The New Leica S Adoption-Rates Question

[synn]

While I haven't handled a Leica S for any significant amount of time, I know for a fact that switching between brands within 35mm brings enough headaches; let alone different formats.
In fact, I figured out how to use a DF+ and Credo 40 faster than I did a Canon 5D III (No manuals in either case. A true man never reads manuals ).

So yeah, I don't buy the "It's more familiar"  argument.

[Theodoros]

The relevance is in its direct reply to your statement in your Point 1.

If you, too, found no difficulties in switching formats, it makes your statement even the more surprising. That's all.

Rob C

Do you find it surprising that many have difficulties switching into a different aspect ratio? …I still don't see why you find an "extraordinary assumption" that people when moving from 3:2 ratio to …3:2 ratio, have nothing to adapt with… or to get used to.

[Rob C]

Is there an official list of "Places that have named a drink"?

I've been to that bar in Venice
Edmund

With or without Harry?

Michael Winner was a habitué but I can't recall him claim anything named after him... unless he laid claim to the expression 'a winner'... I doubt that.

Well, there's the Manhattan, Cuba Libre, various eponymous wines (many), Majon Gin from Menorca, what about Ron, our old pal rum from Puerto Rico or thereabouts? I'm sure Margarita has some connection to somewhere and Tequila Sunrises must stir memories for some. Oh - the Negroni was made famous by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton during their amazing time in Rome during the shooting of Cleopatra. (How sad the passing of all those real stars of the silver screen; though some lay dormant from their industry for years, their names remained magical at least until their deaths. So many people since those times have become huge, lasted a few years, and have as easily become forgotten, living out their time in obscurity. Perhaps Monroe, Elvis and Sinatra were the last representatives of a species.)

Rob C

[eronald]

I think the movie stars have been replaced by rock stars in the popular eye.

And the kids, in their chemically enhanced mosaicked internetworked awareness fasten better on a second's beat than on a minute's tune, and relate more closely with the Cyrus Miley butterfly-to-praying-mantis transition than with anything romantic. There's just so many Facebook "shares" you can follow up in a day, attention is of necessity fragmented in new ways.

Edmund

With or without Harry?

Michael Winner was a habitué but I can't recall him claim anything named after him... unless he laid claim to the expression 'a winner'... I doubt that.

Well, there's the Manhattan, Cuba Libre, various eponymous wines (many), Majon Gin from Menorca, what about Ron, our old pal rum from Puerto Rico or thereabouts? I'm sure Margarita has some connection to somewhere and Tequila Sunrises must stir memories for some. Oh - the Negroni was made famous by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton during their amazing time in Rome during the shooting of Cleopatra. (How sad the passing of all those real stars of the silver screen; though some lay dormant from their industry for years, their names remained magical at least until their deaths. So many people since those times have become huge, lasted a few years, and have as easily become forgotten, living out their time in obscurity. Perhaps Monroe, Elvis and Sinatra were the last representatives of a species.)

Rob C

[Telecaster]

Funny you mention the 'Sling: 'they can keep it' was my reaction to it too when I bought them for the shooting party in the obligatory visit to Raffles Hotel. My initial reaction to the place? It made me think of an Indian railway station... I believe it's been redeveloped since '84.

Yes, the Raffles is quite a nice place to stay these days. And yes, the Sling is overrated.   

-Dave-

[bcooter]

Yup, and I think he was right. It's worth remembering that the concept of the Leica was born 100 years ago, this year. 100 years ! Oscar Barnack and his use of 35mm film was the precursor to much of what we have and use today - I don't think it either wise or appropriate to chuck that sort of legacy out on a whim.

Leica now have Sinar, if they want to adapt to other formats they have options, without 'ignoring' their heritage.

There are more 2:3 format images shot personally and professionally than any format.  Probably at at a ratio of a million to 1 vs. other formats.

That doesn't mean it's perfect, or "right", there is no right.

But moving from camera to camera I don't think is much of a leap if you do it enough if your a professional that's the kind of the job description,  to be able to work a camera, right?  

I go from the the REDs to the little olympus to a Contax and use all three enough that it doesn't take but a few seconds for it to become second nature.

