I can't be the judge of whether Leica will be able to sell a lot of S2's or not.
The price tag would leave a lot of potential customers out in the cold, that's for sure.
I don't doubt that the new Leica lens line is absolutely first rate.
I hold Rodenstock in the highest regard but they are not the only ones who know how to put together a great piece of glass.
One of the best lenses I have used on any camera is the Schneider APO Symmar 90/4 on the Rollei 6008i - fantastic lens in every aspect. Mamiya 7 series lenses are also top notch as are the best Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. Pitting them against each other as a brand is not very fruitful as they all have some superb designs that are hard to match and some that are less than stellar.
Optics design does progress and is being refined so I believe Leica hasn't rested on their laurels and will pull out every ace out of the sleeve to produce the finest lenses they can.
I am more concerned with the criteria that Leica have set for the shops. They might vary from country to country but this is what I heard from a reputable dealer in Sweden;
In order to qualify for selling the S2, a store HAS to have a FULL S2 outfit in store. All lenses and accessories. This alone would mean a total of around some $120 000 (Swedish equivalent) tied up for the store in Leica S2 gear. The store will also be responsible for training the customers in using the gear - which at the moment no store is capable of without going through a Leica training programme.
Also, they are obliged to sell four S2 outfits a year - minimum.
This is not made up by me but what I have been told by a dealer working with Leica.
With those criteria I think the S2's will be harder to find in store anywhere except the very big players. In Scandinavia that would only be two or three stores, tops.
carstenw wrote:
Mawz, I don't know if you have noticed, but a bunch of your points are built on several layers of conjecture and few facts. For example, you presume that most P65+ backs go to rental services, because that in some unknown way strengthens your argument, but in fact, as told by a Phase One employee to one of their main dealers, most of the sales, as in by far most, are private sales, as I pointed out. There are a lot of wealthy people out there.
If you have that info from PhaseOne, OK, but you previously claimed it without referencing any actual data behind it and it's at odds with what I've seen of the market here. Now Toronto's a major rental hub so it could be that the local market is somewhat distorted due to easy rental access but my experience is most MF digital is rented, not purchased. It doesn't really change the point of my assertion much anyways, I was only commenting as you'd made a claim distinctly at odds with my experience. Note of course, most every assertion in this thread about the S2 is conjecture,not solid data. The camera isn't yet shipping.
I also completely fail to see why "the Leica glass is most likely inferior to [...] Rodenstock". On what do you base this assumption? Leica has some of the most advances lens design and construction techniques in the world, and I see no reason whatsoever that they shouldn't be able to match Rodenstock glass in quality, if not exceed.
Anyway, the primary counter-argument to most of what you postulate is simply "let's wait and see".
Note I specified the Rodenstock Digital lenses, not Rodenstock in general. Rodenstock Digital lenses are extremely high-end symmetrical designs intended for technical camera use with digital backs. They are quite arguably the best MF lenses available and outperform most available retrofocus designs. I'd be extremely surprised to see Leica's retrofocus designs outperform an equivalent-tech symmetrical design like the Rodenstock Digital's. I do expect the Leica lenses to approach (and likely in some cases) exceed the available retrofocus lenses in the MF market today.
As for the discussion, If I had the $$$'s, I would invest in the S2 system.
I don't know. The Phase 65+ along with some of those new Schnieder lenses sounds pretty sweet. I'd add some of the outstanding Schnieder digital view camera lenses (6x9 coverage) to go with my Silvestri and a Phase adapter. That's, of course, if I was flush with cash (maybe next year).
mawz, fair enough, but let's wait and see what happens before judging it. Leica has a long history of making lenses which are technically better than the competition, and they may pull it off again. Peter Karbe, the head of optical design at Leica, and the designer of several of their best lenses (50 Lux ASPH M, ...) has gone onto the record as saying that the S lenses are the best Leica has ever made, better than both M and R.
carstenw wrote:
mawz, fair enough, but let's wait and see what happens before judging it. Leica has a long history of making lenses which are technically better than the competition, and they may pull it off again.
I hate always to be the one who has to point this out, but this is your opinion, presented as though it were fact. Leica has consistently produced very good lenses, but depending on your criteria for technical excellence, they may or may not be 'better than the competition'. For instance, it is no less true to suggest that Zeiss, Schneider, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta (who made lenses good enough for Leica to rebrand), Mamiya, Fuji, Cosina, or even Canon have 'a long history of making lenses which are technically better than the competition'. None of us yet knows how good the S2 lenses will be, and it's going to be fairly difficult to find out, for the reasons that they will be rare, and seldom, if ever, reviewed in an objective way.
The S2 lenses will impress me if they show what I see as presence or '3D' as well as all the traditional Leica qualities. Newer Leica lenses do seem to me to have a little more edge resolution and natural contrast than older ones, so perhaps Leica has identified this weakness and plans to avoid it here. For me it would be a shame if this system produces flat-looking results because it is let down by this single but important aspect of technical excellence.
