A new review of the Leica S2

[Nick Rains]

Hasselblad 80/2.8 = $2100
Mamiya 80/2.8 = $1290
Leica 70/2.5 = $4495 (or $5995 with leaf shutter)

You get what you pay for. The Leica 70mm is to the other two lenses like the Canon L lenses are to their consumer lenses, maybe even more. No hype, simply a better lens.

I speak from experience but check out the MTF charts for more objective evidence.

[LKaven]

You get what you pay for. The Leica 70mm is to the other two lenses like the Canon L lenses are to their consumer lenses, maybe even more. No hype, simply a better lens.

I speak from experience but check out the MTF charts for more objective evidence.

I believe you that the Leica lenses are high performers.  I don't know about the getting what you pay for part.  There are times you just pay, and Leica has done much to draw suspicion upon themselves for this.  I'll re-evaluate my opinions on the lens issue.  But I also have questions.  The Leica format is right in between 35mm FF and the H4d.  I think this is what I'd call an "economic sweet spot" for Leica.

Hassy 80/2.8 for H4D 40.2x53.7mm = 2158.74 sq mm = 67.08mm
Leica 75/2.5 for S2  30x45mm = 1350 sq mm, diagonal = 54.08mm
Nikon FX ~24x36 = 840 sq mm, diagonal = 43.27mm

This is a big difference in the size of the image circle, and the Hassy has got to be more physical /lens/ with the technical challenges that that entails.  So this makes me wonder, how much of the Leica lens is cost.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Leica doesn't have a 400% premium on rebadged Panasonics, more like 70%. That buys you a red dot and other undisclosed features.

Lloyd Chambers have been testing a Hasselblad H4D-50 with two lenses the HC 28/4 and the HC 100/2.8 neither of the two lenses was anywhere near Leica lenses that Lloyd was using at the same time. The HC 28/4 had a centering problem, tough.

One thing that I find a bit ignored is that there is not a single MF digital format. Sensor sizes vary. A physically larger sensor will be beneficial when optimally used (read f/8, on tripod and with MLU). A larger sensor also demands a larger image circle. I very much think that a larger (crop factor 1) sensor will give better image quality than a sensor with a smaller crop factor, specially if pixel pitch is identical.

The way things work, any decently made lens would turn diffraction limited at around f/8. There are of course differences not helped by stopping down like distortion and lens flare, so some lenses may be better than others even at f/8.

Most problems will show up in the corners or at large apertures.

To fully utilize the lens it must be correctly focused. It has been Lloyd's experience that AF would not achieve that and that exact focusing cannot be achieved by eye, in his view live view is essential in order of achieving dead on focus.

To me it seems that the persons having the S2 are quite happy, it is very expensive for sure. If you compare the Nikon D3X with a Canon 5DII or a Sony Alpha 850 there is a price ratio similar to low end MFDBs to high end MFDBs. My impression is that the Nikon D3X is a bit better than either the Canon or the Sony, but if the difference is worth the price is something that only the customers can decide.

Another factor is that an MFDB is more flexible, you can put it on a technical camera and use with top of the line Rodenstock/Schneider Digitar lenses and utilize Scheimpflug. That feature is probably important for many users.

Best regards
Erik

Hasselblad 80/2.8 = $2100
Mamiya 80/2.8 = $1290
Leica 70/2.5 = $4495 (or $5995 with leaf shutter)

And these (B&H prices) are just the "cheap" normal lenses.  Whatever "Leica magic" I felt 30 years ago is long gone.  Today, Leica looks like two big middle fingers to me.  And that's their "brand image."

If their bottom line is healthy, I have to imagine it's because they are selling rebadged $500 Panasonics for $2000, $15,000 cameras for $28,000, and $2500 lenses for $5000.  Of course you can buy the $15,000 camera for $23,000, but you must pay replacement costs up front to have their middle finger "warranty."  The word "warranty" in Leica-speak means /you pay for a second camera up front, and then they'll decide whether you deserve it or not if something breaks/."  Platinum my ass.