But all this stuff is just talk and though it can be interesting, I would never expect anyone to buy what I use just like what equipment others use has no effect on what I buy.

We all buy for different reasons.

My reasons for the S2 was to get more use out of my contax and lenses.   It opened up more opportunity for a larger format still camera and if I want to use the same lens set on a waist level finder camera, it's just a matter of moving a lens from the S2 to the Contax.

I think that's a nice option.

IMO

BC

[Telecaster]

Equip a square sensor camera/back with an EVF and you can then choose from a variety of aspect ratios, horizontal or vertical, and see your frame in the finder. No more need for L plates or awkward vertical handholding. I'm hoping micro Four-Thirds goes this route as it has no historical baggage to deal with (beyond the horizontal-oriented baffling in some m43 lenses).

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A good reason to buy. Seems like the Leica offers great flexibility.

On the format issue, I feel that real world is neither square, 3/4, 4/3 or 55x69, so I crop to subject.



Best regards
Erik

We all buy for different reasons.

My reasons for the S2 was to get more use out of my contax and lenses.   It opened up more opportunity for a larger format still camera and if I want to use the same lens set on a waist level finder camera, it's just a matter of moving a lens from the S2 to the Contax.

I think that's a nice option.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

Yes; this is why I've been hoping we'd get Raw takes now (which he used to post a bit years ago) rather than final work.
I would really like to see what the skin tones and texture look like out of camera, using his lighting.
Most of what I've seen so far comes from the women like unfed vampires, men like rock faces school.

Edmund

That you for the kind words Edmund and they say the French have no humor.

Actually I don't think I posted raw files, I did send you some raws from my aptus 22 as you wanted to see them.

It's what we call in Texas a favor, not an obligation.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

I didn't mean you belong to that school, J, to the contrary, you actually make women look like they eat and ...

A lot of the S2 images out there are drained of saturation; I don't know whether this is the default look of  LR for this camera, or whether it is a trend thing at the moment.

I remember I once took a headshot of an acquaintance, an aspiring french actress who actually got a part somewhere. And I spent some time on it, and was quite happy with the result, and so was she, and then I posted the image on some forum and was told that this was not an actor's headshot "because she was not smiling".

So I had violated convention. How was I to know.

So I went back - I know, I should have been a lawyer - and asked her if I could do some shots with her smiling; she promptly replied, like any french actress would, that she didn't smile for the camera    

Maybe, these days, color in faces is out, but someone forgot to tell me?

BTW, the following thread has some interesting colors and textures IMHO. It's the only one I've located so far. I've never even heard of these lenses, but the Angenieux 150/2.7 pictures look really nice.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/292235-playing-old-lenses-s2.html

Edmund

That you for the kind words Edmund and they say the French have no humor.

Actually I don't think I posted raw files, I did send you some raws from my aptus 22 as you wanted to see them.

It's what we call in Texas a favor, not an obligation.

IMO

BC

[Rob C]

1.  I didn't mean you belong to that school, J, to the contrary, you actually make women look like they eat and ...

2.  I remember I once took a headshot of an acquaintance, an aspiring french actress who actually got a part somewhere. And I spent some time on it, and was quite happy with the result, and so was she, and then I posted the image on some forum and was told that this was not an actor's headshot "because she was not smiling".

3.  BTW, the following thread has some interesting colors and textures IMHO. It's the only one I've located so far. I've never even heard of these lenses, but the Angenieux 150/2.7 pictures look really nice.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/292235-playing-old-lenses-s2.html

Edmund

Edmund,


1. I didn't read your post like that either; anybody familiar with the J stuff knows it isn't his style;

2. I was once told by a guy - a company director leaning over the shoulder of his art buyer (my client) - as we were looking at some shots of mine, that one wasn't a good fashion shot because there wasn't eye-contact. Bloody hell, those were/are the guys pulling strings. The buyer and I just looked at one another and said nothing. The company died some couple of years after I left the country;

3. Angénieux used to make still lenses and then, as far as I can remember, abandoned them for ciné only. How could you not know them: the company was born in France!

Okay, I forgive you; I've never worn a kilt, either.

