D800 vs Leica S2

[Rajan Parrikar]

Diglloyd has just reported preliminary test results and conclusions (behind subscription pay wall).  Let's just say that medium format now has one foot in the grave.

[Tony Jay]

I am not sure that we should be writing any obituaries yet!

Tony Jay

[BernardLanguillier]

Unless budget is not a factor, the question is going to be the price of the few remaining % of additional performance that may remain... meaning how bad you need a new car, a new TV and a trip to a dream destination anywhere in the world.

That's basically what the difference in price can get you. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

The d800 body also has a lot more to offer other than image quality-

6400 asa- 4 fps- video- better autofocus-lots of more lenses among them the shift lenses and tele and extreme wide lenses- interval timer- LIVEVIEW

[DaveCurtis]

I have read the article and viewed the 100% crops. Yes, the D800 does very well and just as interesting to me, so does the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planner which is clearly up to the 36MP task with a bit to spare I would say.

The other interesting observation from this one example is the Moire on the S2 and the lack of on the D800.... and that leeds to the topic D800 or D800E.

[theguywitha645d]

The 22MP MFDB were killed off by the FF 24MP cameras which were killed off by the 24MP APS-C cameras. Everyone knows that the size of the format is irrelevant in photography. Just wait for the Sony Nex 9 with a 36MP APS-C sensor and that will kill off the D800. And when the Nokia 40MP cell phone comes out, we can throw all our cameras away.

[BernardLanguillier]

The 22MP MFDB were killed off by the FF 24MP cameras which were killed off by the 24MP APS-C cameras. Everyone knows that the size of the format is irrelevant in photography. Just wait for the Sony Nex 9 with a 36MP APS-C sensor and that will kill off the D800. And when the Nokia 40MP cell phone comes out, we can throw all our cameras away.

Size is definitely one aspect affecting sensor performance, just like the sensor technology, the quality of the micro lenses, the quality of the processing,...

We do in fact not need to care about these factors at all, it is sufficient to measure the output delivered by the sensor.

So the fact that the Nokia 40mp sensor doesn't come close to reaching the 645d performance provides zero useful hint regarding the possibility that a sensor smaller than that of the 645d could deliver very similar performance.

Cheers,
Bernard

[marcmccalmont]

A DSLR is a general purpose tool, MFD is a specific tool, apples and oranges
It is good that DSLRs push state of the art so MFD manufacturers are under pressure to compete.
They can compete with more resolution and now maybe features, liveview etc in the future they will have to compete on price too.
Marc

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I read the article. What comes as a surprise is that the Zeiss lens on the Nikon seems to be a better performer in the corners than the Leica. Another point is that it took Lloyd five tries to "nail focus" on the Leica as it lacks live view.

The problem is that if the Zeiss lenses are better than the S2-lenses it will not help if Leica increases sensor resolution.

But, it may be to early to draw conclusions. There may also be sample differences. Interestingly enough, Lloyd made an earlier test comparing the D3X with the S2. The S2 had some weakness in the corners in that test, too. Comparing a pair of lenses does not characterize a whole system.

Another way to see it, it really shows that first class results can be achieved with very reasonably priced equipment. That is of course a major win for all.

Best regards
Erik

Diglloyd has just reported preliminary test results and conclusions (behind subscription pay wall).  Let's just say that medium format now has one foot in the grave.

[DaveCurtis]

Hi,

I read the article. What comes as a surprise is that the Zeiss lens on the Nikon seems to be a better performer in the corners than the Leica. Another point is that it took Lloyd five tries to "nail focus" on the Leica as it lacks live view.

The problem is that if the Zeiss lenses are better than the S2-lenses it will not help if Leica increases sensor resolution.

But, it may be to early to draw conclusions. There may also be sample differences. Interestingly enough, Lloyd made an earlier test comparing the D3X with the S2. The S2 had some weakness in the corners in that test, too. Comparing a pair of lenses does not characterize a whole system.

Another way to see it, it really shows that first class results can be achieved with very reasonably priced equipment. That is of course a major win for all.

Best regards
Erik

Don't forget it is easier to design and manufacture high quality lenses for a 35mm system than a MF system. The leica lens suffers from a small amount of field curvature. On "3D" subject matter I would expect it to perform better than on planner subjects.

From an image quality point of view I think the latest CMOS sensors are now very close in quality to the CCD sensors. And of course they have the high ISO advantage.

[theguywitha645d]

Size is definitely one aspect affecting sensor performance, just like the sensor technology, the quality of the micro lenses, the quality of the processing,...

We do in fact not need to care about these factors at all, it is sufficient to measure the output delivered by the sensor.

So the fact that the Nokia 40mp sensor doesn't come close to reaching the 645d performance provides zero useful hint regarding the possibility that a sensor smaller than that of the 645d could deliver very similar performance.

Cheers,
Bernard

I just said sensor size is irrelevant. Take a Sony A900 and a Nex 7. Absolutely the same. I think this is a wonderful era. I am simply going to wait for a cheaper APS 36MP camera. I think 35mm sensors are a historical dead end. APS-C is where it is going to be.

[rethmeier]

A friend of mine had an exhibition of his images at a gallery.
The size of the prints were 75cm square.
Shot with a D3x and with a Hassy H39.

