Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)
  • #4900

    Hi David – Have you had a chance to try to the 28 Lux?

  • #4897

    Hopefully the Leica M Type 240 firmware update resolved this issue for you?

  • #4895

    The 50/2.8 Elmar didn't do much for me. I found its wide open sharpness lacking, contrast slightly washed out (at F2.8) and some CA. For a F2.8 lens, I expect it to be quite good wide open.

    My vote goes for the 50 Lux ASPH. Once an expensive lens, but now with a $8000+ 50 APO above as well the Noc ASPH, now the 50 Lux ASPH looks like a bargain – it's all relative 🙂 The 50 Lux ASPH has a very distinctive draw at F1.4 to F2 and it's wide open sharpness and lack of CA are impressive. My only niggle is the corners – they can come up short in sharpness, and in the case of the bokeh, the bokeh (in the corners) can get busy with a double-image rendering. Neither are show stoppers, but it is something to keep in mind at times.

    I've owned the Noc F1, Noc ASPH, 50 Lux ASPH, 50 Cron, 50 Elmar and 50 Lux Pre-ASPH. 50 Lux ASPH wins in my book. Some day I hope to try the 50 APO to see if cleans up some of the 50 Lux ASPH shortcomings.

  • #4810

    Marc, with regards to your S' repairs, you might try a new Type 006. There are some good deals on new bodies and it comes with a 3 year warranty. I find the AF markedly better. The S2 was accurate, but mine hunted and stalled alot. The Type 006 is much better – even with the 120S. Also, at ISO 100 the noise pitch is less. It's not revolutionary better (than the S2), but it is improved.

    A CMOS S sounds nice, but it's going to take alot more than just CMOS to get me to upgrade. It needs some bells & whistles too, like –

    1) Multipoint AF focus (I hope this true)
    2) Built-in WiFi for streaming LV to an iPad
    3) No lame @ss live view that only magnifies the center
    4) Really good high ISO – like a very clean 3200 and usable 12800
    5) No heat issues (like the M-240 has in LV / EVF mode)
    6) I'd like 100% viewing on the rear LCD to look sharp

    And even if Leica dots those i's and ups the value proposition, a price increase is really hard to swallow. I'm definitely in a wait and see mode.

  • #4804

    Cool – I was wondering if it was listed 5.4 and I just hadn't noticed.

    I decided to pull out all the Leica S lens entries to see if there was a pattern to the date string. The date string appears to be a serial number and lenses are added/updated in batches. Each lens does NOT have its own unique date stamp. Leica R and M lenses shared the same ModifyDate, so it seems Adobe assigns this modify date – probably when the do Camera Raw updates. Other makers equipment share the same data stamps (Canon, Sigma, etc). The 100/2 was the newest addition (of the Leica date batches) with the 45/2.8 being in the same batch. The following is a cleaned up summary:

    ModifyDate	Camera:Make		LensPrettyName

    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HCD 4/28
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 3,5/35
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 3,5/35
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HCD 4-5,6/35-90
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 3,5/50
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 3,5-4,5/50-110
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 2,8/80
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 2,2/100
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC Macro 4/120
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 3,2/150
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 4/210
    3473172974 Leica S Leica S HC 4,5/300
    3473172974 Leica Camera AG Leica SUPER-ELMAR-S 1:3.5/24mm ASPH
    3473172974 Leica Camera AG Leica APO-MACRO-SUMMARIT-S 1:2.5/120mm CS
    3473172974 Leica Camera AG Leica APO-MACRO-SUMMARIT-S 1:2.5/120mm
    3473172974 Leica Camera AG Leica APO-ELMAR-S 1:3.5/180mm CS
    3473172974 Leica Camera AG Leica APO-ELMAR-S 1:3.5/180mm

    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica ELMARIT-S 1:2.8/30mm ASPH CS
    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica ELMARIT-S 1:2.8/30mm ASPH
    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica VARIO-ELMAR-S 1:3,5-5,6/30-90mm ASPH.
    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica SUMMARIT-S 1:2.5/35mm ASPH. CS
    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica SUMMARIT-S 1:2.5/35mm ASPH.
    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica SUMMARIT-S 1:2.5/70 mm ASPH. CS
    3473172975 Leica Camera AG Leica SUMMARIT-S 1:2.5/70 mm ASPH.

    3485969708 Leica Camera AG Leica ELMARIT-S 1:2.8/45mm ASPH
    3485969708 Leica Camera AG Leica SUMMICRON-S 1:2.0/100 mm ASPH.

