So, the D800 is not the highest res DSLR afterall

Digifrog

Digifrog

Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hello

I was wondering why the 37mpx Leica S2-P is a whopping £20K. I know Leica make bang on lenses but a DSLR that is 9x the price of a D800? Am I missing something? (Not that I could ever afford one) Surely, if you had £20K to spend you'd get a MF Hasselblad wouldn't you?

http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Leica_S2-P_Digital_SLR_Body

1273750374_leica_s2.gif


Even the new Leica S is £16K.

:shrug:
 
Because its a Leica... No other reason!

The M9 is crazy money when you consider what is actually inside it.
 
Leica quality is excellent, of course.
Spec comes up a little short in some respects:-

ISO 80 to 1250
USB 2.0
96% viewfinder.
 
Don't care if i win the lottery this week it is in the top 10 things to buy :lol:
 
It's more a medium format cam than Dslr. The sensor is bigger.

Oh, and it shoots a massive 1.5fps ...

Give me a D800 anyday, and spend the money on a nice sports car :D
 
As with most things Leica if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. The S lenses are said to be on another level though even for medium format. You can pick the older S2 up used for about £8k although the D800 + Zeiss 100mm does pretty well compared to the S2 + Leica 120mm from what I read.
 
Theres also the Pentax 645D, thats got a 40MP medium format sensor in it (but still a slightly smaller than a 120 film 6x4.5cm frame) and comes to around £7000 with a 55mm lens, plus its weather sealed and there are lots of older manual and autofocus Pentax 645 lenses which work on it fine. Having a larger sensor it won't get diffraction limited at smaller apertures like on the D800.
 
Laudrup said:
As with most things Leica if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it. The S lenses are said to be on another level though even for medium format. You can pick the older S2 up used for about £8k although the D800 + Zeiss 100mm does pretty well compared to the S2 + Leica 120mm from what I read.
Click to expand...

Worst answer in the history of TP, I could go out and buy one of these tomorrow if I really wanted to so come on justify why I should sell it too me, what can this do that my 5D3 cannot???
 
MWHCVT said:
Worst answer in the history of TP, I could go out and buy one of these tomorrow if I really wanted to so come on justify why I should sell it too me, what can this do that my 5D3 cannot???
Click to expand...

Now now, I think you've taken what he said out of context. But I'll answer anyway...

Twice the megapixels. Leica glass. Larger sensor. There are three compelling reasons right there. I suppose you can include integrated GPS, too.

This camera is well up the diminishing returns curve, but only the most avid Canon fan would predict that a 5D3 will outperform the Leica, at least in terms of image quality. Why not buy one and try it for yourself?
 
s162216 said:
Theres also the Pentax 645D, thats got a 40MP medium format sensor in it (but still a slightly smaller than a 120 film 6x4.5cm frame) and comes to around £7000 with a 55mm lens, plus its weather sealed and there are lots of older manual and autofocus Pentax 645 lenses which work on it fine. Having a larger sensor it won't get diffraction limited at smaller apertures like on the D800.
Click to expand...

Surely diffraction is mainly a matter of megapixels rather than sensor area(at least outside compacts), the 645D might hit difftraction latter but you'll also need to stop down more to get the same depth of field at similar angles of view.

I'm guessing its Pentax who are suffering worst from the D800 aswell simpley because they target a more similar market to it than Leica do with the 645D. For that system to have a future I think it needs to move towards 50-60 megapixels(probabley on larger sensors?) where FF SLR's are going to be more limated by optics.
 
Guys.. have you seen the output from this camera, or any other medium format system for that matter? It's MUCH better than the D800. You can't compare medium format digital to 35mm digital. That would be like comparing a Mamyia RZ67 to a Nikon F5 in the film days.

The issue is not whether you buy this or a D800... it's whether you buy this, or a PhaseOne IQ180. Personally, anyone who buys this Lieca is mental when for similar cash you get get the larger sensor, higher resolution (80mp) IQ180 that is simply awesome.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Phase_One_IQ180_645DF/
 
MWHCVT said:
Worst answer in the history of TP, I could go out and buy one of these tomorrow if I really wanted to so come on justify why I should sell it too me, what can this do that my 5D3 cannot???
Click to expand...

I don't think people like you are their target market.
 
Laudrup said:
I don't think people like you are their target market.
Click to expand...

How do you know what type of person I am, maybe you would like to tell me? But my original question still stands
 
Pookeyhead said:
Guys.. have you seen the output from this camera, or any other medium format system for that matter? It's MUCH better than the D800. You can't compare medium format digital to 35mm digital. That would be like comparing a Mamyia RZ67 to a Nikon F5 in the film days.

The issue is not whether you buy this or a D800... it's whether you buy this, or a PhaseOne IQ180. Personally, anyone who buys this Lieca is mental when for similar cash you get get the larger sensor, higher resolution (80mp) IQ180 that is simply awesome.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Phase_One_IQ180_645DF/
Click to expand...

Until you go above ISO 400 probably ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Guys.. have you seen the output from this camera, or any other medium format system for that matter? It's MUCH better than the D800. You can't compare medium format digital to 35mm digital. That would be like comparing a Mamyia RZ67 to a Nikon F5 in the film days.

The issue is not whether you buy this or a D800... it's whether you buy this, or a PhaseOne IQ180. Personally, anyone who buys this Lieca is mental when for similar cash you get get the larger sensor, higher resolution (80mp) IQ180 that is simply awesome.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Phase_One_IQ180_645DF/
Click to expand...

