Leica S007 coming, how Sinar, Hassy & Contax are affected? ...competition?

[EricWHiss]

Hmmm the DPR samples are not that impressive but thankfully Jono's files are much better.   Had to giggle when at the end of his review he judges the 007 as true MF quality after earlier professing to not having ever shot MF.  Someone give Jono an 80mp phase or Leaf back to test please and see if he writes the same thing.  I can imagine that if was used to the M240 and went to 007 suddenly had twice the number of pixels and it would indeed seem impressive but to deem it MF quality with no basis to go from seems a bit of a leap. 

The thing that struck me about the 007 samples, particularly those on DPR, is that the color is not really believable. The color of the boy's lips, the red in the inflatable pool, that kind of stuff.  So I'm in agreement with Edmund.  Oddly these colors that seem off remind me of my Leica DMR, which I really enjoyed but never thought of after I moved to my Rollei 6008/Phase.  Surely its just a profile thing and they'll have this all sorted?

[peterv]

Hmmm the DPR samples are not that impressive but thankfully Jono's files are much better.   Had to giggle when at the end of his review he judges the 007 as true MF quality after earlier professing to not having ever shot MF.  Someone give Jono an 80mp phase or Leaf back to test please and see if he writes the same thing.  I can imagine that if was used to the M240 and went to 007 suddenly had twice the number of pixels and it would indeed seem impressive but to deem it MF quality with no basis to go from seems a bit of a leap. 

Hi Eric, I understand what you're saying, but not having worked with MF before, doesn't mean one cannot recognize 'the look', I know Jono to have a good eye. We're all aware of the fact that 30x45mm is not the same as 'true MF' with 56x56mm. Still, I find that with my S I've got more than enough separation if I want it. In fact, the sensor size of the S is big enough for me and I think the so-called 'Leica Pro Format' is just the right size when it comes to separation versus DOF and 3D look (S lenses!) in general.

The thing that struck me about the 007 samples, particularly those on DPR, is that the color is not really believable. The color of the boy's lips, the red in the inflatable pool, that kind of stuff.  So I'm in agreement with Edmund.  Oddly these colors that seem off remind me of my Leica DMR, which I really enjoyed but never thought of after I moved to my Rollei 6008/Phase.  Surely its just a profile thing and they'll have this all sorted?

The profiles for this camera are not yet in place in ACR/LR. The colors remind me a bit of the first M240 examples I’ve seen on the net, but that’s understandable given the same sensor family. When I try the Embedded Profile on the DPR-samples, they look much more saturated than the Adobe Profile. I feel quite sure the photos can be made to look any which way the photographer likes, very rich files.

[Theodoros]

Since (more or less) we all agree that these first samples look a bit over saturated, I have to remind you, that all CMos files (despite if it is DSLR or Sony's 44X33 sensor) files that have been posted as examples, look oversaturated if compared to an MF CCD file... Never the less, the color looks pretty accurate to me, but only oversaturated... (which shouldn't be a time consuming problem when processing the RAW files to correct). I believe that when dedicated software will be available, things will look much better, but I also expect that there is more research on the subjet that will be presented in the near future. MO is that there will be a new version of Sinar software coming soon, that will have profiles for the S007 too...

[Bo Dez]

The David Farkas review is really impressive and has some very nice pictures. I think everyone agrees that the current profile needs some ironing out, mostly saturation, but you can still see where it is going.

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/09/leica-s-typ-007-review/

There are a couple pictures there that I did a double take for high ISO, I thought it must have been a typo. Incredible. It sounds like they've really got the electronics and operation speed sussed too.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

So you make your own profiles? What is your expeience about that?

Best regards
Erik

[Ken R]

Farka's samples from the new Leica S look very nice. Overall the camera looks like a superb overall package.

That said having seen files from it and owned the 645D and now the IQ160 I can say that the larger sensor looks , well, more like medium format, obviously because it is although I mostly used 6x7 back in the day and MFD is still well below that. I loved the look of 6x7, specially when using the 90mm wide open (f2. and the 165mm. To get close to that look I would need f2 lenses with the IQ160.

Regarding film vs digital I find that with film (specially when using chrome films) I needed to light softer and use more fill to soften things up and control the contrast. With digital (specially DSLRs) I am constantly doing the opposite, adding quite a bit of negative fill and controlling spill as much as possible. Some Color Neg. films were more like digital but still required a bit of contrast control but handled mixed light much better.

With the IQ160 and CaptureOne I can get a film like (kinda like type of Color Neg film) look pretty much out of the box. It has more "texture" and more punch than the typical DSLR + Adobe Lightroom lightroom look which has gotten flatter and flatter with every update it seems.

The FUji (x-T10, X-T1 et. al.) film profiles are really cool (in camera or with LR), a bit exaggerated at times but nice. Olympus (OM-D's) also have a nice look out of the box, specially the original E-M5.