    Did some more digging in System Library and found the actual Adobe Lens Profiles for Camera Raw and there is a 100/2 .lcp file from June 18, 2014 with a complete list of lens correction parameters. So it's unlikely the 100/2 entry above is just a placeholder. Here's the Adobe lens correction file name for the 100/2 (Mac OS X) –

    Leica Camera AG (Leica SUMMICRON-S 100 mm f2 mm ASPH.) – RAW.lcp

    This all points to the lens existing and developed far enough that Leica wanted to play with the lens in Lightroom. There is no field that says “commercial release date” and “MSRP” 🙂

    It was interesting looking at the lens correction file in a text editor – it has 12 sets of data – each set is for a different focus distance. The focus distance range from .7 to 100000003318135351409612647563264. I assume that's meters. And evidently Leica has defined infinity for us 🙂 LOL

  • #4798

    Hi Doug – it takes some digging, but if we go back to the Leica S2 introduction when Leica was first talking about the lens line-up, the 100/2 was pictured. The 100/2 appeared to be sized larger than the 70S, but definitely shorter than the 120S. The lens barrel shapes shown in this old picture have changed, so the 100mm shown here may not be indicative of what it would look like today. The 100mm is at the far left:

    If somebody is a good data sleuth, maybe they can decrypt the modify date string. This code snippet is from the Lens Profile list in CameraRaw – it is kind of like an XML file. I thought the date string might be UTC, but that returns a date for the year 2080. Other lenses have similar date strings, so there is nothing obviously unique about the 100/2 Summicron's. It would be interesting to know when the profile was last modified. If it was 2008, then we could assume it's old stuff. If it's 2013 or 2014, then that could mean somebody updated it recently.

    <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource">
    <stCamera:Make>Leica Camera AG</stCamera:Make>
    <stCamera:Lens>Summicron-S 100</stCamera:Lens>
    <stCamera:LensPrettyName>Leica SUMMICRON-S 1:2.0/100 mm ASPH.</stCamera:LensPrettyName>
    <stCamera:CameraPrettyName>Leica Camera AG</stCamera:CameraPrettyName>

    The Mac OS X path for that file is: User Library / Application Support / Adobe / CameraRaw / Lens Profiles / 1.0 / psyche.dat

    The file is just a table of contents.

  • #4779

    Well, that stinks. With Ricoh putting the 645Z on the street for $8495, it's kind of difficult to believe that the new CMOS S is costing more to make than the Type 006. I realize that Leica may be opting for a CMOSIS sensor (or someone else's) instead of Sony. But geesh…

  • #4762

    The Mamiya 300mm F2.8 APO is very good performing lens – nice 3D feel to its images. I don't see them on Ebay much anymore. They typically sell for $2000-$3000 US depending on condition. I like the lens on S2, but it's a big set-up. I think the lens weighs around 6.5 pounds. F2.8 imaged attached (taken with the S2).

    Attached files

  • #4759

    The CMOSIS sensors has its plus' and minus'. My recent cameras have included – Canon 1Ds Mark III, Phase One P65+ and Leica S2. The M-240 has the most dynamic range (at base ISO) and the shadows are very clean. When it comes to sharpness and definition, the M-240 is well defined at 100% views, but something happens in the down-sizing process where things can get muddy. I don't think it's a CMOS vs CCD thing because I don't have this issue with the 1Ds3. It's just something about the M-240's files. At base ISO – I'd still rank the Phase One P65+ as the best. I loathe Phase One DF camera body, so that system is long gone. But I still look at those files and bow to its supremacy 🙂

    The M-240 as a camera behaves very differently than the S. I would say the Type-006 meters more towards the shadows, thus tending to over-expose. The M-240 meters more towards the highlights and with its added DR, tends to come across as dark. The S/S2 color rendition is more like the M8. The M-240 is more like… well, it's its own thing 🙂 Definitely not M9 colors. Long story short, it's really hard to put a “label” on the M-240's sensor. I'm very impressed with it at times, more often than I was with the M9. So on the whole, I'd say it's better – but different.

