upgrading to MF, The Leica was of course, something I looked at. But it has several deal breakers for me.
As mentioned above, I DESPISE 3:2. I don't like looking through a 3:2 viewfinder. Every time I shot with my Bronica ETRSi, I enjoyed it a lot more than my DSLRs because I like looking at the world in 4:3. Every single one of my DSLR shots get cropped down, so in a way, I was paying for pixels I didn't need.
Second is the form factor. I may be the weird one here, but I actually prefer the traditional MF form factor over the 35mm DSLR form factor. I like how the back is a "Counterweight" to the lens. I like the modular approach. Basically, the S2 has none of the things I like about medium format.
Regarding the files, I'm sure BC here would disagree (And he shoots a bazillion times better images than me so he might very well be right), I don't quite see the "MF magic" in the S2 files. Sure it's better than 35mm files, but not "Knock my socks off" better.
I also love (and prefer) working with Capture One Pro. Obviously not an option with the S2.
Lastly, at least in this market, the LS lenses are overpriced even by MF standards.
These are the things that made the S2 a non-option for me. But that's a personal opinion and I am sure it fits perfectly into the workflow of some others.
-
What's the difference between the first and second version of the S? There were some AF issues, I remember, but for all I know they were solved by an update?
Edmund
The S has a better AF sensor/system (more accurate and sensitive), larger and better quality rear LCD screen, GPS, small joystick in the rear, expanded iso range to 100-1600 (don't know if the tweaked the electronics or just enabled it through firmware) and new menu look + a few more features in the menu.
I think that is about it.
-
And I like square. Am I the only one who loved the Hassy SQUARE?
J hasn't shown us any of those wonderful S files yet, although he writes very poetically about them :)
Edmund
When I first started thinking about upgrading to MF, The Leica was of course, something I looked at. But it has several deal breakers for me.
As mentioned above, I DESPISE 3:2. I don't like looking through a 3:2 viewfinder. Every time I shot with my Bronica ETRSi, I enjoyed it a lot more than my DSLRs because I like looking at the world in 4:3. Every single one of my DSLR shots get cropped down, so in a way, I was paying for pixels I didn't need.
Second is the form factor. I may be the weird one here, but I actually prefer the traditional MF form factor over the 35mm DSLR form factor. I like how the back is a "Counterweight" to the lens. I like the modular approach. Basically, the S2 has none of the things I like about medium format.
Regarding the files, I'm sure BC here would disagree (And he shoots a bazillion times better images than me so he might very well be right), I don't quite see the "MF magic" in the S2 files. Sure it's better than 35mm files, but not "Knock my socks off" better.
I also love (and prefer) working with Capture One Pro. Obviously not an option with the S2.
Lastly, at least in this market, the LS lenses are overpriced even by MF standards.
These are the things that made the S2 a non-option for me. But that's a personal opinion and I am sure it fits perfectly into the workflow of some others.
-
And I like square. Am I the only one who loved the Hassy SQUARE?
J hasn't shown us any of those wonderful S files yet, although he writes very poetically about them :)
Edmund
No, you are not: I loved it too, and still do.
2x3 format is pleasing for horizontals, but too thin for verticals. I remember that in all my full-page fashion shots I had to lose height out of 135mm film... that was risky! Or I had to lose sides in 6x6, so you never win. What was delightful about 6x6 was the camera stayed put on the tripod and you didn't have to fight gravity and turning forces about a screw doing verticals with heavy lenses.
However, even if you don't have to fit verticals to pages, a vertical 2x3 still looks uncomfortable simply as a print on its own. IMO.
Rob C
-
Format can indeed create some angst.
I'm looking for digital back upgrade, either CFV-50 or Aptus-II 10. The CFV is the worse feature-wise but it's 4:3, while the Aptus is 3.1:2 (ie even wider than 3:2)... Haven't decided yet, but my feeling this day is that the format is more important that the other features. Sure I can crop, but the framing experience when shooting is more pleasing if it's closer to the target format.
-
I haven't tethered it yet, I hear it's a little slow in tethering, but that's not the main goal and instant tethering isn't high on my list for a lot of reasons I don't want to go into here.
If I have any issue with Leica it's the same I have with most companies in that tethering is not high on their list with smaller cameras like the M series. Same with Olympus and Fuji.
(this is a shame because the Leica M ccd cameras work beautifully with studio flash like profoto. The skintones are just killer good and so far the S2 is a very close match.
If the M series would tether, I could go totally Leica for all my still cameras.
I agree that Leica needs continue their effort to enhance the tethered experience. As mentioned, I use the S/S2 tethered pretty much exclusively. Yes, it's a bit slower than Hasselblad with FW800, but really not that noticeable, but then I'm not shooting in a rapid fire fashion either. I would hope/expect that the next version of the S (which will likely be CMOS) will have at least USB3.0 if not TB (TB probably a pipe dream). The flow with Leica Image Shuttle 2 (which offers full control over the camera) and LR5 is extremely stable.
As for the M's and tethering, sadly the M9 can't be tethered, but the M240 (CMOS) can currently be tethered with the addition of their grip, but I'm unfamiliar with it at this point. It was in using an M9 that I became interested in the S2 originally - just loved the files the M9 produced. And now I have an M as well, and will eventually begin to use it tethered, but I have to say I'm just plain spoiled by the S system. Did I mention how how impressive the lenses were......? ;)
-
I gotta admit... the S2 is damn sexy. I kinda want one. I may have a camera problem...
-
What's the difference between the first and second version of the S? There were some AF issues, I remember, but for all I know they were solved by an update?
Edmund
There were actually 80 improvements from the S2 to the S (Typ 006). The biggest ones were:
- All of the internal electronics were updated, resulting in increased DR, lower noise, better detail and the ability to push the files a bit more in post
- Brand new in-house AF sensor and AF algorithms with faster and more accurate AF performance, and which incorporate white balance in order to perform better in artificially-lit, low-light scenarios
- Built-in GPS which automatically sets time and time zone - handy for frequent world travelers and landscape photographers working in remote areas
- Virtual horizon - both on rear LCD and always-on one in the viewfinder LED display
- Slightly larger viewfinder with 98% coverage
- ISO displayed in viewfinder
- Joystick control for easy navigation
- Expanded ISO range with improved quality at base ISO and less noise at higher settings
- 922,000 pixel rear LCD with Gorilla Glass with true 8-bit per pixel color rendering and capable of displaying 100% sRGB gamut
- Revamped GUI with easier navigation
- Doubled buffer memory from 1GB to 2GB, allowing for 30-32 shot DNG bursts - now can shoot about 60 frames per minute
Separate of technical improvements, Leica also improved on the warranty. The S2 came with a 1-year standard warranty and the S2-P came with a 2-year Platinum Warranty. The S (Typ 006) now comes with a 3-year warranty and provides for a loaner camera during any repair, standard, in addition to the 90-day hot swap replacement for any initial defects.
There are some other really nice firmware improvements as well. For a full write-up on all the changes and additional features, you can check out my coverage from Photokina when the S was introduced:
Photokina 2012: Day 2 - The Leica S (Part 1) (http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/279-Photokina-2012-Day-2-The-Leica-S-(Part-1))
-
I looked at the S vs. the S2 and most things didn't interest me that much, like gorilla glass, gps and the virtual horizon. I can line things up and in focus testing, I couldn't tell much if any difference.
Not that I don't find an S worth it, I jsut bought now because I assumed the next S or for that matter the next anything would have a cmos sensor and that I'm not that wild about the cmos look.
Buying the S2 wasn't a hard leap for me as I already had full Contax lenses and the adapter and autofocus actually works well, (which is rarely the case in these situations), so my buy in was decent.
I'll probably buy one of two Leica lenses, mainly the 120 as that's a manual focus lens in Contax land and f4 in contax land so it makes sense.
Later I might add an S, though I'll wait for the early adopters to jump on a cmos S and buy the ccd version.
The only price issues are the same as any photographic item. Small things like batteries, charges, are high but then again anything with the tag photographic is always high.
Great camera though and I can put m 110 f2 Zeiss lens on it and shoot 9 out of 10 frames in focus working manually. I could never do that with the contax prism and wouldn't dare trying that with a 35mm dslr, without live view.
Also it's a leica. That means something positive to some people, to some it's a negative.
But the bottom line to me is not the brand or the format, or even the form factor. I can use any camera and am just as comfortable using the 43 olympus, a RED and my Contax as I am the Leica.
What the Leica allowed me was to extend the life of my contax lenses and bodies. It just offered more opportunity to work with medium format in areas that usually fall under 35mm domain.
iMO
BC
There were actually 80 improvements from the S2 to the S (Typ 006). The biggest ones were:
- All of the internal electronics were updated, resulting in increased DR, lower noise, better detail and the ability to push the files a bit more in post
- Brand new in-house AF sensor and AF algorithms with faster and more accurate AF performance, and which incorporate white balance in order to perform better in artificially-lit, low-light scenarios
- Built-in GPS which automatically sets time and time zone - handy for frequent world travelers and landscape photographers working in remote areas
- Virtual horizon - both on rear LCD and always-on one in the viewfinder LED display
- Slightly larger viewfinder with 98% coverage
- ISO displayed in viewfinder
- Joystick control for easy navigation
- Expanded ISO range with improved quality at base ISO and less noise at higher settings
- 922,000 pixel rear LCD with Gorilla Glass with true 8-bit per pixel color rendering and capable of displaying 100% sRGB gamut
- Revamped GUI with easier navigation
- Doubled buffer memory from 1GB to 2GB, allowing for 30-32 shot DNG bursts - now can shoot about 60 frames per minute
Separate of technical improvements, Leica also improved on the warranty. The S2 came with a 1-year standard warranty and the S2-P came with a 2-year Platinum Warranty. The S (Typ 006) now comes with a 3-year warranty and provides for a loaner camera during any repair, standard, in addition to the 90-day hot swap replacement for any initial defects.
There are some other really nice firmware improvements as well. For a full write-up on all the changes and additional features, you can check out my coverage from Photokina when the S was introduced:
Photokina 2012: Day 2 - The Leica S (Part 1) (http://www.reddotforum.com/content.php/279-Photokina-2012-Day-2-The-Leica-S-(Part-1))
-
There were actually 80 improvements from the S2 to the S
Actually, there is a lesson to be learned from Fuji and olympus. They both have gone back to generation old cameras and upgraded them for free using firmware.
The omd em-5 just receive smaller and better focus points, faster autofocus and the use of an ad on 2 million dot evf (which is like a $200 item).
I think Fuji went back two or three generations to improve their cameras.
This tells me a lot about a company and makes me less hesitant to invest.
When I bought my M8 it would tether. Albiet it would tether 5 frames then crash, but it would tether, then the whole idea was dropped. Had they adopted the olympus/fuji business model it would probably tether better today than the day I bought it.
But to tell you the truth, except for the smaller less expensive cameras I'm really not an early adopter with anything electronic. We're under too much pressure to be beta testers and as much as this stuff costs, even less expensive cameras, it make no sense to constantly upgrade every time a press release is announced.
I'm all for improving the breed, but more lens options, for secure firmware, added camera functions mean as much to a professional as 10 more megapixels.
I think we are now into a territory where format is not that relevant. Use and final quality is. When I pull out a little 4/3 camera or the S2 no client ever asks me about megapixels, cmos, vs. ccd, iso, viewfinders, they just care about what comes up on the screen and honestly when I put the olympus to my eye, I don't see it as 1/2 the frame of a 35mm I just see it as a 4:3 format camera and I shoot.
We all know below the skin of these cameras is the mechanics of the terminator. Cameras may look like their film counterparts but in reality there just computers with a lens. It's nice the options we have, I like the retro look that is present today, but we all know that the only thing that matters is the result and even inexpensive cameras like the 4/3 system get expensive once you go to back ups and multiple lens options. You can drop 10 grand on this little cameras before you know it and in medium format world where ten grand is just the used starting point, it's still a fairly big hit.
My point, if Leica or any company wants to prove that the is is in it for the long haull, take a page out of olympus and fuji's book and keep improving their previous cameras.
But then again, it's a great camera, so wtf.
IMO
BC
-
So far we have seen no images from J, our resident philosographer.
In the mean time, I have located an interesting review of the original Leica S2.
It is interesting to me because like me this guy had a Phase back, like me he had enduring focus issues with the Phamiya, although he found the Phamiya files wonderful.
And again like me this guy has a 1Ds3; anyone who has a 1Ds3 knows what solid usable camera equipment feels like, what a good finder looks like, and what a decent 35mm file should look like :)
I suggest people take the time to read the review - and the postscript page 5; I can assure people here that any camera that has a better finder than the Canon 1Ds3 has a very, very very good finder.
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Review/Leica_S2_Page_1.html
Edmund
Actually, there is a lesson to be learned from Fuji and olympus. They both have gone back to generation old cameras and upgraded them for free using firmware.
The omd em-5 just receive smaller and better focus points, faster autofocus and the use of an ad on 2 million dot evf (which is like a $200 item).
I think Fuji went back two or three generations to improve their cameras.
This tells me a lot about a company and makes me less hesitant to invest.
