Wow, he says that their cmos sensor has virtually no color shift and no crosstalk. Would be great to have that in a digital back in a view cam ...
Best,
Gebhard
Hi,
Yes I agree. On the other hand, it makes little sense on a DSLR.
Best regards
Erik
Why do you think it makes little sense on a DSLR Erik? The Leica has a tilt shift lens in the lineup and also is compatible with the Sinar P series, it seems like having a sensor with no colour shift or cross talk is exactly what is needed, unless I'm missing something from the technical/engineering side of things?
Mat
The downside is really that competition is now at 50-80 MP, while the S-series is limited to 37.5 MP.
Why is Leica is staying at 37.5MP for the S (Typ 007) ...As they did with their CCD sensor eeeh? Which they keep constant to the same resolution from its introduction on.... :P
... so they can sell you a 50MP version in 2017!
As they did with their CCD sensor eeeh? Which they keep constant to the same resolution from its introduction on.... :P
Hi Mat,
What you miss, is that distance between the exit pupil and the sensor is in all probability large because there needs to be place for the mirror.
On a camera without mirror that often is used with symmetrical lenses with exit pupil close to the sensor it makes sense to optimize the sensor for the large beam angles that may result, but much less so on an SLR. With SLR lenses there is simply no issue.
Tilting the lens may cause a problem, but again, SLR lenses used to have limited tilts. Indeed, Canon and Nikon T&S lenses work well on digital sensors, including the IQ-250.
So, the design of the CMOSIS sensor solves a problem on M-series Leicas and possibly studio type of cameras if Leica will make a sensor for Sinar. But that problem is simply not there with DSLRs.
The downside is really that competition is now at 50-80 MP, while the S-series is limited to 37.5 MP. The combination of sharp lenses and large pixels is also prone to moiré. Whenever you get moiré, colour or monochrome, it is a clear indication that the lens outresolves the sensor - showing fake detail instead of true detail.
Best regards
Erik
I also believe that 99.99% of possible users choosing between either using Leica's 37.5mp or Sony's 50mp.... resolution will be the last that will affect their consideration... In fact, I believe more pros will think of Leica's lower resolution as a benefit rather than "disadvantage" as some suggest...
It could be argued that Leica and the companies using Sony sensors (MF or FF) have made the exact same choice, which is to re-use a proven sensor technology/architecture (used in the M240/D810) and scale that technology to a larger sensor keeping everything else pretty much the same.
It could be argued that Leica and the companies using Sony sensors (MF or FF) have made the exact same choice, which is to re-use a proven sensor technology/architecture (used in the M240/D810) and scale that technology to a larger sensor keeping everything else pretty much the same.The Sony 50mp sensor doesn't have the same pixel pitch as the D810 sensor... it's 10% larger... I don't see how comparing M240 with D810 tells us anything... M240 is optimised for "street" while D810 for tripod use... S 007 will obviously be optimised for the same applications as Sony's 50mp sensor.
Looking at it from that angle, comparing the "pixels" of the sensor used in the D810 and those of the M240 pretty tells us everything we need to know, doesn't it?
My personal view is that the key strength of the S system is the lenses so have a sensor which performs as well as the competition is enough to deliver overall a very appealing proposition from a performance standpoint (leaving price aside).
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting to note that again the advances in sensor tech comes from the mobile side. Copper and a 0.09 micron process with shallow wells. A little behind Samsung but ahead of the others for now.
Just reading the article
" Some of the technology that went into the sensor came from CMOSIS’s experience in making 1.75 micron mobile phone camera chips and using extremely fine structures to maximize the already small photosensitive areas on those tiny sensors. One such tactic was utilizing copper to construct the conductive pathways (wires) in the sensor. "
So yes, mobile tech is far ahead. Samsung is at 65 nm with the nx1.
One such tactic was utilizing copper to construct the conductive pathways (wires) in the sensor. "
+1... LOL... They are smart, aren't they?
Aw, c'mon, guys. Going from Al to Cu interconnects wasn't easy.Ι use silver for the (TAD) tweeters (only for that) of my horn speakers! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_interconnect
Jim
It is a conscious decision from Leica and for me personally this is a plus... I want to keep the versatility of being able to shoot handheld...A 50 MP camera will not only be equally able to be shot hand-held, it will also offer a level of details that is at least as good as the 37MP camera *).
Aw, c'mon, guys. Going from Al to Cu interconnects wasn't easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_interconnect
Jim
A 50 MP camera will not only be equally able to be shot hand-held, it will also offer a level of details that is at least as good as the 37MP camera *).
-h
*)Assuming all-else equal
Hi, than what do you make of Ming Thein's assumption/theory that "less pixels might actually produce a perceptually sharper/ crisper image for a given reproduction size, providing that this size is reasonable for the amount of resolution you’ve got in the smaller image."
It seems to me that Mr. Thein makes some valid practical points.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/05/resolution-shot-discipline-image-quality/
BTW, I understand that a camera system's MTF will benefit from more MP's, but I think that Leica chose wisely, given the tech that is available to them at the moment.
Apparently not ,not my field so shouldn't poke fun but the link says "The improvement in conductivity in going from earlier aluminium to copper based conductors was modest". I suppose modest gains are enough, like increasing pixel counts incrementally, for marketing purposes. Cynics hat on today.
The gain in conductivity is said to be modest. That doesn't mean that the net gain in output quality is not significant. Lower power requirements also lead to lower heat generation, and/or faster circuits, and may lead to lower needs for amplification. The new fabrication techniques that had to be developed may also lead the way to other materials being used.
This is not an incremental marketing opportunity, it is real technological progress.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi, than what do you make of Ming Thein's assumption/theory that "less pixels might actually produce a perceptually sharper/ crisper image for a given reproduction size, providing that this size is reasonable for the amount of resolution you’ve got in the smaller image."He lost me in the first sentence: "And I define a good result as one which the image is critically sharp at 100% actual-pixels view". That is not a "valid practical point". That is a theoretical view removing oneself from why (most of us) are using cameras in the first place.
It seems to me that Mr. Thein makes some valid practical points.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/05/resolution-shot-discipline-image-quality/
BTW, I understand that a camera system's MTF will benefit from more MP's, but I think that Leica chose wisely, given the tech that is available to them at the moment.
Since 36 doesn’t divide cleanly into 24 – you get 1.5 old pixels per new one – there’s always going to be some guesswork as to precisely how that half pixel is allocated. And depending on the algorithm, any one of the following might happen – blur edges; stairstep artefacts; haloes or abrupt transitions; odd discontinuities in diagonal lines.I don't think that this is a good description of how image scaling works. Yes, there are trade-offs, but "guesswork" is a bad choice of words. Assuming that the camera is a "Nyquistian sampler" (the more blurry images are at pixel level, the more true that approximation is) and that there is no camera noise (which is of course only an approximation), there really is not guesswork, the 2-dimensional (3 if we include color) continous "waveform" is really uniquely known, reproducible at any scale.
A 50 MP camera will not only be equally able to be shot hand-held, it will also offer a level of details that is at least as good as the 37MP camera *).