;-)

Rob C

[eronald]

Edmund,


1. I didn't read your post like that either; anybody familiar with the J stuff knows it isn't his style;

2. I was once told by a guy - a company director leaning over the shoulder of his art buyer (my client) - as we were looking at some shots of mine, that one wasn't a good fashion shot because there wasn't eye-contact. Bloody hell, those were/are the guys pulling strings. The buyer and I just looked at one another and said nothing. The company died some couple of years after I left the country;

3. Angénieux used to make still lenses and then, as far as I can remember, abandoned them for ciné only. How could you not know them: the company was born in France!

Okay, I forgive you; I've never worn a kilt, either.

;-)

Rob C

They were also famous for their evenhanded sales of observation optics to whoever requested them - in France they were very proud that these were found on both US and Soviet "photo reconnaissance" satellites with an occasional spot sale elsewhere.

It looks like their  cine lenses can be somehow adapted to the S2, maybe these are 70mm lenses ...

Edmund

[Telecaster]

...I've never worn a kilt, either.

I'm an American and I have! (My mom was a Scot.) Photos of my three-year-old self in full regalia are still to be discovered in my dad's archive. But I've attached a photo of my Uncle Don, taken c. 1960. He not only played the bagpipes in the Ford Motor Co. pipe band (which tells you how many Scots immigrants worked for Ford at the time), he also loved country music and played a mean Telecaster.   

-Dave-

[eronald]

I'm an American and I have! (My mom was a Scot.) Photos of my three-year-old self in full regalia are still to be discovered in my dad's archive. But I've attached a photo of my Uncle Don, taken c. 1960. He not only played the bagpipes in the Ford Motor Co. pipe band (which tells you how many Scots immigrants worked for Ford at the time), he also loved country music and played a mean Telecaster.  

-Dave-

Nice photo of Don the kilted Fender-bender
Is there a (groan) smiley?

Edmund

[Rob C]

I'm an American and I have! (My mom was a Scot.) Photos of my three-year-old self in full regalia are still to be discovered in my dad's archive. But I've attached a photo of my Uncle Don, taken c. 1960. He not only played the bagpipes in the Ford Motor Co. pipe band (which tells you how many Scots immigrants worked for Ford at the time), he also loved country music and played a mean Telecaster.   

-Dave-

Don't worry about it: lots of Brits used to wear Red Indian headdresses as kids. At the same time we carried shiny cowboy pistols.

Reality was never high in any agenda.

But financial reality: at least until the 80s, the greatest sales of traditional 'Bonnie Scotland' calendars were to the Canadian/American market where all those one-time dispossessed migrated. Many cals also went to Australia. Even here, in rural Mallorca, there are expats who observe Burns Suppers. In few cases do any of these folks even consider returning to live in the land to which they pay so much seasonal lip service. It's all born from romantic notions of times that never were. Yes, some would indeed have a lot to which to return, but taxation keeps them well away. Even today, especially today, the spectre of an emotionally driven national independence for the country makes such a return far more unlikely: taxation to support the new reality would have to be massive, and dreams that a 'grateful' rump of the rest of the UK would smile and pay the difference anyway is absurd. One hopes that cold, common sense prevails, that the real realities of the school playground are remembered, that smaller was never stronger.

Life is seldom what her makeup artist has you believe.

Rob C

[dfarkas]

I didn't mean you belong to that school, J, to the contrary, you actually make women look like they eat and ...

A lot of the S2 images out there are drained of saturation; I don't know whether this is the default look of  LR for this camera, or whether it is a trend thing at the moment.

I remember I once took a headshot of an acquaintance, an aspiring french actress who actually got a part somewhere. And I spent some time on it, and was quite happy with the result, and so was she, and then I posted the image on some forum and was told that this was not an actor's headshot "because she was not smiling".

So I had violated convention. How was I to know.

So I went back - I know, I should have been a lawyer - and asked her if I could do some shots with her smiling; she promptly replied, like any french actress would, that she didn't smile for the camera    

Maybe, these days, color in faces is out, but someone forgot to tell me?