When I bought my M8 it would tether. Albiet it would tether 5 frames then crash, but it would tether, then the whole idea was dropped. Had they adopted the olympus/fuji business model it would probably tether better today than the day I bought it.
But to tell you the truth, except for the smaller less expensive cameras I'm really not an early adopter with anything electronic. We're under too much pressure to be beta testers and as much as this stuff costs, even less expensive cameras, it make no sense to constantly upgrade every time a press release is announced.
I'm all for improving the breed, but more lens options, for secure firmware, added camera functions mean as much to a professional as 10 more megapixels.
I think we are now into a territory where format is not that relevant. Use and final quality is. When I pull out a little 4/3 camera or the S2 no client ever asks me about megapixels, cmos, vs. ccd, iso, viewfinders, they just care about what comes up on the screen and honestly when I put the olympus to my eye, I don't see it as 1/2 the frame of a 35mm I just see it as a 4:3 format camera and I shoot.
We all know below the skin of these cameras is the mechanics of the terminator. Cameras may look like their film counterparts but in reality there just computers with a lens. It's nice the options we have, I like the retro look that is present today, but we all know that the only thing that matters is the result and even inexpensive cameras like the 4/3 system get expensive once you go to back ups and multiple lens options. You can drop 10 grand on this little cameras before you know it and in medium format world where ten grand is just the used starting point, it's still a fairly big hit.
My point, if Leica or any company wants to prove that the is is in it for the long haull, take a page out of olympus and fuji's book and keep improving their previous cameras.
But then again, it's a great camera, so wtf.
IMO
BC
-
Great camera though and I can put m 110 f2 Zeiss lens on it and shoot 9 out of 10 frames in focus working manually. I could never do that with the contax prism and wouldn't dare trying that with a 35mm dslr, without live view.
Does the Leica have some type of focus confirmation for manual focusing?
When I bought my M8 it would tether. Albiet it would tether 5 frames then crash, but it would tether, then the whole idea was dropped. Had they adopted the olympus/fuji business model it would probably tether better today than the day I bought it.
The new Fuji X-T1 supposedly has a wireless remote control/tethering option for Android and iOS.
I am very impressed with Fuji. If they keep up the same level of excellence and don't surrender to the temptation to go FF they will eventually be very successful.
Their willingness to listen to their customers and continuously improve their products is setting new standards.
-
Does the Leica have some type of focus confirmation for manual focusing?
Yes, there is focus confirmation in the viewfinder.
-
Yes, there is focus confirmation in the viewfinder.
Thanks David!
Additional question. Are you aware of any Leica S shooters not using LightRoom? And what their experiences are?
-
I really wonder why nobody makes something that competes with Lightroom; if the Gimp guys brought their process to bear, the results could be interesting. The big weakness of Lightroom is file quality; I used to redo all the full-page stuff with DPP and all the smaller illustrative images I just handed in Lightroom- converted Jpegs.
Edmund
-
There's a pretty simple checklist for what a camera needs to do for my line of work (people and fashion photography)
These are the must haves:
18mp +
Tether (fast and secure)
Flash sync at at least 1/125th
Good Iso to 800
Have an excellent set of lenses at a wide variety of focal lengths
Good skin tones and color
Have a good enough LCD screen to judge sharpness when shooting outdoors untethered
Autofocus
And here are not must haves but nice to haves:
CCD look
Video
very Fast portrait lense(s)
Good handling
Good Prism viewfinder and waist level finder
Right angle battery grip
Good up to Iso 3200
Shoot at around 4 FPS
No camera covers them all, but the only professional cameras out there (Canon, Nikon, Phase, Leaf, Hassy, Leica. Sinar, Pentax) that doesn't cover all of the first list is Leica (And maybe Pentax).
Otherwise, if it could tether fast, it might cover as much or more than almost all of the other cameras, besides the Canon/Nikon.
But The CCD Look and Lens quality out weigh all the other "nice to haves" for my line of work. And skin tones and color are surely better than Canon/Nikon.
If I could tether the Leica with Capture One, I'd own it and sell everything else and rent a Canon when I needed speed.
-
Thanks David!
Additional question. Are you aware of any Leica S shooters not using LightRoom? And what their experiences are?
Yes, there are some S shooters using C1. For tethering, they use Leica Image Shuttle to put images into a watched folder that C1 picks up. A while back, Leica provided an ICC camera profile for use in C1 that greatly improved color on S DNGs. Prior to this, C1 would just apply a generic DNG profile which was not optimized for S files. So, while there is no direct tethering into C1, the solution does work well and the camera can still be fully controlled from the computer with Leica Image Shuttle.
But.... last we checked (any C1 experts can weigh in on this one if my info is out of date) there was no way to apply a profile automatically as images came into C1. This means that the ICC profile needs to be manually applied to the files after capture, which can be a nuisance while shooting. In LR, I generally set an import preset to apply the profile, auto lens corrections, sharpening and tone curve so that as soon as an image pops up on screen, it looks the way I want/expect it to.
Our personal experience has been that LR yields the best image quality with S files. With automatic lens profiles, camera profiles and specific DNG support from Adobe, results are easier to achieve with LR. Keep in mind that Leica has been closely collaborating with Adobe on raw conversion since 2008 and image quality from the same files continues to improve with each subsequent release of LR.
-
So far we have seen no images from J, our resident philosographer.
Give the man time...though I too am eager to live vicariously with the S beast. :D
-Dave-
-
I really wonder why nobody makes something that competes with Lightroom; if the Gimp guys brought their process to bear, the results could be interesting. The big weakness of Lightroom is file quality; I used to redo all the full-page stuff with DPP and all the smaller illustrative images I just handed in Lightroom- converted Jpegs.
Edmund
If one isn't working with a lot of files (wedding, events, sports etc.) Capture One Pro's file management is quite decent. After LR, C1Pro's DAM is what I prefer to the other softwares I have used (Capture NX2, Raw Therapee, Photo Ninja, DxO Optics Pro).
LR shines for the quantity based shooter. Most of the influencers online engage in these short of shooting styles, so it's no surprise they recommend LR to everyone. Utmost image quality is not a concern for these shooters.
I leave Lightroom for travel images and do all my fine art work in C1 Pro now.
-
Hey, I'm sure the images will be very good, rather like his Red, Contax, Canon, Olympus... images are very good. I'm also pretty sure why they'll be very good.
Yup, and it'll have precious little to do with marques!
Rob C
-
Hi,
It may to have to do with R&R marque…
Joke aside, I appreciate BC's postings. I of course live in a different world, having a salaried job in technical business and shooting landscape for pleasure. So tethering, skin tones, electronic flash is nothing I have particular interest in. I guess that the pros sometimes forget that this business would be much smaller without us amateurs.
Best regards
Erik
Yup, and it'll have precious little to do with marques!
Rob C
-
I leave Lightroom for travel images and do all my fine art work in C1 Pro now.
For landscape LR has some advantages, as their tonemapping algorithm is a lot better than C1 so if you shoot high DR scenes I would prefer LR. Personally I use Lumariver HDR for the tonemapping part though, which is just as good or even better than LR (of course, I wrote the algorithm ;) ) and finalize in RawTherapee and possibly a photo editor if I need more local edits.
-
Hey, I'm sure the images will be very good, rather like his Red, Contax, Canon, Olympus... images are very good. I'm also pretty sure why they'll be very good.
Yes; this is why I've been hoping we'd get Raw takes now (which he used to post a bit years ago) rather than final work.
I would really like to see what the skin tones and texture look like out of camera, using his lighting.
Most of what I've seen so far comes from the women like unfed vampires, men like rock faces school.
Edmund
-
Yes; this is why I've been hoping we'd get Raw takes now (which he used to post a bit years ago) rather than final work.
I would really like to see what the skin tones and texture look like out of camera, using his lighting.
Most of what I've seen so far comes from the women like unfed vampires, men like rock faces school.
Edmund
Edmund, that's today - it's the crazy state of the world. Nobody but a lunatic imagines that those representations of women attract anyone but the hunger-charity organizations; those representations exist because they are the structure holding up the fabric within whose shadow are created the jobs that offer the lifestyles that those pushers enjoy.
It's all a gigantic con. But it pays well and exacts a massive personal price.
Rob C
-
What's the difference between the first and second version of the S? There were some AF issues, I remember, but for all I know they were solved by an update?
Edmund
The base ISO on the S is 100 vs 160 on the S2, the viewfinder is 98% vs 94% on the S2..
The rear screen is much higher Rez and new menu system,AF is better and a new coating on the S that feels better,there is last but not least a joystick which makes image preview easier..
Rob
-
The base ISO on the S is 100 vs 160 on the S2, the viewfinder is 98% vs 94% on the S2..
The rear screen is much higher Rez and new menu system,AF is better and a new coating on the S that feels better,there is last but not least a joystick which makes image preview easier..
Rob
I've had zero focus issues, tracking and static. It's not a Nikon D4, but for medium format it's good and I've used all of my contax lenses from 35 to 210, the boris tilt shift, my hasselblad 110 f2 and two Pentax 6x7 lenses (obviously the last two brands are manual focus).
The 94% thing doesn't bug me as I always want some room around the image anyway.
The focus check is kind of goofy, similar but different than the Phase p backs, but not a leap and not an issue.
The best focus check I've seen is on the olympus cameras that immediatly zoom to where the focus point was set. That's a pretty cool function, but since the Leica just has one focus point, it probably wouldn't matter.
Once Leica comes out with a cmos camera and more S come available, I'll probably add another ccd version as backup, but would be just as happy with the S2, at least so far.
IMO
BC
-
I’m confused; the Leica S is the successor to the Leica S2?
What is it with Leica nomenclature?
S is the newest, go figure, but then again I don't understand most cameras name. OMD em-1, vs. omd em-5, IQ 250, 1ds, 1ds mark II, then m-8, m-9 then m240 and of course leica M.
So who knows what they are thinking.
IMO
BC
-
S is the newest, go figure, but then again I don't understand most cameras name. OMD em-1, vs. omd em-5, IQ 250, 1ds, 1ds mark II, then m-8, m-9 then m240 and of course leica M.
So who knows what they are thinking.
IMO
BC
Maybe Leica did not want to confuse their camera with THIS (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro) one (this is the first DSLR I ever owned)? ;D
I actually really liked the files out of the Fuji and made a lot of nice images with it. It eventually died from the black death syndrome. I then got it fixed and sold it.
-
It's the latest branding trick - Apple also only has "the new iPad" ads. So we've been promised that now there is only an "S" and an "M" with model numbers.
In fact there was the first S1 scanback (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Leica-S1.jsp), then the S2 which the artist formerly known as James has bought, then the S2P, which has a tougher piece of glass on the back and costs more - and now the S which has both the cover glass and a better screen and maybe even some real functional improvements (see above). The original S2 and S2P seem to have had a fairly short production run, with deliveries occurring in 2010, 2011 and most of 2012, with the S launch at PK, fall of 2012.
My *impression* is that quite a few of the original S2 bodies were sent out as dealer demo bodies or promotional items; however, I think that the real sales are now picking up, especially to China.
I wonder whether the bodies sold as luxury items to China will make it back out to the used camera market in HK in a few years.
I used to be a camera collector when I was a kid, and suddenly when I was 40 or so I realized I could take pictures with these things :)
Give us a few years and we may be back to the collector stage, all of us, except for Rob who will lean back in Ibiza, and watch the landscape sashay by through the prism of a Singapore Sling :)
Edmund
Maybe Leica did not want to confuse their camera with THIS (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujis2pro) one (this is the first DSLR I ever owned)? ;D
I actually really liked the files out of the Fuji and made a lot of nice images with it. It eventually died from the black death syndrome. I then got it fixed and sold it.
-
Personally I would never even consider the Leica S, simply for the 2:3 aspect ratio which I really dislike.
+1
That's one of my biggest reasons to leave Leica for Rollei some years back. I loved the leica glass, but people told me the Rollei 6000 series also had nice glass - and it did. In fact I actually prefer the Schneider/Rollei for its more neutral look over the Leica which draws every image in a way that says 'this is not reality, this is a photograph.' I never liked the 3::2 format at all. When I had a chance, I asked Herr Kaufmann why he stuck with the 3::2 ratio with all digital cameras like the M8/M9 and S systems and his response was (sorry can't recall his exact words) something like Leica invented 3::2 and it was in their DNA or something similar to that effect - that made it very clear they had no intention to consider a different format. Oh well that's cool - it's their prerogative. And maybe as BC and others say, it works ok for horizontal images. You don't see a lot of people turning their M's on the side for portraits.
I like square, 6x7, 4x5, and getting used to 3x4. Somehow I figured most digital sensors would end up square - it just makes sense ergonomically to design a camera to be held in one position, and the lenses all project a circle.
-
I think square sensors would be great, and I'm also not fond of 3:2 (though I manage well enough with my film SLRs and rangefinders). But I actually like framing styles, along with film emulsions & digital processing techniques, that draw attention to the fact that photos are photos. For me the abstracted nature of the medium has long been a big part of the draw. That's probably why I enjoy the altered reality of many BC photos posted here. :)
-Dave-
-
No that's not true.