-h
*)Assuming all-else equal
I have never shot with a 50MP camera but based upon my experience with the P30+ and the Leica S2 I probably would not feel very comfortable going above 40MP handheld.
Obviously only my opinion and likely to be different from person to person.
I have never shot with a 50MP camera but based upon my experience with the P30+ and the Leica S2 I probably would not feel very comfortable going above 40MP handheld.
Obviously only my opinion and likely to be different from person to person.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png) |
Hi, than what do you make of Ming Thein's assumption/theory that "less pixels might actually produce a perceptually sharper/ crisper image for a given reproduction size, providing that this size is reasonable for the amount of resolution you’ve got in the smaller image."
It seems to me that Mr. Thein makes some valid practical points.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/05/resolution-shot-discipline-image-quality/
BTW, I understand that a camera system's MTF will benefit from more MP's, but I think that Leica chose wisely, given the tech that is available to them at the moment.
Erik, thanks for showing these examples, again. They make quite clear that a future S (or any future camera, for that matter) would benifit from more sensels/resolving power. A 93,5 MP Leica S would be quite interesting for landscape, architecture and such.
Why Leica chose a 37,5 MP sensor for the new S, I don't know and I guess it will probably be enough resolution for most applications. I have a feeling that this is the best they can do at the moment, given the technology that is available to them at this point.
There are quite a few S photographers who'd have wanted more resolution, though. Maybe at PK'16 when CMOSIS have developed further, we'll see a 'high res' S to complement the 'high ISO' S.
ps. they claim it will have "What promises to be best high ISO performance in MFD". I'd lay real money that the 645z kicks its ass. And not by a little, either . Nothing in CMOSIS's performance to date suggests their chip tech rivals Sony's in any way. But time will tell.
ps. they claim it will have "What promises to be best high ISO performance in MFD". I'd lay real money that the 645z kicks its ass. And not by a little, either . Nothing in CMOSIS's performance to date suggests their chip tech rivals Sony's in any way. But time will tell.
The result is that there is no sensor vignetting, no color shifts and no loss of sharpness in the corners. It’s easy to put this theory to the test. Take a Leica 18mm Super Elmar-M ASPH lens. Put it on the M 240 and take a shot. Then, mount the same lens on a Sony A7r. Yeah…. Oh and just to see that the advantage isn’t only at extremes, try a 35mm Summilux ASPH next. The Sony sensor in the A7r just isn’t adept at handling non-retrofocus lenses, with non-telecentric designs.Clearly a sensor designed for large beam angles would make sense on technical cameras. But I guess that technical camera shooters prefer larger sensors and more megapixels, making better use of their lenses.
They kept it at 37MPs because their fabricator could not make a (much) higher resolution chip that met their other quality criteria and the marketing department said, "well then make it exactly 37.5 'cause we can sell that better alongside the CCD sensor and not obsolete the 006 so obviously/badly."
The rest is smoke and mirrors. Those lenses would cut up a 50 or 60 MP sensor.
- N.
ps. they claim it will have "What promises to be best high ISO performance in MFD". I'd lay real money that the 645z kicks its ass. And not by a little, either . Nothing in CMOSIS's performance to date suggests their chip tech rivals Sony's in any way. But time will tell.
If S photographers bought the S when they wanted or needed more resolution then they bought the wrong camera. If they bought into the S system in the hope that a higher resolution camera was around the corner then they need their heads examining.
If S photographers bought the S when they wanted or needed more resolution then they bought the wrong camera. If they bought into the S system in the hope that a higher resolution camera was around the corner then they need their heads examining.
I actually could not find this claim anywhere on the Leica website...Sure, I'll chime in.
Given that David Farkas is sometimes on this forum it would be nice if he could explain why he put that or why he believes that.
Hi,
Lot of bad information in the article:
The Leica-S wideangles are clearly telecentric designs. So the writing below is just desinformation.Clearly a sensor designed for large beam angles would make sense on technical cameras. But I guess that technical camera shooters prefer larger sensors and more megapixels, making better use of their lenses.
The 79dB quoted in the article would correspond to 13.1 EV, clearly better than the 12.34EV measured by DxO on the Leica M (240), but I guess 13.1 EV is possible on that sensor. Latest generation 135 FF sensors seem to be around 13.6 EV. Now, 13.1 EV is clearly between 13 and 14 EV, as mentioned in the article. But it is essentially 13 EV and quite a bit from 14 EV, not a lie, but pretty close!
I would agree that it is probable that the Pentax 645Z is a better high ISO performer than the Leica S (Typ 007).
I don't have anything against Leica, but I don't like desinformation.
Erik,
I'm sorry you feel my information isn't accurate. All the facts, figures and reasoning came directly from my conversations with engineers at Leica who are directly responsible for the work with CMOSIS designing the chip. Interestingly, you are the only person to take issue with my write-up since it has been posted a few weeks ago, but I am happy to address your specific issues.
You are absolutely correct. The S lenses are telecentric designs, but the snippet of text you quoted from my article only talks about M lenses on an M240 and using those same lenses on a Sony A7r. I didn't make mention of the S lenses.
I think it would be interesting to explore in further detail just how telecentric the S lenses (or other MFDSLR lenses) actually are. Sure, I'd imagine a 180mm to be close to 100% telecentric, but perhaps an ultra-wide like the 24mm might not be totally telecentric.
In my article I said "around 79db" as the early testing samples Leica received from CMOSIS were from the first wafer. Dr. Zimmer seemed to be hinting at slightly better performance when the sensor goes into full production. Likewise, there are other factors in the imaging pipeline that contribute to overall system DR. The range of 13 to 14 stops is a reasonable estimate based on current testing and knowledge of future optimization.
We will have to see when real-life comparisons can be made. I'm as anxious as you to see the results.
Agreed. I don't like disinformation either. That's why I fact check and speak directly to the source.
David
In the Leica S2, a grid of microlenses on the sensor increases its sensitivity to light. The distinctive feature here is that the greater the distance of individual pixels from the centre of the sensor, the greater the relative offset of the microlenses. This compensates for the fact that image sensors are less sensitive to obliquely arriving rays of light at the edges, and that no lens can guarantee that incoming light rays are exclusively perpendicular to the sensor surface. The offset microlens solution was planned into the S-System concept from the beginning and is a feature that ensures that all Leica S-Lenses are practically free of vignetting.
Erik,
Yes, I'm quite familiar with symmetric vs. retrofocus lens designs. The fact is that retrofocus lens designs are not 100% telecentric, especially for wide-angles. The light rays are still projecting from the exit pupil and radiate outward, creating an angle less than 90 degrees (perpendicular) relative to the sensor at any spot other than the very center. The angle decreases (relative to the sensor surface) towards the edges of the sensor. This is why Leica has employed offset microlenses on all of their DSLR bodies (DMR, S2 and S 006) to date, in order to more fully capture oblique angles of light at the periphery of the sensor. The new, shallower pixel well design of the MAX CMOS chip combined with Leica's parabolic cone-shaped microlenses now means this isn't necessary. Here's an excerpt from Leica's S2 brochure for reference:
The excerpt talks about offset microlenses.
