New Leica S2 ----> 37 Million Pixels!

[tmfabian]

Well here's a kick in the nuts for Leica. It's going to make their S2 camera look very very expensive when their main competitor for the S2 is selling a 60 megapixel camera for similar price and 39 megapixel cameras for a lot less.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=817641

wow, that's pretty insane. that's no little price cut either...seriously, by HALF, at least we know the S2 scared them enough to mention leica in the article.
their digital backs alone sell for more than their new prices.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anyone else actually tried it?

I said I'd be surprised (I may even have said astonished) and indeed I was. Very good secrecy.

I much prefer it with the detachable base removed. Controls are all but intuitive for anyone used to 'real' cameras. Switching between autofocus and manual is a delight.

When I think what we spent on Polaroids, film, processing and couriers to and from the the lab in the mid-70s, I can see how digital pays for itself quite quickly.

Will it succeed? I don't know. Obviously I hope it will. Actually, I think it will -- but am I just thinking wishfully?

I'll let you know when I get one for review. But at least I've shot a few pics with it. (And with the 8.2, 21/1.4, 24/1.4 and even 50/0.95).

I'd have joined in earlier but so far I've only written 7,800 words of my show reports for Shutterbug in the last 3 days.

Edit: Incidentally, I never said that an MF SLR couldn't be done. Obviously it has been done by many people. What I said was that full frame on an M can't be done at the moment. I see no reason to resile from this position.

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

Roger, OhOhOhOh, Polaroid; I love it and always have. I still spend $30.00 at least a month on it. How long will I have to do that to get to a digital anything. There is nothing like the look on someones face when they see a Polaroid 1 minute after it has been taken. I think MacCaber (Dickens {sp?}) said, 'Bliss.' This was Bliss:

 

[charjohncarter]

But, if this camera turns out OK, I may buy it. (I'm a jerk amateur).

 

[infrequent]

@waileong - i think canon has reached the limit of shoving more pixels into that sensor. even 21mpx is ridiculous because of the sheer storage concerns with a RAW workflow. i am glad nikon is more on the sensible side of things in this pissing contest.

it would be interesting how the nikon MX format will compare with the leica S2!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Say whatever you want... that camera body is butt ugly. 🙂
As i said, a design disaster.
The latest R bodies were rather ugly already, but this is the top.

Oh no! The beginning of the end for Leica?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Anyone else actually tried it?

Are you serious? What does first-hand experience have anything to do with biased opinions against it? 😕

 

[waileong]

The point of a larger sensor is not to get more pixels. It's to get better image quality.

The no of pixels is just to give an indication of the quality, although in reality it's just one factor in overall image quality (others being actual pixel size, noise, etc).

I don't regard image quality as a lost cause.

As in the film days, when large format quality trounced medium format which trounced 35 mm, in the digital age, size still matters for image quality.

The trick is to optimise quality with other parameters (weight, speed of lenses, speed of use, etc).

Medium format quality in a 35 mm size body is an enticing proposition. The problem, though, is getting the buy-in from pros. One can assume that pros have already got a stable of Hassy, Mamiya or other lenses, and are well familiar with the use of existing MF cameras.

Thus asking them to invest in a completely new system is going to be difficult.

Hence Leica is being astute by targetting the 35 mm pros who may not have large investments in Hassy, etc. A camera the size of a 1D but with much better image quality than 35 mm DSLR may be just the thing to pros who are undecided on getting into MF.

 

[tmfabian]

The point of a larger sensor is not to get more pixels. It's to get better image quality.

The no of pixels is just to give an indication of the quality, although in reality it's just one factor in overall image quality (others being actual pixel size, noise, etc).

I don't regard image quality as a lost cause.

As in the film days, when large format quality trounced medium format which trounced 35 mm, in the digital age, size still matters for image quality.

The trick is to optimise quality with other parameters (weight, speed of lenses, speed of use, etc).

Medium format quality in a 35 mm size body is an enticing proposition. The problem, though, is getting the buy-in from pros. One can assume that pros have already got a stable of Hassy, Mamiya or other lenses, and are well familiar with the use of existing MF cameras.

Thus asking them to invest in a completely new system is going to be difficult.

Hence Leica is being astute by targetting the 35 mm pros who may not have large investments in Hassy, etc. A camera the size of a 1D but with much better image quality than 35 mm DSLR may be just the thing to pros who are undecided on getting into MF.

First of all, you're absolutely correct about the size of the sensor, number of pixels means nothing by itself (an 8mp digi point and shoot with itty bitty sensor isn't nearly as good as 8mp of full frame sensor, let alone equal just because pixel count is the same for example)

second, and this I hate to bring up again, but seriously...does everyone here think that the current crop of professional photographers are it? There are countless hordes of new professional photographers entering the market all the time from all over, and many will likely pursue a career that would involve buying into one of these types of systems. Certainly the mamiya and hassy group may not migrate to leica since they already have who knows how much invested, but these newcomers could provide an extremely healthy market for leica.

 

[infrequent]

well, i think we might be reaching a threshold where its physically impossible to fit anymore photosites. hence the need to increase the physical size of the sensor. possibly why canon went for the jugular in terms of pixel count in the 5DII. they want it to be relevant for a while. they could always optimise DR or low light response via firmware.

 

[2XLX2]

okay, newbie question time:

how was the Mamiya ZD received? that one also had the 35mm SLR form factor [but with a larger 36x48 sensor and lower 22mp count]

ZD: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

is it still around? if so, is it going to be a likely competitor to the S2?

finally, how much do they go for? [not that i'm in market, far from it,; just curious]

 

[percepts]

36x48 is 3x4 so is not 35mm format.

The camera and back are around £13,000 without a lens in the UK. I beleive there is a new model just annouced so will have to wait and see prices on that.

 

[2XLX2]

i thought the Mamiya ZD cameras didn't need a separate [modular?] back- just like the leica S2; while the ZD backs could be attached to [larger bodies of] mamiya AFD and RZ series. dunno for sure though.

 

[percepts]

i thought the Mamiya ZD cameras didn't need a separate [modular?] back- just like the leica S2; while the ZD backs could be attached to [larger bodies of] mamiya AFD and RZ series. dunno for sure though.

Oops. You are correct. I mis read my source thinking it required a zd back. The ZD camera is approx £6500 in the UK. The ZD Back which fits 645 AFD II body is approx £5500 in the UK.

 

[steveyork]

You needed another answer on your poll -- too damn expensive to care one way or the other.