[Nick Rains]

Good points Erik, especially about the relationship between the 5D2 and the D3x. Better camera, by a modest margin, but triple the price.

Interestingly the Red Spot mark up on the DLux5 over the LX5 is less than 10% because the Leica includes a full version of Lightroom which is worth much of the difference in price (assuming you don't already have LR of course!).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I figure this goes under "undisclosed benefits", but I already happen to have LR3.

Actually I'm quite impressed with what I have seen from Leica. Far to expensive for me but I wish them well.

Best regards
Erik

Interestingly the Red Spot mark up on the DLux5 over the LX5 is less than 10% because the Leica includes a full version of Lightroom which is worth much of the in price (assuming you don't already have LR of course!).

[LKaven]

I think one of my targets is the X1, which has no Panasonic equivalent.  Two thousand dollars.  About the price of a D7000+24-105/4 (or take your pick from f/2.8 primes for less) give or take.  [Remember that those Panasonic sister cameras benefit from being "just like a Leica without the red dot" in some people's imagination.  I think they do collect a premium for that.]

But hey, the X1 sensor is about as good as the 3.5 year old D300, maybe a little bit better.  And I'll bet that f/2.8 lens is pretty good.  So let me see, they came in on the low side of the new technology and stepped into NEX-5 performance territory.  That body may be worth $500, and the lens $250, give or take a few.  Keep in mind that the lens doesn't require a mount, auto diaphragm, or external mating for CPU connections; it isn't very fast, and it doesn't have to cover a very big image circle.  The body doesn't require a mirror or reflex finder or lens mount.

This is ridiculously overpriced at $2000.

[LKaven]

Good points Erik, especially about the relationship between the 5D2 and the D3x. Better camera, by a modest margin, but triple the price.

Interestingly the Red Spot mark up on the DLux5 over the LX5 is less than 10% because the Leica includes a full version of Lightroom which is worth much of the difference in price (assuming you don't already have LR of course!).

I don't think the margin is is even close between the 5DII and D3x.  The D3s tells you what you're going to pay for a professional body on a par with the 1DsIII, and I hope nobody will compare the 5DII to that.  And the core IQ isn't even close.  Granted, the refurb price I got on the D3x was about the limit of what I was going to pay for it, but $1200 over the price of a D3s is less painful.  Nikon messed that one up a bit, but I'm not here to defend them.  I'm not going to praise Leica for their bundling prowess either, though I understand the economic benefit for those who want to buy LR anyway. 

[eronald]

I don't think the margin is is even close between the 5DII and D3x.  The D3s tells you what you're going to pay for a professional body on a par with the 1DsIII, and I hope nobody will compare the 5DII to that.  And the core IQ isn't even close.  Granted, the refurb price I got on the D3x was about the limit of what I was going to pay for it, but $1200 over the price of a D3s is less painful.  Nikon messed that one up a bit, but I'm not here to defend them.  I'm not going to praise Leica for their bundling prowess either, though I understand the economic benefit for those who want to buy LR anyway.  

Nikon clearly doesn't want to sell the D3x on the "larger" market where it should be priced barely above the D3s - why? I don't know, but assume the pricing gap was intended for the unreleased D800.  But the mere existence of the D3x serves as a serious pain in the neck for the MF manufacturers. The 5DII is kind of finishing the job for the studio-only crowd - you cannot argue with the plastic fantastic's price. I think Hassy in particular must be really angry that a 5DII+50/1.8 costs as much as a Hassy 80mm lens.

Edmund

[Nick Rains]

I think Hassy in particular must be really angry that a 5DII+50/1.8 costs as much as a Hassy 80mm lens.
Edmund

Angry? Why? Do you think BMW lose sleep over Toyota offering a 'similar' car for half the price?