Quite obviously, retrofocus lenses reduce the beam angle and don't eliminate it.
Here is a neat review of the Leaf Credo 50 http://www.getdpi.com/forum/digital-camera-reviews/51985-leaf-credo-50-review-guy-mancuso.html
And here is Doug Petersons Library Test of the IQ250: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/digital-camera-reviews/51985-leaf-credo-50-review-guy-mancuso.html
Both test include extreme wide angles with significant shifts on 50MP backs using Sony sensors.
Yes, as I wrote above, Leica currently uses offset microlenses in the S Typ 006 to prevent sensor vignetting for oblique angles of light. The new CMOSIS chip in the S Typ 007 will not require offset microlenses as the combination of shallow pixel well depth and conical microlenses will be just as, or perhaps more, effective.
Exactly. Leica's approach is to prevent sensor vignetting via an optical solution on the sensor.
Yes, and those significant shifts resulted in very visible vignetting and required capturing and applying an LCC correction in Capture One. This is a software approach. Leica's approach is through sensor and lens design. Just a different solution as the shifted images in the linked review are very nice after LCC application and post processing. Even though this is part of many tech camera users' workflow, I'm sure if given the choice, most would prefer to just take a single shot without the need for an LCC capture and additional PP work.
I have never shot with a 50MP camera but based upon my experience with the P30+ and the Leica S2 I probably would not feel very comfortable going above 40MP handheld.So when you have to shoot handheld with a > 40 MP camera, downsample to a resolution level that you are comfortable with --- and when you have the opportunity to use a tripod (or a high enough shutter speed), you can make use of the extra resolution. With suitable processing, higher pixel counts is a "win-no lose" situation as far as the sharpness/resolution/detail of the final product is concerned.
They kept it at 37MPs because their fabricator could not make a (much) higher resolution chip rivals Sony's in any way ...I basically agree, except that I think the hard part would be the design of a new, smaller, high quality pixel cell and its integration into a column-parallel ADC CMOS sendor design by CMOSIS, rather than the manufacture by the CMOS chip fab. to which CMOSIS and Leica outsource that task. It seems that sensors can use far less that state-of-the-art fab. technology, as the feature sizes are so much larger than needed for recent microprocessors, memory chips, and so on.
Erik,
In the Leica Cappucino there is some coffee, some milk and a LOT of foam. The experience can still be positive although the price does not reflect the contents.
Edmund
Erik,
I'm sorry you feel my information isn't accurate. All the facts, figures and reasoning came directly from my conversations with engineers at Leica who are directly responsible for the work with CMOSIS designing the chip. Interestingly, you are the only person to take issue with my write-up since it has been posted a few weeks ago, but I am happy to address your specific issues.
You are absolutely correct. The S lenses are telecentric designs, but the snippet of text you quoted from my article only talks about M lenses on an M240 and using those same lenses on a Sony A7r. I didn't make mention of the S lenses.
I think it would be interesting to explore in further detail just how telecentric the S lenses (or other MFDSLR lenses) actually are. Sure, I'd imagine a 180mm to be close to 100% telecentric, but perhaps an ultra-wide like the 24mm might not be totally telecentric.
In my article I said "around 79db" as the early testing samples Leica received from CMOSIS were from the first wafer. Dr. Zimmer seemed to be hinting at slightly better performance when the sensor goes into full production. Likewise, there are other factors in the imaging pipeline that contribute to overall system DR. The range of 13 to 14 stops is a reasonable estimate based on current testing and knowledge of future optimization.
We will have to see when real-life comparisons can be made. I'm as anxious as you to see the results.
Agreed. I don't like disinformation either. That's why I fact check and speak directly to the source.
David
Hi David you are one cool cat in my book,
cheers 8)
Erik,So does one attribute the success of a Cappucino to the amount of coffeine that one gets, or to the amount of happiness that it contributes to your life (e.g. by having nice figures in the foam)? :-)
In the Leica Cappucino there is some coffee, some milk and a LOT of foam. The experience can still be positive although the price does not reflect the contents.
Edmund
To recap:
The S2 is a really nice camera. :) The S2 CMOS will be a really nice as well. :) It won't have more megapixels. People who like megapixels are sad. >:( It will be better in low light than the CCD S2. ;D Some think it will be better than the Sony chip as weaponized by Pentax. :o Others think there is little reason to believe this is true. :-\ Some people know a lot about numbers and fancy technical words. ??? Others could care less. :P Very few of either of them could possibly afford the new S2 :'( The only way to know what will happen in the future, is to get there. 8)
- N.
If Leica ever get round to doing an adapter for Rollei MF lenses I'd buy an S2 in a flash!
If Leica ever get round to doing an adapter for Rollei MF lenses I'd buy an S2 in a flash!
To recap:I think many underestimate the success that S-007 will have... There are many reasons for that (surely to happen) success... 1. Is the fact that many will consider to abandon their DSLR system all together because the camera has exactly the same size and flexibility as a DSLR... If one has a DSLR system based on high quality lenses, selling it should support much of the cost... 2. The people that currently use both DSLR and MF... they can use their MF lenses on the S (H & C645 users particularly so) and invest the difference on an S while having the same lenses for both... Restricting the ...bag size while improving quality at the same time is so very tempting for everyone. 3. People of all 1&2 that want to invest on a new back ...may as well buy them selves a camera. 4. (this is a huge market) ...With the expected high-Iso performance, there will be LOTS of "wedding photographers" that will want to differentiate themselves from the "crowed" of "wedding photographers"... which will invest (the difference of their huge DSLR system) on the camera, expecting more prestige (and thus more customers) as well as more fame (even more customers) out of their investment... I'm sure that all the above reasoning will provide the S-007 a brilliant future... (and tears to competition)! ...and none of the above will give a dime for 38 or 50 resolution, or feathers shot with P45 in comparison to DSLR, or notes or ...theories of man that know better than Leitz engineers! ;)
Very few of either of them could possibly afford the new S2 :'( The only way to know what will happen in the future, is to get there. 8)
- N.
There is one big issue though. The lenses. No one that I know uses a digital camera without a lens. The Leica S lens line is Superb from the 24mm to the 180mm. They really get every bit of detail out of the sensor. Plus you can use Contax 645, Hasselblad H, Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645 and Pentax 6x7 lenses.I am very happy to use Pentax 645 lenses too
If Leica ever get round to doing an adapter for Rollei MF lenses I'd buy an S2 in a flash!