    As for the issues… sigh… there are some. Magenta and italian flag has been a non issue for me. I use all Leica M lenses, so maybe built-in lens profiles are hiding issues (from me). But then again, that means all is working well. Lenses include – 21 Lux, 21 SEM, 28 Cron, 35 FLE, 50 Lux ASPH, 75 APO, 90 APO and 135 APO. My number one issue is lock ups – and that is associated with LV and/or the EVF. The heat issues have been brought up many times, and it can happen to me indoors at a comfy 78º F within the first several minutes. Outdoors in Texas summers – just forget it… If the camera is used as a “M”, meaning no LV, then all is good. Leica and/or CMOSIS haven't cracked the LV nut yet.

    Having also owned a D800e and making a leap of faith that the Sony 44×33 medium format sensor is similar, honestly, I do prefer the CMOSIS sensor. I'm not a fan of the files from Sony sensors – the greens always seem off, blues are too baby-blue, there is an inherent noise pitch or grit at base ISO, the DR is over hyped. Extrapolating some more, if CMOSIS does the sensor for the S and –

    1) They get the heat issues sorted and the S has rock steady LV performance
    2) The same DR or better than the M-240
    3) Upper ISO is 1 to 2 stops better than the M-240, effectively a very good ISO 6400
    4) Find a balance between the M-240 and M9 colors

    Then I think the S would be one heck of a camera. I'm also assuming the price does NOT go up. And if WiFi was included and I could stream Live View to the iPad, that would be awesome. If the CMOS sensor brings that expanded functionality to the S, then I could do alot more with the S. Looking back, I don't miss the M9's sensor, so I'm guessing I wouldn't miss the Leica S' CCD sensor either.

  • #3498

    I was not blown away by the 180S. That's not the same as saying it is a bad lens, just that I found it underwhelming given the price tag. In hindsight, for my uses, the 120S probably would have been a more practical choice.

    I also used the Mamiya 200mm F2.8 APO on the S2 via the Leica S / 645M adapter. I think the Mamiya 200mm F2.8 APO is a better lens with a more distinctive fingerprint. The Mamiya could easily go head to head with the 180S in a sharpness comparison at any aperture.

    I think I would have enjoyed the Leica 180S more if it had either a faster aperture or more reach. The Mamiya 200mm F2.8 APO won't be everyone's cup of tea either; it's a fully manual lens on the S2, meaning manual focus and stop down metering. If auto focus and exposure are key features (for you), then the Mamiya is a non-starter.

    The 180S would probably make a very nice pairing with the new 30-90S and travel duo, but that really would depending on one's shooting style, preferences, etc. If you want to read more about the Mamiya 200mm F2.8 APO, here's a review.

  • #3352

    A flock of pigs just buzzed our house! LOL Thank you for the info.

  • #3350

    Hi Josh – did Leica add a custom function in the Leica S firmware to change the direction of control wheel for changing aperture values?

  • #3342

    Hi Josh –

    My review wish list:

    1) S dynamic range at ISO 100 vs the S2 at ISO 160
    – How the highlights roll off
    – Noise pitch in the shadows
    – Noise pitch comparison in blue skies at base ISO

    2) Color response
    – Any changes in the Lightroom profile for the S2 vs the S
    – Auto white balance performance

    3) The DNGs available for download so we can edit and compare

    Thanks, John

  • #3324

    I think the challenge with the off-center auto-focus points is that the light gets diverted with a sub-mirror and that mirror is quite small, so light can be dispersed only so much, thus the “outer” focus points get very little light and do not perform as well. Assuming that AF point spread of something like the Canon 1Ds3 is about as wide as it can go (it has a fairly wide spread); put that spread on a 54mm x 40mm sensor and it will look bunched up in the center. So, I think Hasselblad's approach is really the only effective solution.

    I still don't understand why it took Hasselblad to do this because people have been focusing and recomposing for decades. I'm sure all the auto-focus engineers at Canon, Nikon, etc., have smart phones. None of them put 2 and 2 together and thought about putting an orientation sensor in their cameras…?… I not an H-series owner and it's not a system I want to buy, so Hass fanboy bias here. Hasselblad deserves some kudos. With Leica's emphasis on simplicity, it's a feature that would fit very well on the S system.

    Since Hasselblad probably has patents on the technology, it may be a long while before the concept is more wide spread. There is some very impressive technology in Leica's Disto meters, so you'd think they could leverage that in the S system. Couple that with a CMOS, Live View and a Touch Screen and Leica could develop a very advanced touch screen system. Oh crap, should I patent that idea? 🙂

  • #3322

    I'd love to have a True Focus type mode on the S or any dSLR. It's one of those ideas that is so simple, that you wonder why it was Hasselblad to do it first.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)