I love "good" photographers that do it for the love of photography. I hate the word amateur or advanced amateur because 1. I hate to see anyone grouped in a class and 2. There is something really special about photographing for the love of photography because that's how we all started...
Well said.
Mike.
-
Hi,
They dropped the numbers. So there is M and there is S. Perhaps they didn't want to go dual digits on the M.
Best regards
Erik
I’m confused; the Leica S is the successor to the Leica S2?
What is it with Leica nomenclature?
-
Undoubtedly, format ratio is a matter of personal taste, however, I don't think that "square" would be a wise choice for an MF maker to produce since its appliance is to a small percentage with respect to other formats. Additionally, a "square" FF sensor would only be applicable with Leaf shutter lenses since there is no focal plane shutter of the size made any more which would limit its use to only V-blads and Rolleis… I also believe that Leica's choice to use 3:2 ratio, is a wise one for the following reasons:
1. The advance to their system is more friendly to DSLR users.
2. They where able to reduce the mount to image area distance and thus make the camera compatible with others lenses and even made possible the integration of Leica S into an existing system easily.
3. It made calculation of AOV with respect to DSLRs easy (one has to subtract 20% out the focal length he uses and have exactly the 35mm equivalent focal length for the same AOV), Additionally the introduction of the 24mm lens solved the UWA capability of the camera.
4. The corner performance of the compatible lenses is greatly improved.
5. It gives additional choice to the Sinarbacks (which are all of 4:3 image area) without competing with them.
6. It improves "handhold ability" greatly than other MF systems.
Take a Contax user for instance (my case) that wants to advance to a modern back, if he buys an S instead, his 35mm becomes a 28mm (35mm equivalent AOV), his 45-90 becomes an ideal 36-72 standard zoom, his 120mm Apo an excellent 1.2:1 macro of 96mm, and his 210mm a great 168mm telephoto, he only has to consider the 24mm if he wants to go wider (19mm equivalent). Additionally, he can keep his MS back and have ultimate still life performance, have 4:3 tethered in studio for fashion or portraiture …use film whenever he wants and even return to his Leica and use the same lenses for landscape or even walk around (!!!) camera. All that by investing not a penny more, than buying a new back.
I bet that if Leica will release a couple of new adapters that will make Rollei lenses fully compatible and another for Mamyia 645 lenses or even more adapters for the various Bronica lenses, (all of which the intelligent mount design can use as fully dedicated via an adapter) there will be more trouble for MF competition… It will then have the widest base of lenses in the market by far and the widest base of possible customers without excluding current users of direct competition. Look how much it affected Hasselblad H sales and look at Hasselblad H S/H prices… imagine what may happen if they will offer an adapter for Phamyia too and serve via more adapters the (now homeless) older camera users?
Clearly image area size and the lesser resolution, doesn't seem to make a difference in performance for current MF users… The quality of the image is (at least) as su-pe-rb if compared with any competition, it's the solutions provided that make the difference and final cost.
-
1. The advance to their system is more friendly to DSLR users.
I find that an extraordinary assumption.
I worked for years with both Nikon F and Hasselblad 500 Series cameras. There was never any conflict. Each was automatically selected for the job I had to do; no confusion, no self-doubts. And that experience was common to every other pro I ever met.
If there was once a problem it was one lady client who once, when I had the 'blad up on the tripod, remarked that she preferred it when I used the 'smaller camera' because I would jump up and down and around so much more. Evidently, the showbiz was more important at that stage than the print. So yet again, it shows that not even the actual cost of the equipment matters that much to some clients: they neither know nor care about it. Just as BC remarks about his experience when he pulls out the tiny 'toy' he so loves. Terry Richardson has built a career around dumb cameras and risqué shots of famous ladies.
The immense advantage of square formats comes in two parts: you don't have to mess about with the tripod once you are set up; you can shoot anything within that shape and always find space to crop.
Other than that, the sheer pleasure of working with something whose design and consequent interface with you is always at its best is profound: anyone really, really enjoys working 2x3 formats in the vertical? Right.
And today, with the real/supposed(?) advantages of digital sensors and image quality, cropping is hardly a problem for anyone: real estate overkill is already here.
Rob C
-
The choosing of a camera by a photographer will not always be a matter of technical factors but also personal preferences and passion.
Regarding the behavior of photographers during a client supervised shoot, well, the demeanor and attitude are obviously important, don't know about the physical antics however.
-
Give us a few years and we may be back to the collector stage, all of us, except for Rob who will lean back in Ibiza, and watch the landscape sashay by through the prism of a Singapore Sling :)
Edmund
Ibiza? Do you think I'm crazy? It's Mallorca where I'm marooned! Ibiza isn't even a Balearic Island - it's part of the Pitiusas! I can only surmise my message in a Coke never got to Paris... ;-)
Yeah, Ibiza is okay if you are a junkie, an alcoholic, under twenty-nine and have pots of trustafarian dosh to blow on a house away from the twin towns of hell. I worked there several times, two of those times before before I came to live here in Mallorca, and each time I prayed to get the hell off. When my late wife was undergoing radiotherapy in Palma, five days a week for five weeks, I think it was, we used to chat with a German fellow patient who lived in Ibiza. Her choices were either daily return flights to and from that island, or the rental of an apartment for the duration. Yep, it's for the young and the dealers. They can keep it. Funny you mention the 'Sling: 'they can keep it' was my reaction to it too when I bought them for the shooting party in the obligatory visit to Raffles Hotel. My initial reaction to the place? It made me think of an Indian railway station... I believe it's been redeveloped since '84.
But anyway, at least I'm happy to have seen these places. Did you also have a list where you could scratch things off as you realised them?
Rob C
-
Ibiza? … Yep, it's for the young and the dealers. They can keep it.
And the uncle of your future King ?
[Rob - sorry, sorry - I couldn't resist - you know the druggie uncle, to the future English King, the ex-pat Scotsman. All said with a twinkle in his eye and a 'Seb Coe' spring in his gait … ]
Alex Salmond, where are you ?
-
I find that an extraordinary assumption.
I worked for years with both Nikon F and Hasselblad 500 Series cameras. There was never any conflict. Each was automatically selected for the job I had to do; no confusion, no self-doubts. And that experience was common to every other pro I ever met.
If there was once a problem it was one lady client who once, when I had the 'blad up on the tripod, remarked that she preferred it when I used the 'smaller camera' because I would jump up and down and around so much more. Evidently, the showbiz was more important at that stage than the print. So yet again, it shows that not even the actual cost of the equipment matters that much to some clients: they neither know nor care about it. Just as BC remarks about his experience when he pulls out the tiny 'toy' he so loves. Terry Richardson has built a career around dumb cameras and risqué shots of famous ladies.
The immense advantage of square formats comes in two parts: you don't have to mess about with the tripod once you are set up; you can shoot anything within that shape and always find space to crop.
Other than that, the sheer pleasure of working with something whose design and consequent interface with you is always at its best is profound: anyone really, really enjoys working 2x3 formats in the vertical? Right.
And today, with the real/supposed(?) advantages of digital sensors and image quality, cropping is hardly a problem for anyone: real estate overkill is already here.
Rob C
I've also worked for years with different formats and never hesitated on which to use… Still, "the advance to their (S) system is more friendly to DSLR users"… I don't see the relevance of your post -which has to do with one's ability to adopt in different formats- with one that needs no adaptation at all…
-
That's one of my biggest reasons to leave Leica for Rollei some years back. … I never liked the 3::2 format at all. When I had a chance, I asked Herr Kaufmann why he stuck with the 3::2 ratio with all digital cameras like the M8/M9 and S systems and his response was (sorry can't recall his exact words) something like Leica invented 3::2 and it was in their DNA...
Yup, and I think he was right. It's worth remembering that the concept of the Leica was born 100 years ago, this year. 100 years ! Oscar Barnack and his use of 35mm film was the precursor to much of what we have and use today - I don't think it either wise or appropriate to chuck that sort of legacy out on a whim.
Leica now have Sinar, if they want to adapt to other formats they have options, without 'ignoring' their heritage.
-
Is there an official list of "Places that have named a drink"?
I've been to that bar in Venice :)
Edmund
But anyway, at least I'm happy to have seen these places. Did you also have a list where you could scratch things off as you realised them?
Rob C
-
Leica now have Sinar, if they want to adapt to other formats they have options, without 'ignoring' their heritage.
That is the perhaps the "key factor" that many ignore… Leica now offers from MF-DSLR up to View camera+MFDB solutions. The only thing that is "missing" (it's not, one can use Contax 645 to solve the issue) is an interchangeable back MF camera that would be able to use the sinarbacks and that its lenses would be fully compatible with Leica S… I won't be surprised if Leica will expand further by resurrecting Contax 645 or if they will develop a new interchangeable back MF camera that would "bridge" the gap… A camera that would be able to provide a platform for the Sinarbacks and that its lenses would be fully compatible with Leica S via an adapter.
-
I've also worked for years with different formats and never hesitated on which to use… Still, "the advance to their (S) system is more friendly to DSLR users"… I don't see the relevance of your post -which has to do with one's ability to adopt in different formats- with one that needs no adaptation at all…
The relevance is in its direct reply to your statement in your Point 1.
If you, too, found no difficulties in switching formats, it makes your statement even the more surprising. That's all.
Rob C
-
While I haven't handled a Leica S for any significant amount of time, I know for a fact that switching between brands within 35mm brings enough headaches; let alone different formats.
In fact, I figured out how to use a DF+ and Credo 40 faster than I did a Canon 5D III (No manuals in either case. A true man never reads manuals :D ).
So yeah, I don't buy the "It's more familiar" argument.
-
The relevance is in its direct reply to your statement in your Point 1.
If you, too, found no difficulties in switching formats, it makes your statement even the more surprising. That's all.
Rob C
Do you find it surprising that many have difficulties switching into a different aspect ratio? …I still don't see why you find an "extraordinary assumption" that people when moving from 3:2 ratio to …3:2 ratio, have nothing to adapt with… or to get used to.
-
Is there an official list of "Places that have named a drink"?
I've been to that bar in Venice :)
Edmund
With or without Harry?
Michael Winner was a habitué but I can't recall him claim anything named after him... unless he laid claim to the expression 'a winner'... I doubt that.
Well, there's the Manhattan, Cuba Libre, various eponymous wines (many), Majon Gin from Menorca, what about Ron, our old pal rum from Puerto Rico or thereabouts? I'm sure Margarita has some connection to somewhere and Tequila Sunrises must stir memories for some. Oh - the Negroni was made famous by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton during their amazing time in Rome during the shooting of Cleopatra. (How sad the passing of all those real stars of the silver screen; though some lay dormant from their industry for years, their names remained magical at least until their deaths. So many people since those times have become huge, lasted a few years, and have as easily become forgotten, living out their time in obscurity. Perhaps Monroe, Elvis and Sinatra were the last representatives of a species.)
Rob C
-
I think the movie stars have been replaced by rock stars in the popular eye.
And the kids, in their chemically enhanced mosaicked internetworked awareness fasten better on a second's beat than on a minute's tune, and relate more closely with the Cyrus Miley butterfly-to-praying-mantis transition than with anything romantic. There's just so many Facebook "shares" you can follow up in a day, attention is of necessity fragmented in new ways.
Edmund
With or without Harry?
Michael Winner was a habitué but I can't recall him claim anything named after him... unless he laid claim to the expression 'a winner'... I doubt that.
Well, there's the Manhattan, Cuba Libre, various eponymous wines (many), Majon Gin from Menorca, what about Ron, our old pal rum from Puerto Rico or thereabouts? I'm sure Margarita has some connection to somewhere and Tequila Sunrises must stir memories for some. Oh - the Negroni was made famous by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton during their amazing time in Rome during the shooting of Cleopatra. (How sad the passing of all those real stars of the silver screen; though some lay dormant from their industry for years, their names remained magical at least until their deaths. So many people since those times have become huge, lasted a few years, and have as easily become forgotten, living out their time in obscurity. Perhaps Monroe, Elvis and Sinatra were the last representatives of a species.)
Rob C
-
Funny you mention the 'Sling: 'they can keep it' was my reaction to it too when I bought them for the shooting party in the obligatory visit to Raffles Hotel. My initial reaction to the place? It made me think of an Indian railway station... I believe it's been redeveloped since '84.
Yes, the Raffles is quite a nice place to stay these days. And yes, the Sling is overrated. :)
-Dave-
-
Yup, and I think he was right. It's worth remembering that the concept of the Leica was born 100 years ago, this year. 100 years ! Oscar Barnack and his use of 35mm film was the precursor to much of what we have and use today - I don't think it either wise or appropriate to chuck that sort of legacy out on a whim.
Leica now have Sinar, if they want to adapt to other formats they have options, without 'ignoring' their heritage.
There are more 2:3 format images shot personally and professionally than any format. Probably at at a ratio of a million to 1 vs. other formats.
That doesn't mean it's perfect, or "right", there is no right.
But moving from camera to camera I don't think is much of a leap if you do it enough if your a professional that's the kind of the job description, to be able to work a camera, right?
I go from the the REDs to the little olympus to a Contax and use all three enough that it doesn't take but a few seconds for it to become second nature.