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a_large.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.png) |
I think many underestimate the success that S-007 will have... There are many reasons for that (surely to happen) success... 1. Is the fact that many will consider to abandon their DSLR system all together because the camera has exactly the same size and flexibility as a DSLR... If one has a DSLR system based on high quality lenses, selling it should support much of the cost... 2. The people that currently use both DSLR and MF... they can use their MF lenses on the S (H & C645 users particularly so) and invest the difference on an S while having the same lenses for both... Restricting the ...bag size while improving quality at the same time is so very tempting for everyone. 3. People of all 1&2 that want to invest on a new back ...may as well buy them selves a camera. 4. (this is a huge market) ...With the expected high-Iso performance, there will be LOTS of "wedding photographers" that will want to differentiate themselves from the "crowed" of "wedding photographers"... which will invest (the difference of their huge DSLR system) on the camera, expecting more prestige (and thus more customers) as well as more fame (even more customers) out of their investment... I'm sure that all the above reasoning will provide the S-007 a brilliant future... (and tears to competition)! ...and none of the above will give a dime for 38 or 50 resolution, or feathers shot with P45 in comparison to DSLR, or notes or ...theories of man that know better than Leitz engineers! ;)
Pretty photos Erik, though next time you see moire on the screen, pull back a few inches . . . it'll disappear.
IMO
BC
Hi BC,what I seriously don't understand ...is what all this "science" of "apples against "oranges" has to do with Leica S-007...???? Which I believe (unless I've read wrong) is the subject....
It is a 3.8 meters. I guess you mean pull back a few meters…
Actually, I started out at 80 mm focal length (at 3.8 m) but decided to use 150 mm. The effects were quite clear in both cases, but the 150 mm shot was more obvious. I am pretty (read 100%) sure these results are relevant.
If I am shooting at f/16 almost all aliasing disappears, but so does much of the detail.
Obviously, some subjects are more tolerant. Shooting a subject like this shows a clear difference in fake and true detail, as everyone knows what a feather looks like.
IMO
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
It seems that some posters believe marketing rather than their eyes. The feather shots demonstrate the difference between 6.8 micron and 3.8 micron sensor:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a_large.png) (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.png)
If you prefer the image on the left, buy a 39 MP back like the P45+ or the Leica S2. In case you prefer the image on the right wait for a 150 MP digital back.
Both images shot a 3.8 m with comparable lenses at 150 mm. The significant difference is the sensor, 6.8 vs 3.8 micron pitch.
Simple, isn't it?
More information here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
Best regards
Erik
what I seriously don't understand ...is what all this "science" of "apples against "oranges" has to do with Leica S-007...???? Which I believe (unless I've read wrong) is the subject....
Sir,
Very much indeed! The Leica has large pixels, around 6 microns and sharp lenses. So it will render as the image on the left. Would Leica opt for smaller pixels it would render as on the right.
So, if you prefer rendition on the left buy a Leica S-007. If you prefer rendition to the right wait for an MFD with 150 MP. If you cannot wait for an MFD with 150 MP buy one with 80 MP.
If you cannot wait for a 150 MP MFDB and don't want to spend 40k$ US for an 80 MP one, buy a Nikon D810 for 3k $US and pretend to be happy.
I don't see any problem, do you?
Best regards
Erik
Erik, you keep posting those cropped in feather pics out of context. Show each frame as taken or at least explain that the feather on the left represents a MUCH smaller percentage of the frame so even though it was made with a rig with more megapixels. In the image on the right you are putting much more pixels on the feather itself. (same focal length, much less angle of view on a smaller sensor). Duh, 150 MP would be awesome and virtually eliminate moire. (no need to do a test to be convinced of this).
At any rate, let's talk about the Leica S...
Sir,Soooo... what you are basically saying... is that CMOS sensor of other technology and with micro lenses, will behave the same as CCD sensor of previous technology with NO micro lenses... ...and you expect people to take your "testing" seriously as "how many pixels Leica should choose for its sensor" ...because you know better... is that right? ;D
Very much indeed! The Leica has large pixels, around 6 microns and sharp lenses. So it will render as the image on the left. Would Leica opt for smaller pixels it would render as on the right.
So, if you prefer rendition on the left buy a Leica S-007. If you prefer rendition to the right wait for an MFD with 150 MP. If you cannot wait for an MFD with 150 MP buy one with 80 MP.
If you cannot wait for a 150 MP MFDB and don't want to spend 40k$ US for an 80 MP one, buy a Nikon D810 for 3k $US and pretend to be happy.
I don't see any problem, do you?
Best regards
Erik
It seems the image on the right is taken with an A77. So are you telling us one can achieve better IQ with an A77 vs the S?
I trust you'll apply for Leica's chief engineer... will you Erick? ...you've proven their current engineers "stupid" alright... it'll be "sitting ducks" for you if you do...
In my view, a 90 MP sensor on the Leica S2 would yield widely superior results to the present 37 MP sensor.
Best regards
Erik
Soooo... what you are basically saying... is that CMOS sensor of other technology and with micro lenses, will behave the same as CCD sensor of previous technology with NO micro lenses... ...and you expect people to take your "testing" seriously as "how many pixels Leica should choose for its sensor" ...because you know better... is that right? ;D
Hi,Soooo, Leica is BS ...right? ..they don't know basic physics to your "Einstein" level... right?
Lets put it this way, I know basic physics and can tell apart BS from reality, OK?
Best regards
Erik
Soooo, Leica is BS ...right? ..they don't know basic physics to your "Einstein" level... right?Just to say, basic physics has nothing to do with relativity (Einstein stuff), it used to be high school stuff in my time. But I am an old man, almost 59.
I trust you'll apply for Leica's chief engineer... will you Erick? ...you've proven their current engineers "stupid" alright... it'll be "sitting ducks" for you if you do...
Hi,Soooo, Leica is BS ...right? ..they don't know basic physics to your "Einstein" level... right?
It is not me making stupid statements…
Regarding the Leica engineers, I don't know. Their statements don't really match physics and they are talking about products that are not in the market yet.
To me it sounds like quite a bit of snake oil, but some day they may post some usable images, like DNG files you know… than we ca do some real world comparisons.
Best regards
Erik
But I am an old man, almost 59.
Is that why you don't apply for a major company chief engineer Erik? ...Is Lula all your retirement interest? ...don't you care as to "teach" Leica on how they can improve their sensor analysis decisions?
Hi Theodoros,But you do know more than Leica engineers ...right? It's just that you have a better job than they can offer you if you apply to them, that keeps you from "teaching" them... right?
I am quite happy with my job in reactor physics. I am working in training operators of power plants and not in a marketing department of any company.
If you want to find out more you may look for me on Linked In, OK?
Best regards
Erik
But you do know more than Leica engineers ...right?
Hi,
It depends, if the BS they publish is all they know it is obviously the case. The rest, I don't know.
You know, you can just reproduce any experiment I have done and prove me wrong, have you ever tried that?! How hard can it be? Shoot a feather at medium aperture at 150 mm f/8 using any decent lens at 3.8m with decent focusing using an MFD and a high resolution APS-C camera and publish the results.
You can of course substitute the feather for any object with fine details.
Best regards
Erik
Have you at least handled a Leica S and a few lenses?
Hi Erik,
I am sure it is simple to take a better image of a feather with the S.
Personally I like Leica, but I don't think that gives them an artistic license to spread information of dubious value.
Personally I like Leica, but I don't think that gives them an artistic license to spread information of dubious value. Putting things in perspective never harms.
Hi,
Can you substantiate? Why?