Seriously guys, buy the camera you can afford and just enjoy using it. I can't afford an Aston Martin but I don't hang out on car enthusiasts' sites and criticise the pricing of the DBS. They cost what they cost regardless of what I'd like them to cost and if I choose to buy one or not, well that's up to me.

[LKaven]

Angry? Why? Do you think BMW lose sleep over Toyota offering a 'similar' car for half the price?

Seriously guys, buy the camera you can afford and just enjoy using it. I can't afford an Aston Martin but I don't hang out on car enthusiasts' sites and criticise the pricing of the DBS. They cost what they cost regardless of what I'd like them to cost and if I choose to buy one or not, well that's up to me.

I don't know if your metaphor was apt, but to answer your question -- yes, BMW cried themselves to sleep every night when the Lexus came out.  It forced them to be more competitive and to keep their prices lower.  So in a sense, yeah, they do cost what you think they should cost, given the alternatives.

Otherwise, you have apparently mistaken this for a "gear envy" rant. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Nick!

So what are the benefits of the BMW?

- More cargo?
- Higher speed limits?
- Less traffic?

On the other hand easily seen that BMW may give you more satisfaction and other subjective benefits.

By the way what car would Pentax 645D be?

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Nice to hear that you have cars in Australia, I thought you were into boating...

Angry? Why? Do you think BMW lose sleep over Toyota offering a 'similar' car for half the price?

Seriously guys, buy the camera you can afford and just enjoy using it. I can't afford an Aston Martin but I don't hang out on car enthusiasts' sites and criticise the pricing of the DBS. They cost what they cost regardless of what I'd like them to cost and if I choose to buy one or not, well that's up to me.

[dfarkas]

Guys,

Thanks for the comments... One thing seems sure, everyone who has shot the S2 has enjoyed shooting the S2!  It's unusually quick for a camera with a 45mm-wide sensor and definitely comfortable.  I'm anxious to see more rental options as the lenses become more widely available... do you guys know of people who rent these now?

~Matt

We (Dale Photo & Digital) offer rental of the S2, all four S lenses, every S accessory, and alternative lens adapters for Hasselblad V, Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645MF. We even rent a bellows adapter with a fully movable front standard for table-top work. And rental is applied 100% to purchase.

Leica S2 Professional Rental | Dale Photo & digital

David

[eronald]

Angry? Why? Do you think BMW lose sleep over Toyota offering a 'similar' car for half the price?

Seriously guys, buy the camera you can afford and just enjoy using it. I can't afford an Aston Martin but I don't hang out on car enthusiasts' sites and criticise the pricing of the DBS. They cost what they cost regardless of what I'd like them to cost and if I choose to buy one or not, well that's up to me.

Well, for amateurs this is true. But pros have to justify investment decisions, and something like "I'll buy a 5DII this year, use my lenses and think about Hassy next year" must have ruined Hassy's sales figures ***to professionals***. Because, yes, most studio work that can be done with a Hassy can also be done with a 5DII and the images are saleable. Oh, and btw, yes, I do have an MF solution, which probably justifies my hanging out here in case you need to see my union card.

Edmund

[Nick Rains]

Ps. Nice to hear that you have cars in Australia, I thought you were into boating...

He he, I'm in the market for an amphibious Toyota Prado now....

Edmund, yes it's hard for some Pros to justify high end cameras on purely commercial grounds, and the 5DII is amazing 'value'. To stretch the car analogy even further I guess that's why taxis here are Fold Falcons or Toyota Camrys not Mercs or BMWs like in Europe.

[eronald]

He he, I'm in the market for an amphibious Toyota Prado now....

 To stretch the car analogy even further I guess that's why taxis here are Fold Falcons or Toyota Camrys not Mercs or BMWs like in Europe.

Actually we're seeing the same trend here in Paris, of rotten tiny little taxis. Skoda (!) is now almost a high-end choice, and I strongly advise against getting in a cheap Peugeot, your back will never be the same.