But all this stuff is just talk and though it can be interesting, I would never expect anyone to buy what I use just like what equipment others use has no effect on what I buy.
We all buy for different reasons.
My reasons for the S2 was to get more use out of my contax and lenses. It opened up more opportunity for a larger format still camera and if I want to use the same lens set on a waist level finder camera, it's just a matter of moving a lens from the S2 to the Contax.
I think that's a nice option.
IMO
BC
-
Equip a square sensor camera/back with an EVF and you can then choose from a variety of aspect ratios, horizontal or vertical, and see your frame in the finder. No more need for L plates or awkward vertical handholding. I'm hoping micro Four-Thirds goes this route as it has no historical baggage to deal with (beyond the horizontal-oriented baffling in some m43 lenses).
-Dave-
-
Hi,
A good reason to buy. Seems like the Leica offers great flexibility.
On the format issue, I feel that real world is neither square, 3/4, 4/3 or 55x69, so I crop to subject.
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/US-NorthEast-National-Parks/i-bVBxjcD/0/XL/20081213-LewisCanyon_01-XL.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
We all buy for different reasons.
My reasons for the S2 was to get more use out of my contax and lenses. It opened up more opportunity for a larger format still camera and if I want to use the same lens set on a waist level finder camera, it's just a matter of moving a lens from the S2 to the Contax.
I think that's a nice option.
IMO
BC
-
Yes; this is why I've been hoping we'd get Raw takes now (which he used to post a bit years ago) rather than final work.
I would really like to see what the skin tones and texture look like out of camera, using his lighting.
Most of what I've seen so far comes from the women like unfed vampires, men like rock faces school.
Edmund
That you for the kind words Edmund and they say the French have no humor.
Actually I don't think I posted raw files, I did send you some raws from my aptus 22 as you wanted to see them.
It's what we call in Texas a favor, not an obligation.
IMO
BC
-
I didn't mean you belong to that school, J, to the contrary, you actually make women look like they eat and ...
A lot of the S2 images out there are drained of saturation; I don't know whether this is the default look of LR for this camera, or whether it is a trend thing at the moment.
I remember I once took a headshot of an acquaintance, an aspiring french actress who actually got a part somewhere. And I spent some time on it, and was quite happy with the result, and so was she, and then I posted the image on some forum and was told that this was not an actor's headshot "because she was not smiling".
So I had violated convention. How was I to know.
So I went back - I know, I should have been a lawyer - and asked her if I could do some shots with her smiling; she promptly replied, like any french actress would, that she didn't smile for the camera :)
Maybe, these days, color in faces is out, but someone forgot to tell me?
BTW, the following thread has some interesting colors and textures IMHO. It's the only one I've located so far. I've never even heard of these lenses, but the Angenieux 150/2.7 pictures look really nice.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/292235-playing-old-lenses-s2.html
Edmund
That you for the kind words Edmund and they say the French have no humor.
Actually I don't think I posted raw files, I did send you some raws from my aptus 22 as you wanted to see them.
It's what we call in Texas a favor, not an obligation.
IMO
BC
-
1. I didn't mean you belong to that school, J, to the contrary, you actually make women look like they eat and ...
2. I remember I once took a headshot of an acquaintance, an aspiring french actress who actually got a part somewhere. And I spent some time on it, and was quite happy with the result, and so was she, and then I posted the image on some forum and was told that this was not an actor's headshot "because she was not smiling".
3. BTW, the following thread has some interesting colors and textures IMHO. It's the only one I've located so far. I've never even heard of these lenses, but the Angenieux 150/2.7 pictures look really nice.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/292235-playing-old-lenses-s2.html
Edmund
Edmund,
1. I didn't read your post like that either; anybody familiar with the J stuff knows it isn't his style;
2. I was once told by a guy - a company director leaning over the shoulder of his art buyer (my client) - as we were looking at some shots of mine, that one wasn't a good fashion shot because there wasn't eye-contact. Bloody hell, those were/are the guys pulling strings. The buyer and I just looked at one another and said nothing. The company died some couple of years after I left the country;
3. Angénieux used to make still lenses and then, as far as I can remember, abandoned them for ciné only. How could you not know them: the company was born in France!
Okay, I forgive you; I've never worn a kilt, either.
;-)
Rob C
-
Edmund,
1. I didn't read your post like that either; anybody familiar with the J stuff knows it isn't his style;
2. I was once told by a guy - a company director leaning over the shoulder of his art buyer (my client) - as we were looking at some shots of mine, that one wasn't a good fashion shot because there wasn't eye-contact. Bloody hell, those were/are the guys pulling strings. The buyer and I just looked at one another and said nothing. The company died some couple of years after I left the country;
3. Angénieux used to make still lenses and then, as far as I can remember, abandoned them for ciné only. How could you not know them: the company was born in France!
Okay, I forgive you; I've never worn a kilt, either.
;-)
Rob C
They were also famous for their evenhanded sales of observation optics to whoever requested them - in France they were very proud that these were found on both US and Soviet "photo reconnaissance" satellites with an occasional spot sale elsewhere.
It looks like their cine lenses can be somehow adapted to the S2, maybe these are 70mm lenses ...
Edmund
-
...I've never worn a kilt, either.
I'm an American and I have! (My mom was a Scot.) Photos of my three-year-old self in full regalia are still to be discovered in my dad's archive. But I've attached a photo of my Uncle Don, taken c. 1960. He not only played the bagpipes in the Ford Motor Co. pipe band (which tells you how many Scots immigrants worked for Ford at the time), he also loved country music and played a mean Telecaster. :D
-Dave-
-
I'm an American and I have! (My mom was a Scot.) Photos of my three-year-old self in full regalia are still to be discovered in my dad's archive. But I've attached a photo of my Uncle Don, taken c. 1960. He not only played the bagpipes in the Ford Motor Co. pipe band (which tells you how many Scots immigrants worked for Ford at the time), he also loved country music and played a mean Telecaster. :D
-Dave-
Nice photo of Don the kilted Fender-bender :)
Is there a (groan) smiley?
Edmund
-
I'm an American and I have! (My mom was a Scot.) Photos of my three-year-old self in full regalia are still to be discovered in my dad's archive. But I've attached a photo of my Uncle Don, taken c. 1960. He not only played the bagpipes in the Ford Motor Co. pipe band (which tells you how many Scots immigrants worked for Ford at the time), he also loved country music and played a mean Telecaster. :D
-Dave-
Don't worry about it: lots of Brits used to wear Red Indian headdresses as kids. At the same time we carried shiny cowboy pistols.
Reality was never high in any agenda.
But financial reality: at least until the 80s, the greatest sales of traditional 'Bonnie Scotland' calendars were to the Canadian/American market where all those one-time dispossessed migrated. Many cals also went to Australia. Even here, in rural Mallorca, there are expats who observe Burns Suppers. In few cases do any of these folks even consider returning to live in the land to which they pay so much seasonal lip service. It's all born from romantic notions of times that never were. Yes, some would indeed have a lot to which to return, but taxation keeps them well away. Even today, especially today, the spectre of an emotionally driven national independence for the country makes such a return far more unlikely: taxation to support the new reality would have to be massive, and dreams that a 'grateful' rump of the rest of the UK would smile and pay the difference anyway is absurd. One hopes that cold, common sense prevails, that the real realities of the school playground are remembered, that smaller was never stronger.
Life is seldom what her makeup artist has you believe.
Rob C
-
I didn't mean you belong to that school, J, to the contrary, you actually make women look like they eat and ...
A lot of the S2 images out there are drained of saturation; I don't know whether this is the default look of LR for this camera, or whether it is a trend thing at the moment.
I remember I once took a headshot of an acquaintance, an aspiring french actress who actually got a part somewhere. And I spent some time on it, and was quite happy with the result, and so was she, and then I posted the image on some forum and was told that this was not an actor's headshot "because she was not smiling".
So I had violated convention. How was I to know.
So I went back - I know, I should have been a lawyer - and asked her if I could do some shots with her smiling; she promptly replied, like any french actress would, that she didn't smile for the camera :)
Maybe, these days, color in faces is out, but someone forgot to tell me?
BTW, the following thread has some interesting colors and textures IMHO. It's the only one I've located so far. I've never even heard of these lenses, but the Angenieux 150/2.7 pictures look really nice.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/292235-playing-old-lenses-s2.html
Edmund
Edmund,
The look out of LR for S files certainly isn't desaturated and dreary looking, skin tones or otherwise. If you are seeing this look, it is most definitely a "creative choice." Personally, I like good saturation and people who look healthy and alive, but I am also not a professional fashion or commercial photographer. I've been on commercial shoots as a digital tech and begrudgingly applied some of these looks (desaturated, cross-processed, overly blue/yellow, heavy clarity, etc.) as photographers or AD requested. They seemed to love it and it was my job to do as they wanted, not offer my creative opinion.
Here is a test shot I did of a friend a while back when first evaluating a prototype Leica 120mm CS lens (central shutter version) on the S2. This file was processed in LR v3.6 about two years ago. File conversion quality has only improved since then, but I never felt the need to go back and reprocess.
Leica S2 with 120mm APO-Macro Summarit-S CS, 1/500th @ f/4, ISO 160. Light from one Profoto white beauty dish. No edits outside of LR.
-
David,
Thank you for posting the great example of the S2 skin tone. I have some of the same concerns as Edmund.
In your summary of 80 different improvements of Leica S over S2 you indicated "improved quality at base ISO". Any examples of comparative IQ between the two cameras?
Thank you,
Richard
-
David,
Thank you for posting the great example of the S2 skin tone. I have some of the same concerns as Edmund.
In your summary of 80 different improvements of Leica S over S2 you indicated "improved quality at base ISO". Any examples of comparative IQ between the two cameras?
Thank you,
Richard
Richard,
We haven't done any exhaustive side-by-side testing, but having worked extensively with S2 files since a year before the camera was introduced, I did see a difference in the overall look, feel and malleability of the S (Typ 006) files when editing at 1:1. Pixel for pixel comparisons between cameras are notoriously difficult to accomplish. It is near impossible to achieve the exact same camera placement, subject lighting (for naturally lit subjects), exposure and focal distance when shooting a series of images between two cameras, so we often have shied away from this type of evaluation.
-
While I haven't handled a Leica S for any significant amount of time, I know for a fact that switching between brands within 35mm brings enough headaches; let alone different formats.
In fact, I figured out how to use a DF+ and Credo 40 faster than I did a Canon 5D III (No manuals in either case. A true man never reads manuals :D ).
So yeah, I don't buy the "It's more familiar" argument.
I agree with you there, but that's an entirely different problem with quite understandable reasons for it. The remainder of that sentence I can't agree with at all.
Decades of Nikon film cameras didn't prepare me for my first digital Nikon one either. That was about a shooting philosophy as much as about ergonomics and trace memory. I also spent at least a day before I did anything with my first 'blad 500 Series. The possibilities for freezing it up were more frightening in the user's manual than in the practical situation.
But, as with anything, once you know how something works, you are the problem if you still experience problems switching from tool to tool. I often had to take both 6x6 and 35mm on location; I didn't like to swap half-way through, but that had nothing to do with user ability or confidence, it had everything to do with the break in concentration and method: the 500 was a tripod camera and the Nikon mostly, wasn't. But then again, for some stuff such as calendars, where I knew the magnification would be considerable, I had to anchor the camera regardless of format.
But as far as 'seeing' went, the only difference lay in the formats and the better viewfinder of the 500; making the exposure in either was hardly anything more exciting or challenging that pressing the button.
Rob C
-
Do you find it surprising that many have difficulties switching into a different aspect ratio? …I still don't see why you find an "extraordinary assumption" that people when moving from 3:2 ratio to …3:2 ratio, have nothing to adapt with… or to get used to.
I missed this post - sorry - I didn't mean to ignore you.
To answer you: no, having done the swap from 135, 6x6 and 6x7 so often it brought no visual problems along with the change in shape; if anything, for a brief period, the swap brings a sense of visual rebirth, which is quite good for one's photography.
I think that what both you and synn are actually referring to is manual familiarity with individual cameras, rather than formats. Are you saying that if you owned both a 35mm and a 6x6 camera long enough to know them both, you couldn't change around at will without running into a visual/conceptual problem?
Rob C
-
I haven't used Leica S or S2 yet, but I am quite experienced with a variety of sensors used in various MFDBs were I believe the S2 is based on… The general conclusion I have ended up, is that both Kodak and Dalsa sensors are far superior than sensors used in DSLRs for colour accuracy, but quite different between them! I find Dalsa sensors to be more colour accurate (especially the "old" 33mp 36x48mm one), with files that "out of the box" seem to have a "duller" presentation, but with great latitude to achieve the "bite" anyone desires, while Kodak, seem to be "punchier", more "eye-catching - out of the box", with more saturation and contrast, perhaps favouring blues and greens towards their "deeper" (darker) tonality while reds may have a bit more balance towards magenta than they should (obviously to "help" skin tones to appear more pleasing)… I've also find, that both Dalsa and Kodak can be treated (one by adding "punch", the other by subtracting some) to be very close, but Kodak may need more "work" in trying to do so (especially with red accuracy which I find superb with Dalsa)… Now, Leica is based on a Kodak sensor …no? Hence I expect it to yield towards the "family character"… somehow however, I have that feeling that given Leica's tradition for "neutral lenses" in terms of colour balance, they should have preferred a Dalsa sensor for the camera.