- Is it the red dot?
- Is it the resolution Leica 37 MP vs . Phase One P45+mat 39 MP?
- Is it the microlenses?
- Is it the smaller pixels of the Leica, 6 micron vs 6.8 micron? Could be the case!
- Or are you just looking at the price tag?
My take is that a better lens would give higher edge contrast, but would not improve rendition as it is most limited by pixel level artefacts on the P45+ image.
Best regards
Erik
BTW I think that in general this thread would benefit from less snarky remarks and more constructive discussion about the new SRegarding the value of the Leica S, I would say that I love live view and a good high ISO capability is good for many situations. The reservations about the Leica I have are most related to the large pixels. Staying with 37.5 MP puts the Leica a bit behind the competition, will cause aliasing artefacts (but not more than on the existing Leicas).
Erik, I'm a photographer and I'm not scared by your technical posts, I enjoy reading them. Whether I understand everything you write and whether that's necessary for me in the so-called 'real world' is another matter :) Anyway, I appreciate your effort.
Question: What exactly did Leica say where that is information of dubious value?
BTW I think that in general this thread would benefit from less snarky remarks and more constructive discussion about the new S.
but then again I'm a shameless Leica fan boy after all ::)
I'm going to be really disappointed when Feathers R Us come looking for a photographer to produce their catalogue images with the strict stipulation that they must be shot at 3.8m and enlarged massively, my S will be straight in the bin!
This really is an absurd conversation, there is so much more to a system than picking one ridiculous test and then banging on about it ad neusem. Just forget it Eric, it's not a system you own, have used, will ever own or will ever understand, that's ok, it's not designed for you, same as many other systems out there. Keep taking test images as long as that makes you happy and let photographers work with the equipment that suits their style and more importantly their clients requirements.
If you prefer the image on the left, buy a 39 MP back like the P45+ or the Leica S2. In case you prefer the image on the right wait for a 150 MP digital back. Both images shot a 3.8 m with comparable lenses at 150 mm. The significant difference is the sensor, 6.8 vs 3.8 micron pitch. Simple, isn't it?Not quite so simple. Consider two other solutions: 1) move closer (2.1m) or change lens focal length (270mm). These solutions would provide the same increased density of pixels/feather, thus achieving the same improvement in image quality as your example. The reason to prefer a 150MP sensor is to provide this improved image quality across a wide field of view. Then there is stitching ....
But you do know more than Leica engineers ...right? It's just that you have a better job than they can offer you if you apply to them, that keeps you from "teaching" them... right?
Dr. Zimmer estimates that the sensor in the S will have a SNR of around 79 dB, which will probably translate into somewhere between 13 and 14 stops of usable DR.It is technically correct, 79 db is 13.12 EV, as it is between 13 and 14 EV. But 13.12 EV is essentially around 13EV, the article implies another EV in DR. (*)
The result is that there is no sensor vignetting, no color shifts and no loss of sharpness in the corners. It’s easy to put this theory to the test. Take a Leica 18mm Super Elmar-M ASPH lens. Put it on the M 240 and take a shot. Then, mount the same lens on a Sony A7r. Yeah…. Oh and just to see that the advantage isn’t only at extremes, try a 35mm Summilux ASPH next. The Sony sensor in the A7r just isn’t adept at handling non-retrofocus lenses, with non-telecentric designsThe suggestion here is totally irrelevant to DSLRs which the Leica S (Typ 007 happens to be). It is quite clear that the Sony A7r has problems with Leica-M ultra wides. But the solution that Leica has to the problem goes far beyond the sensor, they also have very thin cover glass and lens cast correction in software based on the coding of the lenses. The S-series wide angles are retrofocus designs, as they need space behind the lens for the mirror box. So the CMOSIS sensor has advantages when used with rangefinder lenses designed for film, but not with SLR lenses on the S (Typ 007).
Erik,
I just re-read David's article once more.
A simple question. Could you highlight exactly which statements in that article are factually incorrect?
I have re-read your comments as well and quite frankly it is not entirely clear to me.
Thanks, Joris.
Hi Joris,
The first objection I have is this statement:It is technically correct, 79 db is 13.12 EV, as it is between 13 and 14 EV. But 13.12 EV is essentially around 13EV.
The other major objection is this:The suggestion here is totally irrelevant to DSLRs which the Leica S (Typ 007 happens to be). It is quite clear that the Sony A7r has problems with Leica-M ultra wides. But the solution that Leica has to the problem goes far beyond the Sensor, they also have very thin cover glass and lens cast correction in software based on the coding of the lenses. The S-series wide angles are retrofocus designs, as they need space behind the lens for the mirror box. So the CMOSIS sensor has advantages when used with rangefinder lenses designed for film, but not with SLR lenses on the S (Typ 007).
So I feel it is a misinterpretation of the facts.
Best regards
Erik
I personally wouldn't lose sleep over the first statement but that is because I don't care much whether it is 13 or 14EV.
That's OK with, it is just I want to have correct information.
I am not sure about the second statement and how applicable it is to the S.
Well, my point is that it is irrelevant for the S.
I own an A7s and 3 M lenses. I prefer the output the FE 55mm lens (the only FE lens that I have) to the output of the M lenses on the A7s.
Hi, that can depend on many things. Leica has thin cover glass, which reduces astigmatism. Leica M also uses the 6 bit code on the lens for reducing lens cast effects. Sony doesn't do it for Leica lenses, obviously.
Zeiss has two lenses for Sony Alpha the Loxia 35/2 and a 50 mm lesn. Both are redesigns of the ZM series. This article shows the difference between the two lenses on the Sony Alpha 7r at full aperture. (http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168:zeiss-loxia-2-35-short-comparison-review&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2)
According to me it doesn't necessarily mean though that the Sony sensor is not adept, it just means that the Leica sensor and firmware is optimized for the M lenses and the Sony to a lesser extent. That's all.
I agree fully.
I appreciate Leica for doing something different from Phase/Hasselblad/Pentax. It is a pretty bold move IMO. I hope they will be successful, a/o also because I have a vested interest (owning M9 and S2). Time will tell.
I have no issue with the S (Typ 007). It has live view and I feel that is important and the high ISO capability is welcome for sure. Personally, I feel that those lenses probably deserve a higher resolution sensor. Ideally, the sensor should outresolve the lens, and I guess that the S (Typ 007) needs to be stopped down to f/16 to avoid aliasing. That is what I see on my P45+ with 20-30 year old lens designs.
The sample below is a detail from a P45+ shot using a Distagon 40, upsized to 200% for better viewing. Development was in LR 5.5. I see this kind of stuff to often on the P45+.
Other raw developers may do a better job (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/RawConverters/Mosaic/Aliasing_NS_200_percent.jpg):.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/RawConverters/Mosaic/Aliasing_NS_200_percent.jpg) (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/RawConverters/Mosaic/Aliasing_NS_200_percent.jpg)
Joris.