BTW, the following thread has some interesting colors and textures IMHO. It's the only one I've located so far. I've never even heard of these lenses, but the Angenieux 150/2.7 pictures look really nice.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s-typ-006-s2-forum/292235-playing-old-lenses-s2.html

Edmund

Edmund,

The look out of LR for S files certainly isn't desaturated and dreary looking, skin tones or otherwise. If you are seeing this look, it is most definitely a "creative choice." Personally, I like good saturation and people who look healthy and alive, but I am also not a professional fashion or commercial photographer. I've been on commercial shoots as a digital tech and begrudgingly applied some of these looks (desaturated, cross-processed, overly blue/yellow, heavy clarity, etc.) as photographers or AD requested. They seemed to love it and it was my job to do as they wanted, not offer my creative opinion.

Here is a test shot I did of a friend a while back when first evaluating a prototype Leica 120mm CS lens (central shutter version) on the S2. This file was processed in LR v3.6 about two years ago. File conversion quality has only improved since then, but I never felt the need to go back and reprocess.

Leica S2 with 120mm APO-Macro Summarit-S CS, 1/500th @ f/4, ISO 160.  Light from one Profoto white beauty dish. No edits outside of LR.

[rgmoore]

David,

Thank you for posting the great example of the S2 skin tone.  I have some of the same concerns as Edmund.

In your summary of 80 different improvements of Leica S over S2 you indicated "improved quality at base ISO".  Any examples of comparative IQ between the two cameras?

Thank you,

Richard

[dfarkas]

David,

Thank you for posting the great example of the S2 skin tone.  I have some of the same concerns as Edmund.

In your summary of 80 different improvements of Leica S over S2 you indicated "improved quality at base ISO".  Any examples of comparative IQ between the two cameras?

Thank you,

Richard

Richard,

We haven't done any exhaustive side-by-side testing, but having worked extensively with S2 files since a year before the camera was introduced, I did see a difference in the overall look, feel and malleability of the S (Typ 006) files when editing at 1:1. Pixel for pixel comparisons between cameras are notoriously difficult to accomplish. It is near impossible to achieve the exact same camera placement, subject lighting (for naturally lit subjects), exposure and focal distance when shooting a series of images between two cameras, so we often have shied away from this type of evaluation.

[Rob C]

While I haven't handled a Leica S for any significant amount of time, I know for a fact that switching between brands within 35mm brings enough headaches; let alone different formats.
In fact, I figured out how to use a DF+ and Credo 40 faster than I did a Canon 5D III (No manuals in either case. A true man never reads manuals ).

So yeah, I don't buy the "It's more familiar"  argument.

I agree with you there, but that's an entirely different problem with quite understandable reasons for it. The remainder of that sentence I can't agree with at all.

Decades of Nikon film cameras didn't prepare me for my first digital Nikon one either. That was about a shooting philosophy as much as about ergonomics and trace memory. I also spent at least a day before I did anything with my first 'blad 500 Series. The possibilities for freezing it up were more frightening in the user's manual than in the practical situation.

But, as with anything, once you know how something works, you are the problem if you still experience problems switching from tool to tool. I often had to take both 6x6 and 35mm on location; I didn't like to swap half-way through, but that had nothing to do with user ability or confidence, it had everything to do with the break in concentration and method: the 500 was a tripod camera and the Nikon mostly, wasn't. But then again, for some stuff such as calendars, where I knew the magnification would be considerable, I had to anchor the camera regardless of format.

But as far as 'seeing' went, the only difference lay in the formats and the better viewfinder of the 500; making the exposure in either was hardly anything more exciting or challenging that pressing the button.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Do you find it surprising that many have difficulties switching into a different aspect ratio? …I still don't see why you find an "extraordinary assumption" that people when moving from 3:2 ratio to …3:2 ratio, have nothing to adapt with… or to get used to.

I missed this post - sorry - I didn't mean to ignore you.

To answer you: no, having done the swap from 135, 6x6 and 6x7 so often it brought no visual problems along with the change in shape; if anything, for a brief period, the swap brings a sense of visual rebirth, which is quite good for one's photography.

I think that what both you and synn are actually referring to is manual familiarity with individual cameras, rather than formats. Are you saying that if you owned both a 35mm and a 6x6 camera long enough to know them both, you couldn't change around at will without running into a visual/conceptual problem?

Rob C