Regarding S2 lenses, I have found these from the S2 review by David Farkas with the comments by Peter Karbe, head of the optical design department:
"With the 6µm pixel pitch of the S2's sensor the lenses need to be able to resolve 83 lp/mm and I inquired if this was a challenge. This wasn't my first time conversing with Peter. I should have known better than to ask him a question like this. He got that "are you joking?" look on his face, grinned and said in no uncertain words that 80 lp/mm is not a problem, even at full aperture. He pointed out that the S lenses are capable of resolving 40 lp/mm at 80% contrast, wide-open, and estimated that 80 lp/mm could be resolved at about 60% contrast. So, the lenses clearly outresolve the current sensor. What about future generations? Where is the practical pixel limit for 30x45mm? Many have postulated that the next big advance in CCD sensor tech will be a 5µm pixel architecture with a close-to 100% fill rate. This would result in a 54MP sensor at 30x45mm, but with this pixel size, the lenses would need to resolve 100 lp/mm. Will the S lenses be up to the task? Again, Peter flashed his signature grin and casually said that 100 lp/mm would be no problem. In fact, he felt the S lenses could resolve around 50% contrast at this frequency. No small claim, to be sure. My mind had already moved on to the next inevitable question. What exactly is the resolution of the S glass? Peter answered that he didn't know the exact figure, but guessed that the number would be between 200-300 lp/mm. That's a big number and a whole lot of detail."
The Rodenstock HR lenses are designed to resolve down to 5 microns. It's very much an apples to oranges comparison to even compare these slow technical lenses that cannot even be used on an SLR to much faster, SLR lenses. At F2.5 on an SLR handheld at 1.5FPS, the Rodenstocks absolutely suck! Interestingly, tripod mounted on a technical camera, you don't really gain much with the Rodenstock HR wides because their image circle barely exceeds that of the close to full frame 645 backs meaning that movements are very restricted. At that point, one might ask why they are using a technical camera with these lenses in the first place.
The 70 reminds me a LOT of the 50 lux asph. Every lens is nothing short of the best I've seen at their respective focal lengths, check out some of the 100% crops, remember it's from a 5 micron 37mp sensor.
Reminds me of "a Leica M* is not noticeable smaller than a 5d"-facts some keep presenting around here.. :P
I've searched the recent "M9 or something else" thread to see if I had said what you are presumably presenting as a quote from me. I couldn't find anything like what you've just presented with quote marks around it. If you want to quote me, you are more than welcome to do so. If you want to make stuff up, put it in quotes, and insinuate that I said it, don't expect me to take it lying down.
To save you the trouble, here are the posts where I discussed comparitive size on that thread. As you can see, I did not say anything like what you've put in quote marks above:
brainiac said on another thread:
APS-C bodies, cheap as they are, are not that much deeper and more cumbersome than the M9.
------------------------------------------
I agree that if you don't need low-light options then you can get a really small M lens kit.
------------------------------------------
Wide apertures only really matter to me when there is little light, and so for my uses an f2 lens on a 5D2 competes directly with an f1.4 lens on an M, due to the sensor difference. Given that constraint, the M9 just isn't $5000 smaller and lighter than a 5D2 with an Ultron. If you're happy with an f2.8 lens, iso 2500 iso and no built-in flash then the M9 really is a bit smaller, for a price. I'm just saying that if you choose your lenses carefully on D700 or 5D2 you can get pretty close to the M9's size/weight, save $5000, and enjoy the benefits of a more versatile system.
As regards 'pocketability' as a threshold for size, for me it needs clarification. There are three kinds of pocket that I use:
- jeans
- suit breast pocket
- coat/parker side-pocket
The reality for me is that the M9 fails on the first two counts, and succeeds on the third. But so does my 5D2, so all that money spent on the comparatively modest reduction in size doesn't really represent good value, for me... ...Show more →
Of course, we all present opinion here, but when someone states that brand x "has a long history of making lenses which are technically better than the competition", forgive me for being skeptical that the world is that simple.
brainiac wrote:
Of course, we all present opinion here, but when someone states that brand x "has a long history of making lenses which are technically better than the competition", forgive me for being skeptical that the world is that simple.
In fact I specifically worded it like this to make it easier for me to defend against skepticism from you...
So, let's start. What is a "technically good lens" to you? I presume you are not going to say something about 3D, since that is a question of look and preference. Which Canons, Cosinas, and whatever else you listed regularly match or exceed a majority of Leicas on the basis of MTF, vignetting, distortion, CA, and so on? I can think of just one Canon, for example, which could be said to match or exceed the equivalent Leica (200/1.8 vs. 180/2).
One may or may not like Leica as a brand, but there is no getting around the fact that they have a long list of some of the best lenses in the world. The final R and current M lens lineups have few peers out there, with a very few exceptions. Contax is one of the few brands which can keep up there, and even then, their best designs are rarely their fastest lenses, but more the f/2.8-range of lens, with a couple of exceptions like the 100/2 and 35/1.4.
carstenw wrote:
What is a "technically good lens" to you? I presume you are not going to say something about 3D, since that is a question of look and preference.