Obviously most people here can take just about any file from any camera and make it look in many many different ways.

In short I think the Leica S system (both the CCD and CMOS iterations) is excellent, specially when you take into consideration the S Lenses and the factory adapters (AF with Contax and Hasselblad H lenses). If I did not want a larger sensor and more MP I would so buy into that system. Love it.    

[Bo Dez]

Farka's samples from the new Leica S look very nice. Overall the camera looks like a superb overall package.

That said having seen files from it and owned the 645D and now the IQ160 I can say that the larger sensor looks , well, more like medium format, obviously because it is although I mostly used 6x7 back in the day and MFD is still well below that. I loved the look of 6x7, specially when using the 90mm wide open (f2. and the 165mm. To get close to that look I would need f2 lenses with the IQ160.

Regarding film vs digital I find that with film (specially when using chrome films) I needed to light softer and use more fill to soften things up and control the contrast. With digital (specially DSLRs) I am constantly doing the opposite, adding quite a bit of negative fill and controlling spill as much as possible. Some Color Neg. films were more like digital but still required a bit of contrast control but handled mixed light much better.

With the IQ160 and CaptureOne I can get a film like (kinda like type of Color Neg film) look pretty much out of the box. It has more "texture" and more punch than the typical DSLR + Adobe Lightroom lightroom look which has gotten flatter and flatter with every update it seems.

The FUji (x-T10, X-T1 et. al.) film profiles are really cool (in camera or with LR), a bit exaggerated at times but nice. Olympus (OM-D's) also have a nice look out of the box, specially the original E-M5.

Obviously most people here can take just about any file from any camera and make it look in many many different ways.

In short I think the Leica S system (both the CCD and CMOS iterations) is excellent, specially when you take into consideration the S Lenses and the factory adapters (AF with Contax and Hasselblad H lenses). If I did not want a larger sensor and more MP I would so buy into that system. Love it.    

Ken that is pretty much my summation too. For me the sweet spot is the IQ160. The sheer resolution and image quality is gob smacking, though I haven't gelled with any of the platforms I've been using, although I haven't tried the Phase One XF yet.

For me the Leica S, while it loses a little in sensor size characteristics, IQ and extra depth and resolution, it gains in size, handling, high iso, speed of operation; shooting and tethering and also lenses. The lenses are exciting and superb. The thought of more Summicrons and even potentially a 70 Summilux (that is like a Noctilux) is really quite alluring for what I need and do.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

So you make your own profiles? What is your expeience about that?

Best regards
Erik

Now... I feel this is really a provocative question... Being a man myself that has spend many years to create MY absolute profiles due to occupation (art reproduction - mainly paintings and hagiography), I believe only a troll could ask a PHOTO-grapher a similar question... I also use my own profiles (different than art repro) for all the rest of my photography... what is your experience to think that you can ask somebody about his experience? After all, how your pictures compare with the one that you dare challenge?

[eronald]

Now... I feel this is really a provocative question... Being a man myself that has spend many years to create MY absolute profiles due to occupation (art reproduction - mainly paintings and hagiography), I believe only a troll could ask a PHOTO-grapher a similar question... I also use my own profiles (different than art repro) for all the rest of my photography... what is your experience to think that you can ask somebody about his experience? After all, how your pictures compare with the one that you dare challenge?

Theodoros,

 Don't get uselessly upset. Ask him what has been his experience with programming systems. After all it only takes a few hours to read through a language manual
 Erik, profiles are only as good as the perception and taste of the person who makes them.

Edmund

[Theodoros]

Theodoros,

 Don't get uselessly upset. Ask him what has been his experience with programming systems. After all it only takes a few hours to read through a language manual
 Erik, profiles are only as good as the perception and taste of the person who makes them.

Edmund

So... who is the person that makes them? Is Erik a photo-grapher or not? ...I ask this because most of the time, he posts (to be polite) not interesting pictures... and some feathers too...

EDIT: He also has some "interesting" ideas about how photography may be improoved... (it always ends up with "if industry advances resolution by using smaller pixels and increase resolution) and he also posts on all threads, no matter the thread and he "runs to support" trolls (like Petrus) whenever one exposes them into public... (like I did on another thread)...

PS: Not to be mistaken... I'm sure that Erik's behaviour is not "normal" and I'm sure his posts through the years have damage LuLa's reputation... (not that I think of you any better)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi my question was directed to BC, who said that he uses his own profiles and he elaborated on the issue. Thanks for that.

I would think that the profiling is a significant part of tonal reproduction. Anders Torger developed a new profiling tool called DCamProf and he has a long and elaborate thread about the tweaks involved. Just to say, Anders Torger does not think that sensor CFAs have the significance attributed to them. On the other hand, developing a look is quite elaborate.