-
I missed this post - sorry - I didn't mean to ignore you.
To answer you: no, having done the swap from 135, 6x6 and 6x7 so often it brought no visual problems along with the change in shape; if anything, for a brief period, the swap brings a sense of visual rebirth, which is quite good for one's photography.
I think that what both you and synn are actually referring to is manual familiarity with individual cameras, rather than formats. Are you saying that if you owned both a 35mm and a 6x6 camera long enough to know them both, you couldn't change around at will without running into a visual/conceptual problem?
Rob C
No, what I'm saying is that there are people that do need time to adopt in different aspect ratio, while if one makes the jump from DSLR to Leica S, ...that, can't be the case. :) I thought it's obvious in the first post of mine that you quoted on… never understood where did you see me talking on format adaptation. :D
-
It would be nice to know whether the base ISO is the same and the sensor was simply rated at base 160 on the first model S2 to protect the highlights more and encourage handheld use, or whether there is a real difference in the way the sensor data is processed.
BTW, color and texture from the original M8 was very good, but with a tendency to magenta on white skins, so I see no reason to doubt the quality of the S files per se, but it would be nice to have some Raw images to process. Surely a company which invests heavily in bespoke cabinets for dealers can afford to donate a few Raw files?
It would also be interesting to see some cotton/wool black next to some synthetic black - as we all learnt, Leica has had some IR sensitivity issues.
Edmund
Richard,
We haven't done any exhaustive side-by-side testing, but having worked extensively with S2 files since a year before the camera was introduced, I did see a difference in the overall look, feel and malleability of the S (Typ 006) files when editing at 1:1. Pixel for pixel comparisons between cameras are notoriously difficult to accomplish. It is near impossible to achieve the exact same camera placement, subject lighting (for naturally lit subjects), exposure and focal distance when shooting a series of images between two cameras, so we often have shied away from this type of evaluation.
-
Hi Edmund, there are some raw files here:
http://www.s.leica-camera.com/en/S-RAW
I use the S2 and the files come out nice and neutral, not desaturated at all.
-
It would be nice to know whether the base ISO is the same and the sensor was simply rated at base 160 on the first model S2 to protect the highlights more and encourage handheld use, or whether there is a real difference in the way the sensor data is processed.
BTW, color and texture from the original M8 was very good, but with a tendency to magenta on white skins, so I see no reason to doubt the quality of the S files per se, but it would be nice to have some Raw images to process. Surely a company which invests heavily in bespoke cabinets for dealers can afford to donate a few Raw files?
It would also be interesting to see some cotton/wool black next to some synthetic black - as we all learnt, Leica has had some IR sensitivity issues.
Edmund
It is normal for CCD sensors to underexpose them a bit as to protect HLs more and seek max dynamic range in shadows (where there is lots of latitude to "dig" for…), Sinar did the same (what you suggest) back in 2006 by rating (via firmware update) all their E-motion backs a stop higher. My opinion is, that MF isn't exactly aimed for the "fun-boys", but rather to the experienced users that have full control on what they are doing… I was already under exposing the Sinarback E-motion-22 I was using at the days, never needed Sinar to tell me that it was the correct thing to do… Only updated it, when time came to replace it for my current back… which of course (again) I never use in other than manual mode or trust the metering of my camera to judge exposure.
P.S. (edit): Personally, I find no CCD back rated "correctly" for sensitivity… They should all (IMO) be rated higher than they are, although by different amount more or less… not that it makes any difference to those that trust their knowledge and experience above anything else.
-
No experience myself, but I did have a chat with someone who borrowed one from Leica. Dust was the problem they encountered and found it impossible to keep clean.
Do those of you that have find this to be a big problem?
-
deleted
-
Personally, I find no CCD back rated "correctly" for sensitivity… They should all (IMO) be rated higher than they are, although by different amount more or less… not that it makes any difference to those that trust their knowledge and experience above anything else.
I agree...I could care less what the stated values are. Just use the thing & figure out for yourself what its limits are. Then evaluate with a calibrated external meter if you must (I'll pass, thanks.)
Re. "accurate" color...I don't even know what that is. Pleasing color catches my eye. So does unexpected color. Photos that attempt to reproduce reality don't do much for me. Photos that reveal someone's unique take on reality...those I'm interested in.
-Dave-
-
I agree...I could care less what the stated values are. Just use the thing & figure out for yourself what its limits are. Then evaluate with a calibrated external meter if you must (I'll pass, thanks.)
Re. "accurate" color...I don't even know what that is. Pleasing color catches my eye. So does unexpected color. Photos that attempt to reproduce reality don't do much for me. Photos that reveal someone's unique take on reality...those I'm interested in.
-Dave-
About Iso rating… I think the makers rate the MF sensors having the use of strobes in mind… About "colour accuracy"... I think that they "tune" the MFDBs having fashion photography in mind, where dresses have to be both "colour accurate" plus as appealing as possible, while dress/model skin combination has to be as attractive as possible… (I believe the later explains Kodak's sensor tuning).
-
I like cameras with "usable, flexible color" which give me files I can then retouch into the color I want. Which means a camera which sees subtle gradations of color, and makes files which don't "break" when retouched.
And then there are images with color I really really don't like, however "unique" the colors are. An example of such a horrible-color unique-color image is doubtless the first one on this page
http://www.s.leica-camera.com/en/S-RAW
which reminds me of "The Scream".
Edmund
[/quote author=Telecaster link=topic=86673.msg706219#msg706219 Re. "accurate" color...I don't even know what that is. Pleasing color catches my eye. So does unexpected color. Photos that attempt to reproduce reality don't do much for me. Photos that reveal someone's unique take on reality...those I'm interested in.
-Dave-
[/quote]
-
Sometimes I wonder what your monitor is and how do you calibrate it…. :D
-
Sometimes I wonder what your monitor is and how do you calibrate it…. :D
I can't remember how I calibrated my Macbook Pro :)
But my on-screen colorchecker (colorfilled) images match my printed Colorchecker, and the Xrite colorchecker which I measured (i1Pro2 spectro) to create the image .
Is that what you wanted to know?
I'll be glad to run a print profile of anything including transparency media for you for free so you can review the quality of my profiles :)
However, now you say it, I will check the image on something else to verify that my monitor isn't doing something strange.
Edmund
-
I can't remember how I calibrated my Macbook Pro :)
But my on-screen colorchecker (colorfilled) images match my printed Colorchecker, and the Xrite colorchecker which I measured (i1Pro2 spectro) to create the image .
Is that what you wanted to know?
I'll be glad to run a print profile of anything including transparency media for you for free so you can review the quality of my profiles :)
However, now you say it, I will check the image on something else to verify that my monitor isn't doing something strange.
Edmund
Thanks for the offer Edmund, but since I do painting reproduction for a living, I'll pass the free offer… What would interest me however, is if you can remember how you've calibrated your Macbook pro… Surely I1,X-rite can't be successful on calibrating a Macbook's pro screen. It just surprised me what is that you found "awful" in Leica's promote image.. ;)
I also use a Macbook pro and have managed to calibrate it to an extend that "matches" surprisingly well (some call it "perfect" match - to my scale it's 98%) my Eizo CG241w monitor which I use to print on my Epson 9900… but haven't done that by using my I1 x-rite (which I also own), so I really am interested if you may share your method of calibrating it. ::)
-
T.Dascalos,
May I ask you which MF system (lens, camera and back) that you have found useful in your work in photographing paintings. With my D800 and 5DII in the past I have had inconsistent results even with Xrite
Colorchecker. I am seriously considering moving up to a MFDB for the sake of improved color accuracy in photographing my own oil paintings and portrait work in the studio.
Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Richard
-
It just surprised me what is that you found "awful" in Leica's promote image.
Dear Mr. Dascalos,
Here is a composite with the original preview from Leica, and a slightly better color balanced version. I don't like my over-red version too much, it looks like an old Playboy, but at least it doesn't look like the greenish Leica preview which turns the model into a fashionable cross between a vampire and an alien. Which is by the way what you get if you render "as shot".
I ran this image past another color consultant to the industry, as you indicated my perception was bad, and we ran the image through a couple of converters and agreed about the color issues. The causes are interesting to us, but I don't think they are relevant to you as your taste differs from our perception of color.
Edmund
-
Dear Mr. Dascalos,
Here is a composite with the original preview from Leica, and a slightly better color balanced version. I don't like my over-red version too much, it looks like an old Playboy, but at least it doesn't look like the greenish Leica preview which turns the model into a fashionable cross between a vampire and an alien. Which is by the way what you get if you render "as shot".
I ran this image past another color consultant to the industry, as you indicated my perception was bad, and we ran the image through a couple of converters and agreed about the color issues. The causes are interesting to us, but I don't think they are relevant to you as your taste differs from our perception of color.
Edmund
Well, Edmund, the wood certainly looks better.
It's a product of thin women: the light glances off at a sharper angle. Combine that with the spectral diffusion quality of tobacco and there you have it: a flawed test subject for larger Leica.
;-)
Rob C
-
The Leica sample has indeed an obvious green cast, you don't need a calibrated monitor to see that. Casts are generally evident even on uncalibrated monitors. Even if color blind you can with a color picker check values on various near-overexposed areas which indeed are green.
I was assuming that was a look preferred by the photographer though, but if you want "wrong" color balance I think a more yellowish tone is much more pleasing though for most subjects, especially people.
Camera manufacturers that present mediocre sample images on their web is a well-established tradition though, mastered by the Japanese. And Leica makes a quite good job on that too it seems ;).
-
Well, Edmund, the wood certainly looks better.
It's a product of thin women: the light glances off at a sharper angle. Combine that with the spectral diffusion quality of tobacco and there you have it: a flawed test subject for larger Leica.
;-)
Rob C
Rob,
As always I appreciate your rigorous scientific explanations ;D
Edmund
Torger,
In my opinion, the camera is seeing red, assuming the world is grey, and therefore adopting a white balance that induces this greenish cast.
Iliah says that this image contains fluorescent lighting while being shot at 1/90, which I guess would also help make it look good.
Now if I could only understand why a photographer would want to make a woman from Venus look like a green man from Mars, I would be more in tune with the way the world works.
Edmund
-
T.Dascalos,
May I ask you which MF system (lens, camera and back) that you have found useful in your work in photographing paintings. With my D800 and 5DII in the past I have had inconsistent results even with Xrite
Colorchecker. I am seriously considering moving up to a MFDB for the sake of improved color accuracy in photographing my own oil paintings and portrait work in the studio.
Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Richard
I use Contax645 and Imacon 528c MFDB in 16x multishot (microstep) mode only, for painting reproduction, the lens I use is the Zeiss 120mm f4 Apo, but sometimes, when I have to reproduce a byzantine wall painting in an old monastery, I have to go wider than that… I also use Fuji GX680 (with the same back - have Contax adapter on the Fuji) for whenever I need movements. MO is, that even the best automatic calibration is good for photography, but really poor for painting reproduction, you really have to build your own profiles to be able to reproduce accurately a painting and you have to avoid interpolated colour, you have to "start" with "true colour" capture (although this is only 10% of the path)… aside the detail of course, where in large paintings, no single-shot camera or back can deliver.
Another thing to consider, is that if you have to work outside the studio, you really have to calibrate a laptop to match as much as possible your printing monitor/printer calibration… and that's not easy at all, It can only be done "manually" and needs lots of experience on how to "tweak" an ICC profile to compensate for the inaccuracies with laptop screen technology and (very important) to make it stable... Then there is lighting, control of reflections, tripod choice (very important), polarisation of lighting & lens, having even lighting temperature on the painting and tenths of other small factors that can ruin the result, for which one can wright a book about…. In other words, it's different to take pictures of paintings, than to reproduce a painting…
-
T.Dascalos,
May I ask you which MF system (lens, camera and back) that you have found useful in your work in photographing paintings. With my D800 and 5DII in the past I have had inconsistent results even with Xrite
Colorchecker. I am seriously considering moving up to a MFDB for the sake of improved color accuracy in photographing my own oil paintings and portrait work in the studio.
Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Richard
Hasselblad multishot excels at this type of work...
-
Dear Mr. Dascalos,
Here is a composite with the original preview from Leica, and a slightly better color balanced version. I don't like my over-red version too much, it looks like an old Playboy, but at least it doesn't look like the greenish Leica preview which turns the model into a fashionable cross between a vampire and an alien. Which is by the way what you get if you render "as shot".
I ran this image past another color consultant to the industry, as you indicated my perception was bad, and we ran the image through a couple of converters and agreed about the color issues. The causes are interesting to us, but I don't think they are relevant to you as your taste differs from our perception of color.
Edmund
Edmund,if you use LR5 be sure to use the embedded profile as opposed to camera standard.. it makes a difference ..
Rob
-
Edmund,if you use LR5 be sure to use the embedded profile as opposed to camera standard.. it makes a difference ..