Hi,
You also believe in flat earth theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Best regards
Erik
Hi,Guess what Erik... All current Canon sensors have even larger pixels than the new S.... I wonder how ignorant of your basic physics and testing techniques they are.... One question though... in your physics experiments... is it common practice to use different and have results for other? ::)
Can you substantiate? Why?
- Is it the red dot?
- Is it the resolution Leica 37 MP vs . Phase One P45+mat 39 MP?
- Is it the microlenses?
- Is it the smaller pixels of the Leica, 6 micron vs 6.8 micron? Could be the case!
- Or are you just looking at the price tag?
My take is that a better lens would give higher edge contrast, but would not improve rendition as it is most limited by pixel level artefacts on the P45+ image.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I would say that Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod2 may be an attractive alternative or the Alpa FPS, depending on needs, of course.
http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/en/rolleiflex-slr/rolleiflex-hy6-mod2.html
http://www.alpa.ch/products/lenses/macro-tilt-swing/apla-lens-adapter-rolleiflex-600x-hy6-sinar-hy6-leaf-afi.html
There is one big issue though. The lenses. No one that I know uses a digital camera without a lens. The Leica S lens line is Superb from the 24mm to the 180mm. They really get every bit of detail out of the sensor. Plus you can use Contax 645, Hasselblad H, Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645 and Pentax 6x7 lenses.
The cost sensitive photographer would likely get more for his money by choosing a sensor with higher resolution than is offered by the Leica and using less expensive but still excellent lenses with this sensor. The Pentax MFDB would give more bang for the buck, but there is not that much difference between 37.5 and 50 MP.
I can appreciate I may be alone in thinking this but to me sharpness at minute levels is a important but by no means make or break when it comes to buying in to a system........snip......the look of the file coming from the Leica is just incredibly deep and sumptuous for want of a better word, surely the image as a whole is made up of many elements, contrast, colour etc?
Mat
that the techies are predominant.
True.
Some use tech to sell you. Some to unsell you. Some to talk, some just because I guess they're bored and love charts.
But they're not talking technique . . . they be talking geek and yea I know the geeks have won.
God help us.
IMO
BC
Amen.I'd suggest that striving for better pictures or a better technical understanding would both do you and everyone else good, while demanding that people should quit discussing certain things must be the least productive way to spend ones limited time.
Tech talk to improve the pictures one takes is constructive and interesting. Tech talk for the sake of tech talk gets real old, real fast.
I'd suggest that striving for better pictures or a better technical understanding would both do you and everyone else good, while demanding that people should quit discussing certain things must be the least productive way to spend ones limited time.
One might speculate that you actively find discussion sections (" Equipment & Techniques") and threads ("Why Leica is staying at 37.5MP for the S (Typ 007)") where you know that there will be a technical debate, and then (rather than offer your experiences) tries to derail the discussion. The question is why?
-h
P45+ | SLT99 | SLT77 | Leica S (Typ 007) | |
Pixel pitch | 6.8 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 6 |
Microlenses | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
OLP filter | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Never the less, one can't avoid noticing, that Erik uses examples with comparison of Sony's 24mp Cmos 24x36 sensor and Kodak's old 39mp CCD MF sensor ...and then addresses his (questionable IMO) findings as if Leica's new sensor will behave exactly the same as the old CCD MF sensor!!! All this of course is despite the fact that Leica's new sensor has much more many commons with... Sony's sensor (both of exactly the same pixel size, both Cmos, both with micro lenses)!!!!
... an equal right to say it bores the crap out of them.You can tell me that I am boring. I can tell you that you are boring. And so forth. What good does it do to any of us? Please feel free to PM me.
Nobody is demanding anyone to do anything.
If the techies have a right to barge into every thread, tech related or otherwise and spill their infinite wisdom, the non techies have an equal right to say it bores the crap out of them.
Sure. And how many times will you repeat yourself before you bore yourself out?
-h
Theodoros,
I would hope he is more careful than Leica engineers, because if reactors had the same rate of defects as Leica cameras, life near them would be dangerous - I had 4 M8 bodies!
Edmund
In the spirit of technical accuracy, which this thread seems to have centred on:-
He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.
Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"
George Bernard Shaw
Though there is indeed a lot of technical chatter, I'm wondering how much of it is truly relevant? I mean what percentage of images are ruined by color aliasing? What percentage of those can't be fixed with simple photoshop work? When you shop for a camera system - at what level should aliasing come up in the purchase decision criteria?
As a result one has to understand Leica-S positioning into the market and link it with their decisions... For people that upgrade from DSLR just to improve their IQ in common DSLR use, it does exactly that...
Hi Eric,
That would probably depend on the type of subjects one shoots. I can imagine the those into fashion/fabrics and product related photography, and those in architecture would certainly want to have a more predictably usable image quality. Those who shoot birds (the feathered variety), would probably also prefer something that produces less aliasing artifacts.
Postprocessing costs time/money, so if one has a choice it's better to avoid issues to begin with. Being educated and aware helps, ignorance or even denial doesn't.
Cheers,
Bart
Nobody is demanding anyone to do anything.
If the techies have a right to barge into every thread, tech related or otherwise and spill their infinite wisdom, the non techies have an equal right to say it bores the crap out of them.
Does it?You'll make your decision depending on DXO tests? ;D I'll trust my decision based on my own tests alright... :P
I'll wait for the DxO mark results before deciding if a 007 + 70mm f2.8 is superior to a D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4.
Based on what we know today, I see little reason to think it would be at all and none to think it would be significantly.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi,still... iT'S NOT YOUR P-45 ON TEST! ???
What I see is a fairley large percentage of my shots with the P45+. Typical areas affected:
- Architecture
- Water surfaces
- Tree tops and vegetation
It seems that there will be colour aliasing at f/11 and below but it goes away at f/16. But I don't want to stop down to f/16, because I loose sharpness and sharpness is what I am using MF for.
There is probably a lot of aliasing in nature shots, too, but it is not easily seen. Personally, I don't enjoy fixing artefacts in Photoshop.
With birds, I don't know. I have shown that we can have artificial effects on individual feathers, but I guess that some artificial detail can enhance the image many times. I often see some detail in animal fur that I am pretty sure is beyond the resolution of the sensor.
Best regards
Erik
still... iT'S NOT YOUR P-45 ON TEST! ???
Simple, then just show us your S (typ 007) test images, free of artifacts where other cameras fail ...Simple... just show us YOUR S(007) images... that does the same as P45 does! ...SEE? ...pure logic! ...your logic! ;)
Cheers,
Bart
I've a sneaking suspicion that if She did exist she'd be a tad too busy to worry about a bunch of male measurebators.
Simple... just show us YOUR S(007) images... that does the same as P45 does! ...SEE? ...pure logic! ...your logic! ;)
I have a genuine question, is the only consideration for detail in a shot the pixel size? Are you saying that there is no difference between old ccd tech like the P45 and new cmos tech if the pixel sizes are the same? I don't understand Erik's test at all, I am quite happy not to get it though, it's important to him so as far as that is concerned it's entirely valid, what I don't understand is how it relates to the S 007.
If detail is the aim then are you guys saying that the only consideration is pixel size, not lenses, processor, processing or any other system considerations?