So, I think it is adequate to elaborate on colour profiling, methods used and so on in any discussions regarding sensor colour reproduction.

A good example of that is that several poster like 'Synn' and 'Paul2660’ noted that using Phase One IQ250 colour profile on Nikon D800 images gave better reproduction than the C1 profiles provided by Capture One for the Nikon.

Best regards
Erik

Theodoros,

 Don't get uselessly upset. Ask him what has been his experience with programming systems. After all it only takes a few hours to read through a language manual
 Erik, profiles are only as good as the perception and taste of the person who makes them.

Edmund

[eronald]

PS: Not to be mistaken... I'm sure that Erik's behaviour is not "normal" and I'm sure his posts through the years have damage LuLa's reputation... (not that I think of you any better)

Theodoros,

 Your job, our hobby

Edmund

[Ken R]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=78&v=JT9I1fPmMJg

[dfarkas]

It was brought to my attention on this and other forums that many were seeing overly saturated images in my review and field report. Turns out my web publishing software had been updated to use a resizing software library that was dropping the ICC profile for the resized inline images in the article. This didn't affect my full size images brought up when clicking on the inline ones, but seems most people never clicked for larger views. This was especially problematic on high gamut monitors. I pulled up the review on an NEC SpectraView at work and some of the colors were downright nuclear.

I changed over to a different graphics engine on my website and regenerated all of the medium images. They now have the correct ICC profile embedded. If you felt upon first viewing that the images were wonky due to camera color or LR profiles, please have another look.

Thanks!

[Theodoros]

It was brought to my attention on this and other forums that many were seeing overly saturated images in my review and field report. Turns out my web publishing software had been updated to use a resizing software library that was dropping the ICC profile for the resized inline images in the article. This didn't affect my full size images brought up when clicking on the inline ones, but seems most people never clicked for larger views. This was especially problematic on high gamut monitors. I pulled up the review on an NEC SpectraView at work and some of the colors were downright nuclear.

I changed over to a different graphics engine on my website and regenerated all of the medium images. They now have the correct ICC profile embedded. If you felt upon first viewing that the images were wonky due to camera color or LR profiles, please have another look.

Thanks!

Hi... I'm really curious on how Contax 645 lenses perform on an S... Is there a review on the matter?

[Jager]

This isn't my forum, it's Michael's and his group.

I'm just a guest.

But I bet the last thing he wants is to turn into into a place for dp review type of comments and lately we're getting there.

I understand if you don't like something or someone it's sometimes not easy to ignore, but it's the best way to handle it.  (not that I've always done it).

You know I think the value of a site like this is you have a mixture of people.  Some are pros, to some it's their hobby, one recently is moving from enthusiast to professional.

I find this interesting and honestly I post because it makes me think.  

When someone mentions profiles, I kind of go, oh yea I know my profiles, it's my eyes, my brain what I plan to see on a screen.

When someone posts about changing careers it takes me back and keeps my thoughts fresh.    

I get where Theodoros is coming from because when you make your living at something you love you usually take things seriously.

I understand Erik cause he digs the numbers, loves the tech, though probably relies too heavily on it.

Rob C I get cause he's accomplished a lot in his career and doesn't feel like he needs to explain himself.  In the new world where sharing restaurant tables is considered normal, most people won't understand Rob, but to do this for a living for most of your life is almost impossible so I think people could learn from him.

Edmund I truly understand cause he's the little freckled face kid that likes to throw fireworks into the camp fire and he keeps it interesting, though someday he's going to blow his hand off.

One thing I dislike about the interweb (and there is a long list of what I dislike about the web) is people would never speak to each other in the same words and tone in person that they do online.

IMO

BC

+1

I post only occasionally here on LuLa.  But I read the forums everyday.  As a newbie to the world of MFD, I've spent an inordinate amount of time in this section the last three or four months, voraciously learning everything I could.  Some folks - like James, here - invariably grace us with posts which are thoughtful and measured and full of a I've-been-there-and-this-is-what-I-saw wisdom.  Take it if you like.  No worries if you don't.

Others, a few, seem indignant that someone might make a choice different than they.  Then they make the forum bleed for it.  No question the tenor of the forum has become more polarized of late.  Even as it has sometimes devolved into discussing mindless technical minutiae or esoteric theory.  Alas.

I've learned something from pretty much every member here at one time or another.  My grateful thanks for that.

I'll continue to look forward to those contributions.  Especially those discussions that are able to touch on the physical and technical manifestations of this craft, without losing sight of the fact that there is ultimately an art behind it.

Without the art there ain't much...

[Theodoros]

The leica contax adapter is built with leica quality.  Locks, stable and works.

The image above is with a 55mm contax and focuses faster than the contax 645, is way too sharp, but then again ultra sharpness doesn't concern me.   The difference between leica and contax lenses are the roll off, not the sharpness.