Nobody could pick which one was shot with the Nikon or the Hassy and the viewers were all trained pro shooters.

W

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just a few points:

1) Both lenses were "Macro" lenses. Macro lenses are expected to have a flat field.

2) In landscape photography lenses are frequently used at infinity, which also corresponds to a flat field.

3) It is indeed harder to design a lens covering a larger field, but the Leica lens costs 8495 USD at B&H and Zeiss Macro Planar costs 1843.

4) The Nikon has essentially the same resolution as the Leica from 44% of the surface area. That makes much higher demands on lens quality.

Your statement: "From an image quality point of view I think the latest CMOS sensors are now very close in quality to the CCD sensors. And of course they have the high ISO advantage.", actually carries a contradiction. Increasing ISO is essentially the same as underexposure. So a sensor that has higher ISO capability does have better handling of underexposure. The other end of the range is maximum exposure.

So really, would CDD based MF sensors have better dynamic range they would also perform better than CMOS based DSLRs at high ISO, but that seems certainly not be the case.

On the other hand it is well possible that MF sensors (coming from Kodak or Dalsa) have a more orthogonal color grid array which may enable the sensors to produce better color.

Best regards
Erik

Don't forget it is easier to design and manufacture high quality lenses for a 35mm system than a MF system. The leica lens suffers from a small amount of field curvature. On "3D" subject matter I would expect it to perform better than on planner subjects.

From an image quality point of view I think the latest CMOS sensors are now very close in quality to the CCD sensors. And of course they have the high ISO advantage.

[torger]

Leica S2 is 30x45mm, that is only 56% larger than 36x24mm. An IQ180 with its 54x40mm is 60% larger than the S2, that is there's even a little bit larger size difference between those two medium format sensors than between fullframe 35mm and S2. Personally I think these small crop MF sensors is a bit silly, how small can you make them and still call it "Medium Format"? Sometimes it seems like MF is more about price of the system than size of the sensor...

Anyway I don't think people buy an S2 for technical image performance, I guess it is more about brand, camera feel and look of lenses than pixel peeping. Those that really want the utmost pixel peeping quality use larger sensors and technical cameras.

[kers]

I just said sensor size is irrelevant. Take a Sony A900 and a Nex 7. Absolutely the same. I think this is a wonderful era. I am simply going to wait for a cheaper APS 36MP camera. I think 35mm sensors are a historical dead end. APS-C is where it is going to be.

The good thing of having invested in the better full frame 35mm lenses is that they will perform as good as needed on the future 36mp APS cameras...

[BernardLanguillier]

The good thing of having invested in the better full frame 35mm lenses is that they will perform as good as needed on the future 36mp APS cameras...

Yep, as well as on Nokia phones. I am starting to design an F mount adapter. It should be a perfect match for the 300 f2.8!

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

Leica S2 is 30x45mm, that is only 56% larger than 36x24mm. An IQ180 with its 54x40mm is 60% larger than the S2, that is there's even a little bit larger size difference between those two medium format sensors than between fullframe 35mm and S2. Personally I think these small crop MF sensors is a bit silly, how small can you make them and still call it "Medium Format"? Sometimes it seems like MF is more about price of the system than size of the sensor...

There is a notable difference in sensor design resulting in difference in image qualities... S2 has a Kodak sensor while IQ180 a Dalsa of very latest design (same sensor as Leaf Aptus-II 12). With medium format tuned for optimum image quality at base ISO and not on high ISO, there is difference to D800...

Anyway I don't think people buy an S2 for technical image performance, I guess it is more about brand, camera feel and look of lenses than pixel peeping. Those that really want the utmost pixel peeping quality use larger sensors and technical cameras.

There was an article by Mark Dubowoy on the S2 here on LuLa... he is a picky gent on image quality... perhaps look it up?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the other hand, Mark does not compare S2 to Nikon D800 head on like Diglloyd has done. Shooting same scene in same light. It is a bit hard to argue with what you can see.

Lloyd Chambers is also quite picky about image quality, by the way.

Best regards
Erik

There is a notable difference in sensor design resulting in difference in image qualities... S2 has a Kodak sensor while IQ180 a Dalsa of very latest design (same sensor as Leaf Aptus-II 12). With medium format tuned for optimum image quality at base ISO and not on high ISO, there is difference to D800...

There was an article by Mark Dubowoy on the S2 here on LuLa... he is a picky gent on image quality... perhaps look it up?

[Ellis Vener]

Don't forget it is easier to design and manufacture high quality lenses for a 35mm system than a MF system.
The reverse is true. Lenses for smaller capture formats are more difficult to design and manufacture for. Ask a lens designer.

[bjanes]

There is a notable difference in sensor design resulting in difference in image qualities... S2 has a Kodak sensor while IQ180 a Dalsa of very latest design (same sensor as Leaf Aptus-II 12). With medium format tuned for optimum image quality at base ISO and not on high ISO, there is difference to D800...

Yes, but the differences that Mr. Chambers observed in his tests had more to do with lens quality than the sensor, although there could be some alignment issues. It would be interesting to see results with the IQ180 on a technical camera with a true apochromatic lens.

Regards,

Bill