I absolutely will say something about 3D, because for me the purpose of a lens is to help the camera present the scene in the most intelligible, immersive, credible way. I can forgive a less sharp, less well corrected lens a lot of sins if it has the ability to make me feel as though I am looking at the original scene, rather than a picture of it. It may well be that the controversial '3D effect' that some lenses have is achieved by a deliberate technical effort to correctly represent reflected, polarised light, edge detail, and contrast. It may well be that sharp-edged uniformly illuminated bokeh is deliberately sought by some lens-makers for the greater sense of depth it might convey in out of focus areas when extended objects are superposed. I don't know. But I'm afraid that the first thing I do when trying to make a judgement about a lens is ask whether the picture has that immersive exciting 3D quality. It matters more to me than any other lens quality because I want to feel like I'm there and be moved by the photo.
I think it's easy to tick off a check list of lens qualities, like LoCA, smooth bokeh, sharpness etc and come to the conclusion that the fulfilment of those requirements makes a good lens. Some lenses that excel by those analytical measures don't do so well at the synthetic task of providing a window in time to an unrepeatable scene. They might score very high, but suffer from un-noticed veiling flare in shadows, or some other unmeasured (not unmeasurable!) transformation which detracts from the natural contrast of the end result.
For me, the technical achievement of a lens lies in how successfully it presents something that feels like an unmediated view of the scene in the photograph. It's a holistic view of a lens's purpose rather than an analysis of component qualities. To some people the rich colours transmitted by Leica glass matter more than a sense of 3D. This is why I think your assertion that Leica's lenses have been 'technically better' than the competition is a matter of opinion.
brainiac wrote:
...I think it's easy to tick off a check list of lens qualities, like LoCA, smooth bokeh, sharpness etc and come to the conclusion that the fulfilment of those requirements makes a good lens. Some lenses that excel by those analytical measures don't do so well at the synthetic task of providing a window in time to an unrepeatable scene. They might score very high, but suffer from un-noticed veiling flare in shadows, or some other unmeasured (not unmeasurable!) transformation which detracts from the natural contrast of the end result.
All this from one who insisted on quantifiable proof that supported individuals' preference for DMR or M8 image quality over the 5D.
telyt wrote:
All this from one who insisted on quantifiable proof that supported individuals' preference for DMR or M8 image quality over the 5D.
Pot... kettle... black.
Actually I've always been willing to upload examples of what I'm talking about, whether it was 3D effect, burlap noise in the 5D2, detail comparisons between M8 and 5D, or just about any other distinction between types of gear. It may be the case that others don't agree with me on what we're looking at, but I don't think you can fault me on presenting evidence for argument.
brainiac wrote:
I absolutely will say something about 3D, because
...I knew this was coming, and this is why I wrote "technically" good. The preference for 3D over other attributes is very much a personal preference issue, especially when those attributes might include sharpness and the presence of CA. There is nothing technically good about 3D-ness, this is a look-n-feel issue.
I stand by my statement that Leica has consistently made some of the technically very best lenses on the market, name your metric.
I do understand that for various reasons there are other lenses which people might *prefer*. I even have this myself to some extent, but that doesn't contradict my statement.
carstenw wrote:
I stand by my statement that Leica has consistently made some of the technically very best lenses on the market, name your metric.
I have. And it's no less 'technical' a metric than any other.
The problem is that when you reduce a lens's performance to a set of crude measurements that you regard as definitive, you often find that the measurements aren't complex enough to tell you whether the overall result is superior. Perhaps one day someone will devise a set of measurements which does guarantee that, but for now the human eye is still the best machine we have for assessing how real the results look. And of course, what people want from a lens differs from person to person. Some people don't want real looking results. Look at the popularity of fisheye lenses and lensbabies.
The same problem occurs in musical reproduction. There are those who set great store by measured distortion, response curves (coloration) dynamic range, stereo separation and what have you. I've heard gear that is excellent when analysed through some inevitably limited set of measurable criteria, yet fails to excel when it comes to its prime purpose - the reproduction of music.
Lenses are transducers too, and judging them by a crude set of qualities in isolation doesn't seem to me to be the best way of deciding how well they do their job. It can help, as a starting point, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
So my metric for photographic lenses is how convincing and spell-binding a photorealistic illusion a lens can provide. It will be great when someone invents a machine that can measure that, but until that day I still think it's a matter of opinion whether "Leica has consistently made some of the technically very best lenses on the market".
I wouldn't pick you up on it if you had said that Leica has consistently made some of the very best lenses in terms of rich colour, detail, and smooth bokeh. But that's not what you have said. Anyway, this is a red herring, except in so far as it frames expectations for the S2 lenses, and I think they are going to be spectacular, at the minimum in terms of the traditional Leica strengths, and probably a lot more besides.