Rob
I agree.
But it makes little difference to the color balance of this published image (I tried both Adobe Standard and Embedded in PS CC).
The mystery here is why photographers now consider that human beings should be white or bright green or bright orange - and insist they need $20K cameras to render them that way. Although I guess all that expensive stuff women paint their faces with is equally mysterious to me :)
Edmund
-
I agree.
But it makes little difference to the color balance of this published image (I tried both Adobe Standard and Embedded in PS CC).
The mystery here is why photographers now consider that human beings should be white or pale green or bright orange - and insist they need $20K cameras to render them that way.
Edmund
Its a good question ,at the moment the desaturated look is quite popular and you don't need MF for this kind of look,in other cases it could be a badly profiled monitor or simply bad taste.. ;-)
Rob
-
The mystery here is why photographers now consider that human beings should be white or bright green or bright orange - and insist they need $20K cameras to render them that way. Although I guess all that expensive stuff women paint their faces with is equally mysterious to me :)
Sometimes there's no rational explanation for popularity (and I agree on both of your points).
-
"The mystery here is why photographers now consider that human beings should be white or pale green or bright orange - and insist they need $20K cameras to render them that way".
And to think: FredBGG got shot for posing the very same philosophical question/point/argument/observation.
I guess his sin/crime was just bad timing.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob,
As always I appreciate your rigorous scientific explanations ;D
Edmund
Thank you, Edmund; it's the least I can do.
As a retired photographer I feel this obligation to 'give something back' to the profession. It is still a profession, isn't it?
;-)
Rob C
-
T.Dascalos and RVB, thank you both for your replies. I was afraid that the answer would be a $$$ multishot back. For my non-pro work I may need to compromise with a used Hasselblad single shot back and still be
better off for color accuracy Than with a DSLR.
-
I took a look at the DNG file posted on Leica's website. The green cast was a case of selecting the wrong WB in camera. The WB goes along with the raw file so without any adjustment, the WB settings of 6850K +17 tint were just way off and carried through into LR. Also, the file has the old process variant of 2010 embedded in it, bringing up the v3 set of tone adjustments. From the original DNG, I outputted three images and attached them here.
The first image I output was the unmodified original, with incorrect settings and no optimization of any kind (which I feel is not the best way to do file evaluation as this is never how a real workflow would be).
For the second file, I updated the process variant to 2012 (LR v4/5) and used the eyedropper on the cigarette holder for a custom WB of 5000K +38 tint, which looks a lot more natural, but still not to my personal taste.
For the third image, I took the modified second version and applied my default S2 preset, which applies a small amount of sharpening, plays with the HSL adjustments a little, brings up shadows, drops blacks and pulls in highlights a touch. With more recovered highlights, I pushed the exposure about a half a stop to give it a little more life. And, voila. Adjustments (WB, selecting my preset and bumping the EV) took all of 10 seconds.
For my workflow, I apply my preset upon import so that every image has the basic look and feel that I like to see from the S. Then, it's usually just a matter of small tweaks to EV, highlights, shadows and WB. I use the same sharpening settings, tone curve and HSL shifts for every single file. As they say, better to develop a workflow, than a work-slow. ;)
-
As someone who has had his fair share of paintings photographed for reproduction I can attest that it is an extremely skilled discipline. There are many folk out there offering the service who frankly haven't a clue.
+1
-
I ran this image past another color consultant to the industry,
Edmund,
The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it (oscar wilde).
Seriously if you want to know what a camera does rent it, borrow it, buy it, but most of all shoot with it.
http://www.leica-stores.fr/store-leica-paris-rue-de-la-pompe#.UvE3MY6lD_0
These stores treat you like royalty (with royal prices) and I'm sure they let you go outside with any subject you like and shoot to your hearts extent.
Then work the files to your liking.
Just remember walking into a Leica store can be very tempting for a photographer.
When I went into the Mayfair store in London, I knew I was going to buy an S or S2, but I always try to buy any major item from Steve Hendrix https://captureintegration.com/leica/ and even knowing that, it took every bit of my willpower not to say sure, box up an S(2) and throw in a M while your at it.
The thing is I could justify the S2 because it took contax lenses and I was familiar with ccd's and especially what leica does with a ccd.
Justifying a m or m9 is more difficult for a lot of reasons, but mainly because it doesn't tether and that limits it's use for me.
In fact the only buzz kill of my olympus cameras is tethering as I trust that file more than any cmos file I've shot.
But then again you have to do the shooting and processing yourself.
I don't know who rents Leicas in Paris, I don't think matphot does, but when I'm back in London if you like, drop by and I'll load you up with lenses and a body and you can walk the streets of Hoxton and shoot to your hearts content, since I think 75% of everyone in shoreditch is either a photographer, model or producer they won't take exception.
Or you can take your drive across the high street to Taylor James that probably works more high end post processing than any company on the planet. I'll bet they'll sort it out for you.
And don't worry you won't feel alone in London as 386,000 French live in London and there is a French owned cafe on my corner. You can go in with the Leica talk art, politics and complain about Americans.
IMO
BC
P.S. Actually this is the camera you really need http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/official-hasselblad-hv-a-mount-camera-launched/
You can shoot a better built Sony, Zeiss glass and have a hasselblad logo. It will make the price of buying an S2 much easier to justify.
-
T.Dascalos and RVB, thank you both for your replies. I was afraid that the answer would be a $$$ multishot back. For my non-pro work I may need to compromise with a used Hasselblad single shot back and still be
better off for color accuracy Than with a DSLR.
Really RG… it's not a matter of colour accuracy, it's more a matter of having to work with interpolated colour, you see, a painter, when he works with a colour, he does so with respect to lighting... this is very different than judging the colour accuracy on a colour chart that you only have one tone of it…. In other words, with interpolated colour, you may achieve accuracy in the mid tones, but the same colour may "crack" as the painter paints it lighter and darker with respect to the paint's lighting.
-
"since I think 75% of everyone in shoreditch is either a photographer, model or producer they won't take exception."
They are all hipster kids and work in I.T. Just need a DSLR, the beard, tattoos plus a band-T that you can't name the lead singer of (or an album, or tell if any band members are dead) and you will look the part but most of them aren't actually what they say they are.
I guess it's the same in NY/LA/Paris/Milan
-
Hi,
Thanks a lot! Much better.
But, it seems that the lens has a lot of color fringing in the out of focus areas. The edges on the curtain and the painting on the wall look awful, at least in my eyes.
Best regards
Erik
I took a look at the DNG file posted on Leica's website. The green cast was a case of selecting the wrong WB in camera. The WB goes along with the raw file so without any adjustment, the WB settings of 6850K +17 tint were just way off and carried through into LR. Also, the file has the old process variant of 2010 embedded in it, bringing up the v3 set of tone adjustments. From the original DNG, I outputted three images and attached them here.
The first image I output was the unmodified original, with incorrect settings and no optimization of any kind (which I feel is not the best way to do file evaluation as this is never how a real workflow would be).
For the second file, I updated the process variant to 2012 (LR v4/5) and used the eyedropper on the cigarette holder for a custom WB of 5000K +38 tint, which looks a lot more natural, but still not to my personal taste.
For the third image, I took the modified second version and applied my default S2 preset, which applies a small amount of sharpening, plays with the HSL adjustments a little, brings up shadows, drops blacks and pulls in highlights a touch. With more recovered highlights, I pushed the exposure about a half a stop to give it a little more life. And, voila. Adjustments (WB, selecting my preset and bumping the EV) took all of 10 seconds.
For my workflow, I apply my preset upon import so that every image has the basic look and feel that I like to see from the S. Then, it's usually just a matter of small tweaks to EV, highlights, shadows and WB. I use the same sharpening settings, tone curve and HSL shifts for every single file. As they say, better to develop a workflow, than a work-slow. ;)
-
No disrespect to David Farkas and the others who have tweaked this image, but I vastly prefer the original version, with its warm, greenish tint. The palette meshes well with the period feel of the location. The color on her feels like it's simply a result of soft ambient tungsten combined with window light bouncing off tinted walls, the way it would be in real life. And the transitions between highlights and midtones on her face are much gentler and softer.
-
"since I think 75% of everyone in shoreditch is either a photographer, model or producer they won't take exception."
They are all hipster kids and work in I.T. Just need a DSLR, the beard, tattoos plus a band-T that you can't name the lead singer of (or an album, or tell if any band members are dead) and you will look the part but most of them aren't actually what they say they are.
I guess it's the same in NY/LA/Paris/Milan
Now Mr. Smith,
I didn't say that 90% of Shoreditch made their living as a photogrpaher, producers or model, I just said that was their self appointed job descriptions.
Yes many work in some form of IT and I have to admit that some are posers living of mom, dad or the newest trend to marry a trust fund spouse, but some are impressive with their work ethic.
There is a clothing designer all made up of 20 somethings on my corner and I pull a lot of hours. If I walk out on the street at 2am to clear my head, they're all still in there working, so as much as we bash the trophy generation, some step ahead and work hard.
IMO
BC
-
No disrespect to David Farkas and the others who have tweaked this image, but I vastly prefer the original version, with its warm, greenish tint. The palette meshes well with the period feel of the location. The color on her feels like it's simply a result of soft ambient tungsten combined with window light bouncing off tinted walls, the way it would be in real life. And the transitions between highlights and midtones on her face are much gentler and softer.
+1
-
+1
At least you two guys see that there *is* a tint.
As for London, I went to school there - in South Ken, obviously :)
London has its good sides, but I resolutely prefer Paris: women, wine and almost no work ethic :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
Thanks a lot! Much better.
But, it seems that the lens has a lot of color fringing in the out of focus areas. The edges on the curtain and the painting on the wall look awful, at least in my eyes.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
The "color fringing" in the window is a result of somewhat aggressive highlight recovery on my part, not CA. Here is the same image with the highlights brought up a bit and letting the window blow out some.
-
As with many mixed light images, the way to "save" it in the end is probably to allow it to tint hard in some way.
Which hue one chooses is I guess a personal matter.
Where I disagree is for such an image being used as an manufacturer's example shot.
Edmund
Erik,
The "color fringing" in the window is a result of somewhat aggressive highlight recovery on my part, not CA. Here is the same image with the highlights brought up a bit and letting the window blow out some.
-
As with many mixed light images, the way to "save" it in the end is probably to allow it to tint hard in some way.
Which hue one chooses is I guess a personal matter.
Where I disagree is for such an image being used as an manufacturer's example shot.
Edmund
This conversation goes nowhere. People talking about images that they didn't make. I don't know what the photographer was thinking, don't know if the wb was a concern to him/her since it was a raw file.
The only way to is do it yourself, prove only to yourself if a camera is right or wrong for you.
That's why I made the offer and that's why I would never post a raw file.
This image has no retouching other than background clean up and is approx. 1/3 of a frame from a p30+ but if I posted the raw, everyone would be processing to their vision, not mine.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/thirdframe.jpg)
Once again, get the camera, shoot it yourself and you'll know whats what.
IMO
BC
-
No disrespect to David Farkas and the others who have tweaked this image, but I vastly prefer the original version, with its warm, greenish tint. The palette meshes well with the period feel of the location. The color on her feels like it's simply a result of soft ambient tungsten combined with window light bouncing off tinted walls, the way it would be in real life. And the transitions between highlights and midtones on her face are much gentler and softer.
No disrespect taken. My point in posting my edits was to address concerns that the S2's raw files were somehow tinted green.
-
Where I disagree is for such an image being used as an manufacturer's example shot.
Edmund
We more than agree on that point!
No manufacturer (including Leica) ever seems to pick ideal images as official samples.
Once again, get the camera, shoot it yourself and you'll know whats what.
And a resounding yes on this point as well.
One of the challenges can be that once you have the camera in hand for the first time, understanding how to work with it, what settings to use/avoid, etc. while shooting, then what settings to use for optimal image processing may not be obvious. Having guidance from someone who knows the ins and outs of the system and has actually shot with it extensively comes can be invaluable.
We (Leica Store Miami (http://www.leicastoremiami.com)) offer a program where people interested in the S can take a quick trip to Miami and get a personalized test drive experience called Fly Me to the S (http://leicastoremiami.com/pages/fly-me-to-the-s).
-
The only way to is do it yourself, prove only to yourself if a camera is right or wrong for you.
yes!
Edmund
-
We more than agree on that point!
No manufacturer (including Leica) ever seems to pick ideal images as official samples.
And a resounding yes on this point as well.
One of the challenges can be that once you have the camera in hand for the first time, understanding how to work with it, what settings to use/avoid, etc. while shooting, then what settings to use for optimal image processing may not be obvious. Having guidance from someone who knows the ins and outs of the system and has actually shot with it extensively comes can be invaluable.
We (Leica Store Miami (http://www.leicastoremiami.com)) offer a program where people interested in the S can take a quick trip to Miami and get a personalized test drive experience called Fly Me to the S (http://leicastoremiami.com/pages/fly-me-to-the-s).
In the manufacturer's defense it is difficult to get any photographer to toss over a raw file. Just too many variables and you will never please anyone and of course your name is on it, so if the web picks it up and doesn't like it, they'll burn you on google for years.