I don't have an S (typ 007), do you?Is this an answer to my reasoning? ...because according to logic rules it's not! ...My reasoning behind logic considerations that you have supported are specific... and thus one has to reply ON THEM ...not "beside" them! Has your cat being shot with a Leica S-007? ...What's the relevance of the cat into supporting "crap" theories of S-007 sensor being inferior to Sony's 50mp sensor then? ...please don't continue this insane logic! ...will you? :D
I do have images which are free of the artifacts discussed (see attached). But since they were not taken with the camera under discussion (and because of the subject imaged) I hesitated to post any (because presenting factual warnings, and cats, are apparently frowned upon).
Cheers,
Bart
Hi,Erik, please do remember that you are judging a non tested product by implying (questionable IMO) theories on it... This is outrageous for what a physician or an Engineer (excuse me for being one myself) would ever do! ...Experimentation of other for testing other is OUT OF THE QUESTION for science... the results are fundamentally laughed as being crap and out of consideration! ...as simple as that! ...and there is no sensible that will disagree with this! ...if he does, he is not worth considering as having a stable "mind state"... ask a psychiatrist if you don't trust me saying that this isn't A BASIC RULE for ...logic!
We have noticed on Doug Peterson "library shots" that the IQ-250 produced less colour aliasing than the CCD-based backs. This may be attributed to the microlenses on the sensor, or something else. The SLT 99 rendition in my experiment was very similar to the P45+, except there was little colour aliasing.
What I essentially say is that for correct rendition it is necessary that the sensor outresolves the lens. Another way of saying this that MTF at pixel resolution needs to be low. In a paper published by Schneider I have seen the figure that MTF should be below 10%.
In most cases monochrome artefacts are not very visible and gapless microlenses may be good at reducing colour aliasing. How that works on the S the future may show. I have checked some raw files from the S2 shot during Lloyd Chambers testing and there was very significant colour aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
Even after Eriks reply, I am still non the wiser as to how it relates to the camera in question.
It's simple action->reaction. When people claim that the reason for Leica to not increase resolution is; because of better image quality, then someone (other than a fanboy) is bound to point out the fallacy of that explanation. Add to that that nobody who really knows will tell the real reason(s), and you have a recipe for a nice discussion.Yeap! ...but you still had an one side view before, by supporting Erik's (obvious) nonsense that referred to an a non existing product and was using (questionable) results of other product of ..."10 year's old past sentence", ....as applicable to a product ...not yet announced! ...is that explainable by the cat you posted above? ...where is the logic behind all this nonsense?
Not that that will lead anywhere ..., until Leica releases the next (higher resolution) model, which then becomes the most logical 'deliberate' choice, and so on. It's AKA cognitive dissonance, when we give people the benefit of assuming they know what they are talking about to begin with.
Cheers,
Bart
Ha, I'm hardly a fan boy, I'm not pro anything, I'm just anti nonsensical proof for why a camera that hasn't been released cannot have increased image quality based on test done that have absolutely no relevance as far as I can see.Remember that this is Phamyia occupied forum, that KNOWS they are under very serious threat... and is trying to survive... They KNOW Hassy is going to be under Leica's control sooner or later... Sooo, Attracting as many customers as they can, ...NOW (!), is most important for them ...for the (possible) future (if there is going to be any...)!
The technical side of photography is important but only when it makes sense, surely that's the point?
Ha, I'm hardly a fan boy, I'm not pro anything, I'm just anti nonsensical proof for why a camera that hasn't been released cannot have increased image quality based on test done that have absolutely no relevance as far as I can see.
I don't think anybody said that the quality would not be improved over previous models with the same resolution, although the evidence is still out, yet I'm confident that the quality has improved (assuming they did their homework).Yet, no questions answered... or will ever be! One sets the wonder... and then no analysis on the subject being set... nice logic! ...all "according to the rules!"
The OPs question/title of this thread asked why it was the same resolution (sampling density would be more accurately stated). A higher resolution would have made some other benefits possible (such as reduced risk of aliasing, and even higher resolution from the same excellent lenses). Time will tell.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, was that shot from 3.8m away with a P45+? haha.
Small sections in isolation will never give the complete story, Eriks feather may be a tiny crop from a photograph of a stunningly beautiful woman in an incredible location and the feather or the detail has no baring on the image or it could be a picture of a feather in which case it's the wrong equipment and setup. Even after Eriks reply, I am still non the wiser as to how it relates to the camera in question.
Erik,Oh BC... can't you see that the man is a "different" kind of artist? He is posting to MF photography forums as to teach men on how to it... It's the "know how" he knows... What is our trivial photography when compared to nuclear reactors? ...It's "nuclear art" we are talking here! ...all well supported under logic!
This thread has been good for you as your photography is improving.
Much more interesting than those feathers.
Though just a thought, but I think the first image will make people a little dizzy.
If you sell this as a print, please warn the owners not to hang it near a staircase.
Can't wait to see the next session.
Keep it up.
BC
You'll make your decision depending on DXO tests? ;D I'll trust my decision based on my own tests alright... :P
Unbelievable! ...this guy (Erik) will do anything to avoid answering QUESTIONS posted to him and will post anything as to alter a subject! ??? How is the weather Erik? ;) What's the relevance of the above to Leica S 007? >:(
A first hand comparative test would work just as well and is likely to deliver the exact same results. ;)Not my cup of tea... thanks for the offer though... you only have to find another companion in spending your day... (the way you suggested).
When the double O 7 gets released, I'd be more than happy to shoot brick walls with you if that's your cup of tea.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Theodoros,...in which you are the master of... is that correct? ...Where can one see your photography Erik? I mean your ....PHOTO-graphy! ;)
Weather is bad, good for testing.
Weather is not related to Leica S (type 007). Well, except it is weather proofed, which is a good thing in my book.
I did answer your questions, as reasonably as I could. May be I am not clear enough, but I have to admit that English is not my first language. So there may be some fine points I miss.
Just to make clear, I am not very religious and I have a deep distrust in marketing messages. You obviously believe that a product announced at Photokina but not yet released will be superior due to some magic/engineering/divine intervention. Personally, I believe in science and established knowledge.
Best regards
Erik
Not my cup of tea... thanks for the offer though... you only have to find another companion in spending your day... (the way you suggested).
...in which you are the master of... is that correct? ...Where can one see your photography Erik? I mean your ....PHOTO-graphy! ;)
Oh BC... can't you see that the man is a "different" kind of artist? He is posting to MF photography forums as to teach men on how to it... It's the "know how" he knows... What is our trivial photography when compared to nuclear reactors? ...It's "nuclear art" we are talking here! ...all well supported under logic!
Hi Theodoros,No body asked you of your origins or references Erik... It's the S-007 we are (were?) talking about here...
I just mentioned my source of income…
But clearly, I have a fascination with nuclear physics dating back to around 1965, when I was given a small book on nuclear physics written by a hungarian professor called "Öveges". In 1980 I was studying reactor physics for Nils-Göran Sjöstrand who passed away this year.
