Equipment Leica S2...the future of DSLR's?

Its sensor is 56% larger than the 1DsIII--that's 56% more detail and the ability to print much larger without sacrificing that detail. As for Hassy, Leaf, Holga, Mamiya, Rollie ect ect, medium format film cameras, your stuck with just that...film. While its still used, many other photogs have gone the way of digital--therefore there is a market, and a large market at that. As for digital backs, well you'd be spending the approximately same amount anyhow, but for a heavier non-weather sealed body (assuming the S2 does not way over 4lbs). Not to mention, a lot of photogs prefer DSLR bodies (ergonomically) as opposed to standard medium format bodies. We'll just have to wait and see how it fairs in the tests and on the market in order to legitimately judge it. IMO this says a lot about the future of DSLR sensor design...perhaps the Nikon MX rumors have some merit after all.

 

It's not as big as it looks in product shots. Seen here next to a D700.

http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/2008/09/photokina-2008-day-1-all-things-leica.html

It looks better with the vertical grip too imho

 

Yes, but assuming you have the same pixel density and equivalent glass, it should work out the same. If the technique and post-processing are done correctly, anyways - which IS a big "if". Eddie_dane makes a good point though, about film being much more cost-effective regardless.

 

No. One, lets say 40/50x60, print from the S2 will reveal more detail than two stitched 1DsIII images. Shadow detail and dynamic range would both go to the S2 as well. Also, you say 'equivalent glass'--neither Canon or Nikon currently makes glass that can outperform MF glass as far as resolution is concerned--some come close, majority falls short.
As for the whole film aspect check this out...its a bit old but while film has remained virtually unchanged digital has come a long way. Better yet. Be sure to read the 'update' portion. Keep in mind medium format film is expensive, as is processing and maintenance--it could easily catch up to and or overtake the expense that comes along with digital medium format cameras.

 

Lets not talk about the theoretical since there are no S2 reviews out yet; much less any of you holding one. It may be true, but it may not be as well.

As for the film aspect, film has come a long way from its original conception. Current film is at the peak of its performance. Digital is still a baby in terms of development.

And just a side note on the test you pointed out, its hardly scientific. First rule is, make sure the equipment you use is the exact same as much as possible in order to limit differences between equipment. If he wanted to prove a point, he would have used a Canon film body with the same lens he used on his digital body.

And not all processing labs are created equal. Some are better than others.

Regarding expenses, it all depends. Will you use your digital medium back for 2 or 3 years as is the current product cycle scenario for digital and then buy the next one? Or will you use it for several years? Medium-large format film is expensive, but you will also use the body for a lifetime. Those cameras are still usable 50 years down the line. Digital... its arguable. It would be awesome if camera companies would take your old bodies and upgrade with the new tech rather than buying a brand new body, but that's not very economical for them even if all I wanted was the new sensor. It also depends on how much you shoot. If you're a commercial photographer doing photo shoots every other day, then yes digital backs are a smarter choice for them economically. For an artist selling their own prints they take of scenic landscapes... I'm not sure. But here's the thing, people who used film made sure they got the shot right with the first shot. Digital has made us lazy at getting the correct shot (exposure, composition, etc) because we can shoot off at 8FPS and delete what we don't want. But I will admit, digital has made available cameras for the average person to afford. But at the same time, more and more crappy pictures have been floating around. Especially those "photographers" that just picked up a camera and believing they can go shoot weddings and such for $2600 and return with craptastic photos.

 

Right, but there is a 99% chance that it is as good as projected to be--specifically when it comes to IQ.

Yes, film has come a long way--and it should have, and while its at it's peak, it is also on a plateau and is losing to the digital format. Digital has covered more area in a much shorter period of time as far as development is concerned, and it shows little signs of stopping.

While not identical--The glass used was top quality glass for both mediums.

Of course it depends on frequency of use, it was an example of how it could be equally expensive.

Yeah, then parts and maintenance becomes expensive--the longer a camera has been out the harder it is to find replacement parts, and when you do you pay a premium.

Has made who lazy? While you have the ability to view images prior to downloading them it still doesn't change the fact that you try to nail the shot the first time--of course it all depends on the individual. Has AF made us lazy as well, what about IS or zoom lenses? Its technology--these are tools created to make a photographer more efficient, not to make a photographer lazy. People in the 1700's used to used a iron hammer and square nails to build structures--we now have pneumatic nail guns, graphite hammers and round nails to do so, does that represent laziness...or does it represent technological advancement? It might make things easier, then again you can do a lot more with it in a shorter period of time than you could then. Who cares how many crappy images are floating around--Do you know how many crappy film prints are floating around? Does it honestly affect you as a photographer when you see a shite image? It sure as hell shouldn't. There was shitty wedding photogs in the film era, and there are some in the digital era...nothing has changed.

 

.

 

I see you made your point

 

Hahaha...You should.

 

While top glass doesn't mean it is identical. Not all top glass is created equal. Unless both of them have the same IQ, distortion, etc. figures, then the experiment is tainted.

And I am talking about the majority of people who just pick up a digi cam. And technological advancement does make things faster but at the same time it doesn't mean quality goes up. Your building example, because things have gotten so advanced technologically, anyone can pick up a nail gun and go at it. The quality of buildings have also gone down for that (I am talking about residential buildings). And it is progressively harder and harder to find people who will do quality work and no one to train new workers to the same degree of quality. Efficiency doesn't always make things better.

And I'm just saying there are more of those sh*t photogs out there, but there are so many more coming out of the woodwork trying to pawn themselves off as professionals. While technically they can call themselves professionals since the work for money, its not quality. So who knows what will happen 50 years down the line when the photographic legends/apt pass on their torches.

From 3dHeli in the 5DmkII thread...
"Rick McCallum, a producer on Attack of the Clones, has commented that the production spent $16,000 for 220 hours of digital tape, where a comparable amount of film would have cost $1.8 million. However, this does not necessarily indicate the actual cost savings. The low incremental cost of shooting additional footage may encourage filmmakers to use far higher shooting ratios with digital. The lower shooting ratios typical with film may save time in editing, lowering post-production costs somewhat."

 

There is no such glass you call for, therefore the only way to possibly test the two is to use similar quality glass via comparison of MTF and distortion charts. The test is not 100% perfect, but it is close enough to determine the differences.

I understand what you are saying--but there were a lot of shitty photogs during the film days as well, its just the way it was and it's the way it will always will be. The introduction of the in camera AF system, development of IS, new glass coatings, building materials and zoom lenses were all born from technological advancement, and they all have played a huge role in the evolution of photography and while they do not directly make for a better photographer they can and do make professionals and amateurs alike more efficient in their work flow. Just because it doesn't do it for every person who picked up a camera doesn't call for a failure when speaking of quality and efficiency. If anything as sensor size and pixels increase it makes it much harder to take a good photograph--The more complex/large the sensor becomes the more detail it renders, this includes flaws and mistakes.