Interestingly, a German driver told me 4 or 5 years ago that his company had stopped buying Mercedes because of quality issues, moved to BMW, and was now testing Merc again. Of course, your average Bavarian Beer Belly won't fit in a low-end Peugeot, I guess they have a non-tariff barrier against cheap imports

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Here in Sweden the taxis (cabs) used to be Volvo or SAAB, but with Volvo being chinese owned and SAAB being an Opel with a turbo charged price tag we see a lot of other cars. Toyotas Avensis and VW Passats. It's really a question of return on investment.

My guess is that the S2 (the camera not the car, in case you are asking) is a bit different. My guess is that the ROI on the S2 is very low. If you are making pictures for money I don't think that you got more customers because you shoot with a Leica S2, nor can you charge higher fees, at least when compared with other MF equipment.

My guess is that the benefits with Leica S2 is more on the satisfaction side. Seeing ultimate optical quality, precision and so on.

Best regards
Erik

Actually we're seeing the same trend here in Paris, of rotten tiny little taxis. Skoda (!) is now almost a high-end choice, and I strongly advise against getting in a cheap Peugeot, your back will never be the same.

Interestingly, a German driver told me 4 or 5 years ago that his company had stopped buying Mercedes because of quality issues, moved to BMW, and was now testing Merc again. Of course, your average Bavarian Beer Belly won't fit in a low-end Peugeot, I guess they have a non-tariff barrier against cheap imports

Edmund

[Nick Rains]

My guess is that the S2 (the camera not the car, in case you are asking) is a bit different. My guess is that the ROI on the S2 is very low. If you are making pictures for money I don't think that you got more customers because you shoot with a Leica S2, nor can you charge higher fees, at least when compared with other MF equipment.

My guess is that the benefits with Leica S2 is more on the satisfaction side. Seeing ultimate optical quality, precision and so on.

Best regards
Erik

You are not far from the truth here Erik. It's true that using a D3x or even a 5D2 will achieve 90% of your goals, certainly in the magazine world a DPS from either camera is more than adequate. Spending the extra dough on an S2 is probably a bad idea for the freelance, but what about the fashion shooter who needs to be seen as using flashy cameras? We might know that a modest DSLR can do a similar job but perception is a very powerful force in self promotion. Sometimes there is more to a job that just the outcomes - amateurs focus on pure quality of output and forget that pros can have other priorities - even how cool they look on set!

There are others who pursue ultimate quality for various reasons, one of which is that images from MFDBs when printed at, say, 20x30 inches, look a world apart from run of the mill DSLR images. If you need to differentiate yourself in the market place, as I do, using the same 'cheap' cameras as everyone else is simply poor business. Having the best available is a marketing tool too, but more to then point, being able to make huge prints that are genuinely superior is a big deal for some.

And I don't want to get into the 'stitching can match an MFDB any day' argument, mostly becuase it can't.

Back to the topic might be a good idea here...

[Rob C]

You are not far from the truth here Erik. It's true that using a D3x or even a 5D2 will achieve 90% of your goals, certainly in the magazine world a DPS from either camera is more than adequate. Spending the extra dough on an S2 is probably a bad idea for the freelance, but what about the fashion shooter who needs to be seen as using flashy cameras? We might know that a modest DSLR can do a similar job but perception is a very powerful force in self promotion. Sometimes there is more to a job that just the outcomes - amateurs focus on pure quality of output and forget that pros can have other priorities - even how cool they look on set!

I suppose somebody forgot to tell Helmut Newton and Peter Lindbergh that... Newton went as far as sticking black tape over the brand names. Lindberg seems happy with his D3, and Cooter with his 5DII. (Not to mention that Rob C is like a pig in mud with a D700 ;-).)

But yes, there is value to brand exhibition, and the lower down the market you plough the greater that is: you get that buzz whilst you still seek recognition, but when you already walk on water, who cares?