Dave has the right attitude, in that he invests in his profession, offers the best ways possible to let someone get their hands on the actual product and as much as people complain about the margins, the margins are what allow a professional dealer to operate.
If you've ever worked with a bad dealer, you'lll realize how important a good dealer is.
You get what you pay for.
IMO
BC
-
One has to applaud Dave's attitude.
Edmund
In the manufacturer's defense it is difficult to get any photographer to toss over a raw file. Just too many variables and you will never please anyone and of course your name is on it, so if the web picks it up and doesn't like it, they'll burn you on google for years.
Dave has the right attitude, in that he invests in his profession, offers the best ways possible to let someone get their hands on the actual product and as much as people complain about the margins, the margins are what allow a professional dealer to operate.
If you've ever worked with a bad dealer, you'lll realize how important a good dealer is.
You get what you pay for.
IMO
BC
-
When a manufacturer takes the decision to produce and sell a camera, they don't *exactly* know themselves what the imagery is going to look like.
Leica at PK, on announcing the S2, I had a conversation with them about the UV sensitivity they had discovered in the sensor which had been made for them. I confirmed that attempting to deal with this in software was not viable, and they indicated that rather than rework the sensor cover glass, they were going to incorporate UV filtration in every Leica S lens to deal with this issue. Filtration as we all know is a contentious issue because it changes the way the sensor sees visible light that is close to the cutoff color (blue), and this is dependent on the angle of incidence.
Interestingly, a friend of mine with whom I was working on a project this year was also designing a camera and hit similar issues, and ended up buying UV absorbing glass from Schott that had been designed ... for Leica :)
I have no way of knowing whether the S has the same (weak-filtering) cover glass on the sensor as the S2; but I would expect color to be markedly different between an S2 used with a Contax lens and an S2 used with a Leica lens ...
This type of issue explains why there are so few images available at launch: Until production really starts, and the firmware and hardware is frozen, nobody can be completely sure of the results from the camera.
Edmund
In the manufacturer's defense it is difficult to get any photographer to toss over a raw file. Just too many variables and you will never please anyone and of course your name is on it, so if the web picks it up and doesn't like it, they'll burn you on google for years.
Dave has the right attitude, in that he invests in his profession, offers the best ways possible to let someone get their hands on the actual product and as much as people complain about the margins, the margins are what allow a professional dealer to operate.
If you've ever worked with a bad dealer, you'lll realize how important a good dealer is.
You get what you pay for.
IMO
BC
-
Wasn't the world a sweeter place in back and white!
;-)
Rob C
-
Dear Mr. Dascalos,
Here is a composite with the original preview from Leica, and a slightly better color balanced version. I don't like my over-red version too much, it looks like an old Playboy, but at least it doesn't look like the greenish Leica preview which turns the model into a fashionable cross between a vampire and an alien. Which is by the way what you get if you render "as shot".
I ran this image past another color consultant to the industry, as you indicated my perception was bad, and we ran the image through a couple of converters and agreed about the color issues. The causes are interesting to us, but I don't think they are relevant to you as your taste differs from our perception of color.
Edmund
I would give Leica the vote instead of MRs Piggy… but still, I don't think that adverts have anything to do with Camera's IQ… If I was to use that particular shot to promote the camera, (which I wouldn't) I would "treat" it different…
(http://)
-
I would give Leica the vote instead of MRs Piggy… but still, I don't think that adverts have anything to do with Camera's IQ… If I was to use that particular shot to promote the camera, (which I wouldn't) I would "treat" it different…
(http://)
Actually you don't get to treat it different if it's a sample because the green cast is the camera's WB decision - its adopted white.
The Jpeg which comes out of the camera by default - or out of ACR and LR will be bright green.
The miracle of the modern Canons and Nikons is that they can often get the WB right. And in fact it's so hard to get right that Nikon at one point was encrypting the WB information (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2005/4/19/nikon_encryptnef) to hamper Adobe.
Edmund
-
Actually you don't get to treat it different if it's a sample because the green cast is the camera's WB decision - its adopted white.
The Jpeg which comes out of the camera by default - or out of ACR and LR will be bright green.
The miracle of the modern Canons and Nikons is that they can often get the WB right.
Edmund
Well… my D800E can't, neither my D4 (but to a lesser extend and better than all other DSLRs), both far worst than my MFDB, which in single shot is worst than my older MFDB (Dalsa 22mp sensor) which was slightly worst than the "king of WB" (MO) the Dalsa 33mp sensor…
EDIT: It was (obviously) WB not …MB!
-
Well… my D800E can't, neither my D4 (but to a lesser extend and better than all other DSLRs), both far worst than my MFDB, which in single shot is worst than my older MFDB (Dalsa 22mp sensor) which was slightly worst than the "king of MB" (MO) the Dalsa 33mp sensor…
+1
-
Actually you don't get to treat it different if it's a sample because the green cast is the camera's WB decision - its adopted white.
The Jpeg which comes out of the camera by default - or out of ACR and LR will be bright green.
The miracle of the modern Canons and Nikons is that they can often get the WB right. And in fact it's so hard to get right that Nikon at one point was encrypting the WB information (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2005/4/19/nikon_encryptnef) to hamper Adobe.
Edmund
Edmund,
It is unclear whether the WB was indeed set to Auto WB in camera. It could be that the photographer set either a custom Kelvin balance or metered off a color patch to achieve this color. I shoot in AWB most of the time myself and find the S2 and S to be quite accurate the vast majority of the time.
And, even if this was the result of a tricked WB.... why should we not be able to change it? That is one of the beauties of shooting RAW, is it not? In fact, isn't the reason that manufacturers post RAW files for download is so that photographers can process to their own tastes and in their own workflows, rather than just see a finished JPG with all those decisions and processes hidden?
Like BC, I'm reluctant to post RAW files in my reviews because I personally feel that the final result is what tells the ultimate story. For me, I usually dismiss any review that shows me comparisons of unprocessed/unsharpened/untouched files. These results are meaningless to me without context. Ansel Adams would never have shown a negative or straight contact print. So much of his work happened in the printing process after the image was captured. Why do we need to look at digital images any differently?
-
Really RG… it's not a matter of colour accuracy, it's more a matter of having to work with interpolated colour, you see, a painter, when he works with a colour, he does so with respect to lighting... this is very different than judging the colour accuracy on a colour chart that you only have one tone of it…. In other words, with interpolated colour, you may achieve accuracy in the mid tones, but the same colour may "crack" as the painter paints it lighter and darker with respect to the paint's lighting.
@ T.Dascalos (Others, please, excuse a very brief diversion from regular programing.)
You put your finger on it. The mid tones are almost always on the mark, but the lighter areas fall apart, or as you said "crack". My 5D used to blow the highlights without a possibility of successful recovery; D800 does better at preserving or recovering light areas, but slightly warm highlights shift into neon yellow/orange, e.g. When these color shifts are globally corrected, the rest if the image suffers. And correcting color locally is doable, but labor intensive. If post processing of repro work takes longer than to complete the actual painting in the first place, one is encouraged to consider other options. Much can be said about the difficulty portraying some colors in nature with artists' pigments or photographic media, the challenges of painting, capturing light, how light is reflected from paintings vs prints, etc., etc.
I have rented a H4D-40 when it was first released and on the calibrated monitor the images were clearly closer to the original than the files take with 5DII. However, those differences were minimized in the final product - the print. Yes, even when that print was made by a high end art repro outfit. Fast forward three years later, I am revisiting the issue in view of technological advances and .... more affordable pre-owned
MFDB possibilities.
Back to regularly scheduled programing.
-
Hi,
May guess is that for reproduction we would need sceene referred raw conversion, and that is not what we have with most raw converters, which essentially give an output preferred rendition.
Best regards
Erik
@ T.Dascalos (Others, please, excuse a very brief diversion from regular programing.)
You put your finger on it. The mid tones are almost always on the mark, but the lighter areas fall apart, or as you said "crack". My 5D used to blow the highlights without a possibility of successful recovery; D800 does better at preserving or recovering light areas, but slightly warm highlights shift into neon yellow/orange, e.g. When these color shifts are globally corrected, the rest if the image suffers. And correcting color locally is doable, but labor intensive. If post processing of repro work takes longer than to complete the actual painting in the first place, one is encouraged to consider other options. Much can be said about the difficulty portraying some colors in nature with artists' pigments or photographic media, the challenges of painting, capturing light, how light is reflected from paintings vs prints, etc., etc.
I have rented a H4D-40 when it was first released and on the calibrated monitor the images were clearly closer to the original than the files take with 5DII. However, those differences were minimized in the final product - the print. Yes, even when that print was made by a high end art repro outfit. Fast forward three years later, I am revisiting the issue in view of technological advances and .... more affordable pre-owned
MFDB possibilities.
Back to regularly scheduled programing.
-
Leaf has a profile specifically oriented towards reproduction.
-
Leaf has a profile specifically oriented towards reproduction.
You really will have to get into calendars... you obviously have the right ideas.
;-)
Rob C
-
@ T.Dascalos (Others, please, excuse a very brief diversion from regular programing.)
You put your finger on it. The mid tones are almost always on the mark, but the lighter areas fall apart, or as you said "crack". My 5D used to blow the highlights without a possibility of successful recovery; D800 does better at preserving or recovering light areas, but slightly warm highlights shift into neon yellow/orange, e.g. When these color shifts are globally corrected, the rest if the image suffers. And correcting color locally is doable, but labor intensive. If post processing of repro work takes longer than to complete the actual painting in the first place, one is encouraged to consider other options. Much can be said about the difficulty portraying some colors in nature with artists' pigments or photographic media, the challenges of painting, capturing light, how light is reflected from paintings vs prints, etc., etc.
I have rented a H4D-40 when it was first released and on the calibrated monitor the images were clearly closer to the original than the files take with 5DII. However, those differences were minimized in the final product - the print. Yes, even when that print was made by a high end art repro outfit. Fast forward three years later, I am revisiting the issue in view of technological advances and .... more affordable pre-owned
MFDB possibilities.
Back to regularly scheduled programing.
You are right on all your observations… If I only can help you out, I would say that: To do painting reproduction (reproduction, not taking pictures of paintings) is the ultimate photography, simply because you have to move beyond theory… You have to remember that a painter's colour is not 10 or 12 or 14 or 16 bits... thus, you have to move beyond common knowledge in photography (i.e. to do what Ansel Adams did and challenge theory) it's not that theory isn't valid, it's that you have to find ways to do scientific photography which means that you have to eliminate the errors that the equipment produces within theory. That's why only very few people do real painting reproduction… Remember what I said before? "You have to build your own profiles !", this means that no automatic calibration is good enough for paintings, you have to correct the (inevitable) errors that are involved in the process... There are perhaps half a hundred of parameters to control, the first one is to record the painting in "true colour"… this is the start, you need an MS MFDB! …then there is to do the capture right (about five parameters), then there is to have the capture profiles right, then…..
-
Is this thread about the Leica S? Im confused.
-
Yes Indeed. I use AWB on my M9 in mixed lighting. It isn't accurate but boy is it pretty.
I really like S files, like larger M9 files.
No disrespect to David Farkas and the others who have tweaked this image, but I vastly prefer the original version, with its warm, greenish tint. The palette meshes well with the period feel of the location. The color on her feels like it's simply a result of soft ambient tungsten combined with window light bouncing off tinted walls, the way it would be in real life. And the transitions between highlights and midtones on her face are much gentler and softer.
-
Is this thread about the Leica S? Im confused.
No… the "real" thread was some weeks ago… http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85784.0 , but "some" insist to undervalue the fact that the Leica group can now compete and beat everybody, in all categories of pro, passion and creative photography… from B&W "street" masterpieces, to "studio" and up to pro "painting reproduction". It seems that there is lots of some "makers domination" in this forum and Leica has "disturbed and threatened" the "dominators" of photography….
-
Hi,
Just a few points on reproduction, that is nothing I have experience with, but I still feel I may have a point.
1) To get an accurate representation of the colours you need pigments that have the similar spectral absorbation characteristics to the original paint
2) A profile matching the pigments/colour in the original is needed
3) Luminance ratio is probably close to print, while normal profiles are intended to render a wide luminance range on narrow luminance range media
4) Multishot is probably good, as it eliminates colour aliasing. Non OLP filtered bayer is probably not optimal for repro if the original has fine details
Quite a few other aspects, but clearly, repro is a different field from subjective photography.
Best regards
Erik
You are right on all your observations… If I only can help you out, I would say that: To do painting reproduction (reproduction, not taking pictures of paintings) is the ultimate photography, simply because you have to move beyond theory… You have to remember that a painter's colour is not 10 or 12 or 14 or 16 bits... thus, you have to move beyond common knowledge in photography (i.e. to do what Ansel Adams did and challenge theory) it's not that theory isn't valid, it's that you have to find ways to do scientific photography which means that you have to eliminate the errors that the equipment produces within theory. That's why only very few people do real painting reproduction… Remember what I said before? "You have to build your own profiles !", this means that no automatic calibration is good enough for paintings, you have to correct the (inevitable) errors that are involved in the process... There are perhaps half a hundred of parameters to control, the first one is to record the painting in "true colour"… this is the start, you need an MS MFDB! …then there is to do the capture right (about five parameters), then there is to have the capture profiles right, then…..