Sorry for deviating from the thread, but I can give some credit to two persons who had a great importance for my life.
Best regards
Erik
No body asked you of your origins or references Erik... It's the S-007 we are (were?) talking about here...
P.S. (edit): Thanks for posting your images... did you ever had any luck with them? (Please don't ask of my opinion)
Hi,I never comment on your "images" (nor I ever will)... I just asked... "did you ever had any luck with them"? ...it's an irrelevant to the O/P question that one may be right to avoid... but then again, you've been avoiding all my other Qs which where RIGHT ON THE SUBJECT... just to remind you... "the relevance of testing", the "appliance of physics reference"... and all others...
Some guys and dolls like my images. You are obviously not among them.
Let me just remind you that you are the one who commented on my profession and asked for my images.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
This thread has been good for you as your photography is improving.
Much more interesting than those feathers.
Though just a thought, but I think the first image will make people a little dizzy.
If you sell this as a print, please warn the owners not to hang it near a staircase.
Can't wait to see the next session.
Keep it up.
BC
Hi BC,OH Erik, Erik, Erik... you are unbelievable and still don't learn on how to correct things... All this time you are trying to convince BC on how foolish he is on choosing S for his major camera... remember? ...and he is not even using S007... and he did explain to you how great his S2 is... and he does use it as an MFDB only since his lenses are the C645 ones... and YOU STILL DON'T LEARN a bit!
Any comment from you is appreciated.
I don't know if my photography is improved, I may even feel that there may be a degradation since I am shooting MFD.
I joined a workshop with Hans Kruse this year, and I think I learned a lot from that, although I was just shooting Sony with the Hasselblad staying at the hotel.
Nothing beats going up four in the morning, drive for a hour on winding serpentine roads in the dark, shooting at sunrise at some mountain peak and doing the same in reverse each evening.
I am planning on another workshop with Hans Kruse…
Doing experiments is a learning experience…, curiosity is what makes mankind moving forward. Without curiosity we would still be sitting in caves, perhaps making great art…
Best regards
Erik
OH Erik, Erik, Erik... you are unbelievable and still don't learn on how to correct things... All this time you are trying to convince BC on how foolish he is on choosing S for his major camera... remember? ...and he is not even using S007... and he did explain to you how great his S2 is... and he does use it as an MFDB only since his lenses are the C645 ones... and YOU STILL DON'T LEARN a bit!
Hi Theodoros,Who ever mentioned that? ...Jesus man! ...you are the only one suggesting all this time that he shouldn't!
Just to say, BC did buy an additional S2 because he feels some mistrust for the CMOS based S.
Best regards
Erik
Who ever mentioned that? ...Jesus man! ...you are the only one suggesting all this time that he shouldn't!
Hi,Erik, I'm leaving the conversation... you can can clearly have ones ears smoking... All you ever posted is pixel size which is equal on all Leica S and is all you criticise all this time... You may post all irrelevant than questions asked to you all you want... Jesus man!
Theodoros, I talk about BC and not JC.
Very clearly BC is shooting Leica S2 and he is skeptical about the CMOS based S (Typ 007). Who said that? BC did, many times. What JC is shooting I don't know, if you have good channels of communications you can ask…
Best regards
Erik
Hi Theodoros,
Weather is bad, good for testing.
Weather is not related to Leica S (type 007). Well, except it is weather proofed, which is a good thing in my book.
I did answer your questions, as reasonably as I could. May be I am not clear enough, but I have to admit that English is not my first language. So there may be some fine points I miss.
Just to make clear, I am not very religious and I have a deep distrust in marketing messages. You obviously believe that a product announced at Photokina but not yet released will be superior due to some magic/engineering/divine intervention. Personally, I believe in science and established knowledge.
Best regards
Erik
- The Photographer is that handsome man with the leather jacket who is standing next to the AD. All the girls at Elle love him, and he is seen at every nightclub, gets the jobs, writes the invoices and as long as he's here he gives the essential instructions like "Run down to Louboutin and get us some matte pumps" or "Liliane, time to sparkle for the next shot, do go and powder your nose". He'll make sure to be seen leaving with a couple of models as soon as the shoot wraps.
- The assistant is that miserable mousy thing standing next to the camera cart, who has just stepped back from the camera. He really needs to wash his hair, in fact it looks like he should take a bath. But he won't have much time for that tonight because after the shot he needs to pack everything and then he has to get the first batch of previews retouched.
You see? Artists and techies each have the life they deserve. Now, isn't that the way it should always be?
Edmund
Doing experiments is a learning experience…, curiosity is what makes mankind moving forward. Without curiosity we would still be sitting in caves, perhaps making great art…
Best regards
Erik
I don't know if my photography is improved, I may even feel that there may be a degradation since I am shooting MFD.
I joined a workshop with Hans Kruse this year, and I think I learned a lot from that, although I was just shooting Sony with the Hasselblad staying at the hotel.
Are you sure they're allowed above the stairs?
So what's your point.
IMO
BC
Using some feather shot made by on a P45 on vintage lenses to deduce what a Leica S can do with Leica lenses is like BC doing the styleboard for honey boo boo's mother and deducing how Kate Upton would look in the final images.
You know what Erik, I take all my previous recommendations back.
You should definitely sell off all the "inferior " MF gear that is totally holding you back.
Of course, once this is done, I assume you will no longer be interested in MF related discussions and will focus on enlightening the poor souls in some sony forum that don't know yet how good they have it.
One can only hope!
Erik,
Your demonstration of aliasing is textbook quality - really, it is so clear that I think it should be reprinted in textbooks for students.
As for your photography, all I can say is "not bad" :) I would be glad to swap prints with you. By the way, I think it's about time we did another LL print swap.
But when it comes to small pixels vs large pixels, MF etc etc. I still think that the only way to figure out how good a sensor/lens combination is going to be is to test it - there seem to be a bunch of hidden non-textbook variables. Of course, in the long run theory will prevail.
Edmund
But when it comes to small pixels vs large pixels, MF etc etc. I still think that the only way to figure out how good a sensor/lens combination is going to be is to test it - there seem to be a bunch of hidden non-textbook variables. Of course, in the long run theory will prevail.
Is it an African or European feather?
Edmund,
I appreciate your kind comments.
Could you elaborate on your idea of print swap?
Best regards
Erik
This thread is starting to feel like Steven Segal's acting career.
You know what Erik, I take all my previous recommendations back.
You should definitely sell off all the "inferior " MF gear that is totally holding you back.
Of course, once this is done, I assume you will no longer be interested in MF related discussions and will focus on enlightening the poor souls in some sony forum that don't know yet how good they have it.
One can only hope!
Well, 10 pages of posts and all of them littered with silly, snarky and personal insults.
For goodness sake people, if you don't like the someones opinion or what they have written, or if you feel the thread is going off track, post something intelligent instead of resorting to name calling or belittling someone. This kind of posting is what makes this forum a real drag compared to other more respectful and collegial forums. Perhaps it's time to put this tread to bed?
This thread is starting to feel like Steven Segal's acting career.