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Nick,

My point was not that much DSLR vs MFDB but more specifically S2 against it's competition. That competition may be:

- Hasselblad (with a very significant price span)
- Pentax having similar (somewhat better?) sensor but weaker lenses. There is also a lot of decent glass for the P645D around collecting dust
- Contax no longer made but still working fine
- All version Phase One/Mamya options

In this group of cameras the Leica has a premium price tag and my impression is that it also has premium performance, at least in principle (the reservation being Lloyd Chambers observations on focusing accuracy). On the other hand the S2 has a relatively small sensor and high price tag. The other question is really the availability and cost of the lenses.

My understanding is that for a commercial photographer the camera equipment would not be a major part of the total cost, but still most commercial photographers are not flush with money and they perhaps need that hard deserved cash to buy a BMW instead of that humble Toyota.

A close parallell. I have a Sony Alpha 900. I also happen to have a lot of lenses among them the ZA 24-70/2.8 lens and the Konica-Minolta 28-75/2.8. I really wanted to have the 24-70/2.8 for it's ultrasonic AF-mechanism. The first test I made compared it with the 28-75/2.8, there was no match, the humble (Tamron based) 28-75/2.8 won hands down! Especially at full aperture. I'm still using the Zeiss and the 28-75/2.8 went to my mother, who enjoys without appreciating the quality. Why I use the Zeiss when the cheap KM 28-75/2.8 does a better job?

- I'm not really sure that the KM 28-75/2.8 does a better job in real life
- The 24-70/2.8 feels like a real lens
- I use f/8 if I can
- Actually, I'm fully satisfied with the performance of the lens

Oddly enough, I bought the ZA during the economic crisis two years ago. I bought it about 15000 SEK (that is 1500 €) two days after I bought it the very same lens did cost 25000 (around 2500 €), so I guess I can call me lucky!

Best regards
Erik

You are not far from the truth here Erik. It's true that using a D3x or even a 5D2 will achieve 90% of your goals, certainly in the magazine world a DPS from either camera is more than adequate. Spending the extra dough on an S2 is probably a bad idea for the freelance, but what about the fashion shooter who needs to be seen as using flashy cameras? We might know that a modest DSLR can do a similar job but perception is a very powerful force in self promotion. Sometimes there is more to a job that just the outcomes - amateurs focus on pure quality of output and forget that pros can have other priorities - even how cool they look on set!

There are others who pursue ultimate quality for various reasons, one of which is that images from MFDBs when printed at, say, 20x30 inches, look a world apart from run of the mill DSLR images. If you need to differentiate yourself in the market place, as I do, using the same 'cheap' cameras as everyone else is simply poor business. Having the best available is a marketing tool too, but more to then point, being able to make huge prints that are genuinely superior is a big deal for some.

And I don't want to get into the 'stitching can match an MFDB any day' argument, mostly becuase it can't.

Back to the topic might be a good idea here...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

The obvious may be better lenses. But you may never be able to see the difference. The major differences, if at hand, would show up in the corners at large apertures and with correct focus.

If you shoot without flash and don't use mirror lockup camera vibration is probably eliminating whatever advantage the S2 may have.

A major advantage of the S2 is that the whole system is weather proofed. That also applies to the Pentax 645D.

Best regards
Erik

I can tell you that a camera for prestige, and specially the big ones, does not impress anybody at all in the plateaux, or maybe except the little passerelles.

Is the use of the S2 for fashion indeed relevant? Yes, a rental option (wich is almost impossible to find right now here) and I would be happy to use it but...being a camera designed as a dslr, it's really tempting to use it untethered in a dynamic spirit, to walk arround the model, getting close etc...so we are again in the MF "limitations" but with a camera that's designed in a dslr spirit. See what I mean?

Also, not everybody works with strobes. I always use (and used) hot lights, and specially since the motion option is totally integrated in the shootings.

Do I really gain freedom space movement with the S2 ? No. So again, what would this camera bring me that Hasselblad would not? A slightly faster AF ?