Leica lenses roll off smooth, contax zeiss a quick roll off in tone, Leica smooth, almost old schneider smooth, but sharp when you need it.

I picked up some purple ca on this image, kind of liked it, though could have fixed it in processing.  Understand i have the first S2 with a ccd that I love and I pushed the hell out of this image mixing tungsten and daylight, so no color is meant to be technically perfect, because to me technically perfect is boring.

Still, your contax lenses will be fine, but at the end of the day, save your cash cause your gonna buy some leica glass (even though you don't need it)  because  . . . well it's leica glass and leica glass like leica cameras are way cool.

IMO

BC

I don't have sharpness as my main concern either (as long as there is enough of it), without having ever tried a Leica S, I see an opportunity to get rid of my Nikon DSLRs altogether, thus considerably restricting the equipment I have to carry, I don't plan to stop using my Contax system either, since the main use of the two backs I now use on it is in multishot mode (a feature I can't have with the Leica), so I would like your (or other that can contribute) advise on the following planning I have in my mind:

I now use my CF-39MS back for MF  in single shot and I do find the quality to be fine but with higher ISO (which sometimes I need) so I keep two FF Nikons as well... Recently, I got the JAS adapter to use my C645 lenses on the Nikons and got rid of all my Nikon glass but the 17-35/2.8 (to have for wide angles), the old 35-70/2.8 (which was cheap to sell and nice walk around lens) and the 85/2.8 micro PC which I need for product photography, I also have a five lens (from 65 to 210) FUJI GX-680 system on which I have an extremely accurately made MF back adapter plate which directly takes Contax mount backs on it and thus, I'm able to use both my backs on the Fuji (in multishot mode too) for whenever I need movements. What I want to do, is to restrict the equipment further, yet not to reduce the functionality I now have with my system.

My thinking is that it would be pointless to look for a CCD Leica S, as it won't add anything that I can't do with my CF-39MS back on Contax (is that so?) but will only reduce the bulk, but the S-007 does give me the higher ISO quality I now use the Nikons for... OTH, I also have a concern because I will also have to replace the Nikkor 85PC which is much of the use I do on my DSLRs, with a (very expensive) respective Leica lens (the 120?)... and of course add the 24mm Leica to go wider...

Here is my questions then...
1. Am I right to think that the Contax 45mm will perform great on the Leica because of the crop factor that will improve its performance on the edges of the frame?
2. Am I right to think that the (problematic) close focusing distance of the Contax 140 won't be an issue on the Leica because one will have to add distance between him and the subject?
3. Am I right to think that the Contax 35 will have much reduced distortion?
4. Am I right to think that the 80mm will also have improved performance at wider apertures because of the crop frame?
5. Am I right to think that the 45-90 vario will be great if used wide open?

P.S. Mind you that my Contax system is huge (four bodies, all glass & the mutar 1.4x but the 350 lens, all screens, 13 & 26mm extension rings, all finders and right angle attachment too) 

[peterv]

BC, before you buy the Canon, be sure to check out the video capabilities of the new S. The HD from the full sensor may be interesting for your line of work.

[Theodoros]

BC, before you buy the Canon, be sure to check out the video capabilities of the new S. The HD from the full sensor may be interesting for your line of work.

Serious videographers won't consider Leica S or other large format for their video... The reason is not with IQ or the capabilities of the system... It is purely with image format and the way they are used to control the DOF of the scene... For professional video work there is only one format to work with... S35! You see, if one works for many years and has finally set his brains in a certain path that has become the standard from the film days, he needs to spent considerable amount of time which is not profitable only to learn to work with another format at the same level... then, he has to spend a lot of money to completely alter all the associated equipment he is using... Not very wise at all...

EDIT: It would be a good experimental approach for people that would consider the camera for stills and thus already have it, but replacing the format with another is not an easy thing to do...

[peterv]

Serious videographers won't consider Leica S or other large format for their video...

Of course not, this option of the S was not made for run and gun and/or as you call them, 'serious videographers'. But BC, for whom this message was posted, might see artistic possibillities for the quiet unique look of the large sensor in 1080P.

For professional video work there is only one format to work with... S35!

Coming from the moving image world, I’d make a distinction between as you call them 'serious videographers' and people who do 'professional video’. S35 is for very serious work only, because of the relatively large sensor size.

You see, if one works for many years and has finally set his brains in a certain path that has become the standard from the film days, he needs to spent considerable amount of time which is not profitable only to learn to work with another format at the same level... then, he has to spend a lot of money to completely alter all the associated equipment he is using... Not very wise at all...

During the nineties, I've worked extensively with 16mm film and the ENG cameras of that period. That's why I still like to use the nice Nikon 1 system for my personal video. I'm used to the flat look of the 13,2 x 8,8mm sensor, and I don't have to worry about DOF so much.