-
Hi,
Just a few points on reproduction, that is nothing I have experience with, but I still feel I may have a point.
1) To get an accurate representation of the colours you need pigments that have the similar spectral absorbation characteristics to the original paint
2) A profile matching the pigments/colour in the original is needed
3) Luminance ratio is probably close to print, while normal profiles are intended to render a wide luminance range on narrow luminance range media
4) Multishot is probably good, as it eliminates colour aliasing. Non OLP filtered bayer is probably not optimal for repro if the original has fine details
Quite a few other aspects, but clearly, repro is a different field from subjective photography.
Best regards
Erik
For the first three… Try it this way and tell me what you think… I think it will still be a "photograph of a painting", rather than "reproduction" of it…
For the fourth… Aliasing (the absence of… which is welcome) has nothing to do with using MS… it's all doing the capture in "true colour" without interpolation involved… Think of it as a Hi-end single ended stereo that one is using a poor cartridge… If you have the rest perfect, you'll still be "treating" the wrong signal, you should have the best possible cartridge, then look for the best tonearm to make it full justice, then the cable to transfer the signal, then….
-
Hi,
That is probably a good thing.
Best regards
Erik
Leaf has a profile specifically oriented towards reproduction.
-
Yes Indeed. I use AWB on my M9 in mixed lighting. It isn't accurate but boy is it pretty.
I really like S files, like larger M9 files.
This thread has moved all over the place, mostly towards what is "correct" color reproduction. For paintings, achriving, that makes sense, for fashion, the images leica posted it's all a matter of taste.
It took me one look at an S2 file and my feeling was it looked like my m8 files on people which sold me then and there.
Once in a processor we all know that can change, but starting pretty usually ends up pretty.
Honestly, the format, either in dimension or size is not relevant to me. What is relevant is it tethers, it has pretty color, it seems robust, I could use my current lens set.
It ticked off a lot of points for me and it offers me a lot of lens options and I am positive Leica making smart adapters was a great move because even though I started with one body and a battery, I'll place many more orders in the Leica S system as time goes on. Actually this week.
Now I won't say the camera is perfect, nothing is and to me the biggest leap with this camera was the fact I've shot so much with the olympus m43 cameras and evf. When I first shot the S2 I would change the shutter look through the viewfinder and wonder why nothing changed. I guess that's the opposite effect from ovf users to evf users.
I will say I think Leica has built a presence in the market and with Sinar, if they finally do something with that brand, they will cover a lot of territory.
IMO
BC
-
Leaf has a profile specifically oriented towards reproduction.
Who is using it for paintings?
-
This thread has moved all over the place […] Now I won't say the camera is perfect, nothing is and to me the biggest leap with this camera was the fact I've shot so much with the olympus m43 cameras and evf.
Dear Mr Russell,
Ever hear of the parable of the Monkey King and the Buddha ? A few weeks ago, by accident, I came across this
" I have not inherited Olympus DNA; nor have I been taught about this culture. I never studied it. I simply love to take photographs, and if I needed something for that purpose, I would do my utmost to create it. […] Many of the cameras that I have developed have been unique Olympus-style products. And there's a reason for that. I was simply trying to make things that you couldn't buy anywhere.
When the Monkey King boasted that he could fly to the end of the Earth, the Buddha told him to go. And indeed he flew to the end of the Earth and returned after signing his name on the wall. When he got back, the Buddha smiled and showed him the inside of his finger. “Here is your signature,” he said. If you think about it, everything is in the hand of the Buddha.
[…] and that those who love Olympus cameras will remain loyal users. Olympus cameras are a little unusual, but I hope that you will continue to understand and support those cameras. "
- Yoshihisa Maltani, Olympus Corporation
(camera designer ... involved in the development of many (Olympus) cameras that ..became milestones in world camera history)
- extract from the the history of Olympus (www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/lecture/lecture2/part17.html)
--
Well BC, when I read this , just thought 'BC' . If he could read your words these last months, I'm sure that you'd bring more than just a smile to his face. I doubt anyone would have given him more gratification. And yup, this is posted as a compliment - just in case there was any doubt.
--
Sorry guys, off topic, I know - but …
-
Honestly, the format, either in dimension or size is not relevant to me. What is relevant is it tethers, it has pretty color, it seems robust, I could use my current lens set.
+1
-
I've found one famous Australian photographer who uses S as his main camera – Nick Rains!
Since I see that he is a member here, I'm hoping that he will chime in eventually.
Some examples of his work:
http://www.nickrainsimaging.com/?q=Stirling%20Ranges%20aerial
What he had to say, among other things:
I have been using the S2 for over two years and can attest to the S-System lenses being just stunning - better than anything I have ever used which includes, Hasselblad, Fujinon, Rodenstock, Schneider, Pentax 67, Mamiya, Olympus, Canon, Nikon etc etc. The 120 macro is crazy sharp with a superb bokeh - I'd love to put it on some sort of hi-res MDB like an IQ280 to see what it can really do.
One thing to consider regarding cost is that they are virtually future proof - the 37.5MB sensor in the S2 and S does not come close to doing justice to the lenses' resolving abilities. Anything they might bring out with a higher pixel count will work with these lenses, and they are built to last too. I'd wouldn't be surprised if they would resolve fully on a sensor of over 120MP.
I am still waiting to get my hands on the new 24mm, in fact any of the new stuff. It's slow arriving in Australia, the M240 has only just arrived but I expect to get my grubby paws on the new toys in the next few weeks with a bit of luck.
The quote was taken from here (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/05/the-leica-s-system.html).
-
I recently exchanged emails with Nick because I was contemplating an S purchase. Nick has his S on the shelf for now as he is using an M and various lens for travel. If you go to his site www.nickrains.com and click on his "What's in the bag?" you will see that he has dropped the S. He told me he will return to it (the S) at some time. He also added that the lack of a really wide was hurting him and he is currently using the 18 on the M240.
-
What is he using for his latest ND5 project? Shark Bay, if I'm correct. An M?
Everywhere I looked where he talks about the S, he seems super happy.
There was nothing positive about the S in the e-mails? I think that when he shot those Stirling Ranges aerials above for another ND5 project he was using an older version of the camera.
-
Someone like Nick Rains is bound to use different equipment for different approaches and in different situations. No biggie. I wouldn't pull out a 645D to take happy snaps at a dinner party just as I wouldn't take (only) an iPhone on one of Michael's Antarctica trips. ;)
-Dave-
-
Someone like Nick Rains is bound to use different equipment for different approaches and in different situations. No biggie. I wouldn't pull out a 645D to take happy snaps at a dinner party just as I wouldn't take (only) an iPhone on one of Michael's Antarctica trips. ;)
-Dave-
Sometimes the wrong camera makes the best look.
It's a formatted follow the leader world. The professional worlds has begun to think the big camera is a d800 or 5d3, the fun camera is the iphone and there is a world of stuff out there that is not only good but makes beautiful images.
When I travel to one of our studios and am on my way to an editing rather than shooting session, I load up all my 43 cameras, because they're easy to carry and cover so much territory.
I keep lighting and grip in every city I have a facility, but with the mirrorless cameras I can shoot motion, stills, throw on some crazy lenses like the boris tilt shift, or a Nikon 50 f1.2 with a metabones and get a unique look.
I'll shoot with anything on a whim though I just loathe getting caught up in the I am shooting this so I must use that because everyone else does.
I am starting to dig the Leica S2, but if I rounded a corner and some guy pulled a gun, I'd toss him the Leica before I'd hand over the olympus.
Makes no sense (I know) but hey who said logical was part of the photographers dna?
IMO
BC
-
Dear Mr Russell,
Ever hear of the parable of the Monkey King and the Buddha ? A few weeks ago, by accident, I came across this
Thank You.
-
So, now we know. BC is not Mr. Spock…
Regarding the Leica S, it is nice to hear that Leica has built a photographers camera intended for the 21-th century. I won't buy, to many greenbacks, but still nice to see.
Best regards
Erik
Makes no sense (I know) but hey who said logical was part of the photographers dna?
IMO
BC
-
I recently exchanged emails with Nick because I was contemplating an S purchase. Nick has his S on the shelf for now as he is using an M and various lens for travel. If you go to his site www.nickrains.com and click on his "What's in the bag?" you will see that he has dropped the S. He told me he will return to it (the S) at some time. He also added that the lack of a really wide was hurting him and he is currently using the 18 on the M240.
The S24mm is a 19mm equivalent.. not much of a difference to the M18mm... heavier of course but thats no surprise..
-
Sometimes the wrong camera makes the best look.
Indeed. I'm headed to the Grand Canyon fairly soon, mainly 'cuz I need to see some beauty after the dogshit winter we've been having. Now snow & ice can be beautiful too, and I'd love to see some at the GC (as I have on previous visits), but there's been a meanness to our weather that just makes you feel grey inside. Anyway, I'm torn on what gear to take along. I like traveling light, so no more than one system. If the weather is pleasant the Pentax would be ideal. But I'd really like to shoot video too, particularly some time-lapse stuff. Thus the E-M1 with its intervalometer and 10 fps (output) stills-to-video feature would seem to be the better choice. But, I could use my iPhone for time-lapse and still take the Pentax. Or I could take timed stills with the Pentax and turn 'em into time-lapse sequences later on. This last option is what I'm leaning towards...using the 645D to create videos. :)
-Dave-
-
Or I could take timed stills with the Pentax and turn 'em into time-lapse sequences later on. This last option is what I'm leaning towards...using the 645D to create videos. :)
That's a nice idea! I might want to try that with my S2. What software would you use in post to make the time-lapse video?
-
That's a nice idea! I might want to try that with my S2. What software would you use in post to make the time-lapse video?
Dunno yet. Shoot first, ask questions later! :D
-Dave-
-
Edmund,
Thanks for an interesting insight!
Best regards
Erik
When a manufacturer takes the decision to produce and sell a camera, they don't *exactly* know themselves what the imagery is going to look like.
Leica at PK, on announcing the S2, I had a conversation with them about the UV sensitivity they had discovered in the sensor which had been made for them. I confirmed that attempting to deal with this in software was not viable, and they indicated that rather than rework the sensor cover glass, they were going to incorporate UV filtration in every Leica S lens to deal with this issue. Filtration as we all know is a contentious issue because it changes the way the sensor sees visible light that is close to the cutoff color (blue), and this is dependent on the angle of incidence.
Interestingly, a friend of mine with whom I was working on a project this year was also designing a camera and hit similar issues, and ended up buying UV absorbing glass from Schott that had been designed ... for Leica :)
I have no way of knowing whether the S has the same (weak-filtering) cover glass on the sensor as the S2; but I would expect color to be markedly different between an S2 used with a Contax lens and an S2 used with a Leica lens ...
This type of issue explains why there are so few images available at launch: Until production really starts, and the firmware and hardware is frozen, nobody can be completely sure of the results from the camera.
Edmund
-
Edmund,
Thanks for an interesting insight!
Best regards
Erik
Erik/Edmund
This might be interesting to you. they're just jpegs which is of limited use but gives something to look at.. Contax glass vs Leica S glass on S2..http://www.reddotforum.com/showthread.php/1354-Leica-S2-and-Contax-45-90-4.5 (http://www.reddotforum.com/showthread.php/1354-Leica-S2-and-Contax-45-90-4.5)
Rob
-
Erik/Edmund
This might be interesting to you. they're just jpegs which is of limited use but gives something to look at.. Contax glass vs Leica S glass on S2..http://www.reddotforum.com/showthread.php/1354-Leica-S2-and-Contax-45-90-4.5 (http://www.reddotforum.com/showthread.php/1354-Leica-S2-and-Contax-45-90-4.5)
Rob
I have the Contax 45-90mm and it's an impressive zoom lens, on Leica S it is an ideal 36-72mm (35mm equivalent) which it can be very handy… IMO, (it shows a bit on the images posted) the Zeiss C645 glass (all of it, not only the zoom) excels when there is back-light or back light reflections, because of the superb anti flare coatings that traditionally Zeiss offers… This makes the Zeiss lenses look more contrasty than others and it adds (depending on the nature of the scene) up to 2/3rds of a stop in HL DR extension… Honestly, there is little to fear shooting into the sun with (all) Zeiss C645 glass… If one looks carefully to the posted pictures, he'll notice a slight HL DR advance with the Zeiss lens, although the scene isn't one of extreme contrast.
-
This might make some people drool…:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/epic-gear-collection-monument-valley
-
This might make some people drool…:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/epic-gear-collection-monument-valley
When you see it like that, it just tuns into more product. Not a clever idea... exclusivity has a cachet all its own.
Rob C
-
When you see it like that, it just tuns into more product. Not a clever idea... exclusivity has a cachet all its own.
Rob C
True as well, although I would still like to have my pick of what is on that table though... :)
-
This might make some people drool…:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/epic-gear-collection-monument-valley
Funny to see our gear pictures posted here. Josh and I just got back from Arizona late last night. What a great trip.