The S2 and D800 looked very similar to me from tests when you use the best glass on the D800. The D800 even looks to have an edge in some areas which isn't that surprising as the S2 sensor is a bit small compared to the other medium format cameras, but the S2 being a lot bigger would mean the lenses were even harder to design. If you want a DSLR experience with medium format sensor and top lenses you won't get that from an IQ180. Supposedly the S has 20% of the medium format market so people must be buying them.
 
MWHCVT said:
How do you know what type of person I am, maybe you would like to tell me? But my original question still stands
Click to expand...

Not the type to spend £7,380 on a 24-70 equivalent. A 37.5 MP medium format sensor with no AA filter and much better glass will blow away the 5D MK III at low ISO. The advantages of medium format over full frame are well trodden.
 
wuyanxu said:
considering it's media format, it'd still be much bigger than full frame.

eg, 7D has best crop sensor viewfinder, it's still smaller than 5D's.
Click to expand...

What I am getting at is that the viewfinder is showing a little less than is in the image produced. The ideal is that viewfinder should show exactly what is in the image (many DSLR's achieve that).
 
Comparing the S2-P to the D800 is very far from apples to apples. It is similar to comparing the D3200 to a D4, the latter having a significantly larger sensor, a far more rugged body, and a massively higher price tag.

The Leica is not about fancy features or machine gun fps. It is all about ultimate image quality within a portable body. Leica Service is also second to none. Should you experience a fault with your S2-P Leica guarantee to provide a direct replacement within 24hours.

Nikon vs Leica is like Andrei Arshavin vs Messi. Both are very very good in their own rights, but one is clearly much better than the other and will demand a significant price premium.
 
Ye gods, that Leica's ugly! I mean, no camera is that beautiful but the Leica looks like a blob of melted plastic rather than a significant investment. M series (and earlier) Leicas look and are beautifully crafted and finely engineered mini masterpieces - that lump certainly doesn't convey quality to me in any way, shape or form. The only parts that say quality to me are the 5 letters on the pentaprism and the red dot.
 
It looks like a Leica R camera for 2012. It won't win any design awards compared to the M, but in the IQ stakes it has the M beaten which is what matters. If I was shooting advertising or fashion for a living it'd get a look in. Not really a camera for amateurs, unless you are the Prime Minister of Russia.
 
Orville said:
Comparing the S2-P to the D800 is very far from apples to apples. It is similar to comparing the D3200 to a D4, the latter having a significantly larger sensor, a far more rugged body, and a massively higher price tag.

The Leica is not about fancy features or machine gun fps. It is all about ultimate image quality within a portable body. Leica Service is also second to none. Should you experience a fault with your S2-P Leica guarantee to provide a direct replacement within 24hours.

Nikon vs Leica is like Andrei Arshavin vs Messi. Both are very very good in their own rights, but one is clearly much better than the other and will demand a significant price premium.
Click to expand...

Who are they ?
 
Not sure. I think Messi's a premier division footballer, so at a guess, Arshavin is from a much lower or even non league club.
 
I'm always amused by full frame shooters who feel the need to push superiority simply based on a larger sensor/ lower pixel density argument.

Then can't see any justification in a larger sensor / lower pixel density camera than the one they chose.:lol::lol::cuckoo:
 
Laudrup said:
Not the type to spend £7,380 on a 24-70 equivalent. A 37.5 MP medium format sensor with no AA filter and much better glass will blow away the 5D MK III at low ISO. The advantages of medium format over full frame are well trodden.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for your assessment of me, as much as it pains me to say I wouldn't go out and buy any Leica but not for any reason that you've suggested, the only reason is that I don't fancy the lobotomy that most users I had the displeasure of coming across seem to have had, maybe you want to post some photos you've taken with your amazing camera to show us all what where missing :)
 
Nod said:
Not sure. I think Messi's a premier division footballer, so at a guess, Arshavin is from a much lower or even non league club.
Click to expand...

Arshavin is a premiership footballer. Plays for arsenal. He's Russian and one of their best players. Messi is the best footballer in the world right now. Plays for Barcelona (best club) and Argentina. Both great, just one is that bit greater.

So the comparison isn't a great one, unless you really consider this Leica to be the best camera in the world.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I'm always amused by full frame shooters who feel the need to push superiority simply based on a larger sensor/ lower pixel density argument.

Then can't see any justification in a larger sensor / lower pixel density camera than the one they chose.:lol::lol::cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Im always amused by people who tar everyone with the same brush.

"They" . . . Way to generalise.

I'm in a position where I could buy MF - but it would be a waste unless I was getting €1000's per job. Those are the people who buy them because the camera ends up paying for itself. But they're mostly very studio based. You won't be shooting a gig with a MF camera, that's for sure. Anyone who shoots above ISO 800 knows a FF camera is going to kick MF for their needs.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
Well thanks for your assessment of me, as much as it pains me to say I wouldn't go out and buy any Leica but not for any reason that you've suggested, the only reason is that I don't fancy the lobotomy that most users I had the displeasure of coming across seem to have had, maybe you want to post some photos you've taken with your amazing camera to show us all what where missing :)
Click to expand...

That's a rather lame excuse with a tinge of jealousy. I'd shoot with an S2 if it was more affordable, but having had an M9, 5D MK III and D800 the D800 suits me fine for now.
 
Laudrup said:
That's a rather lame excuse with a tinge of jealousy. I'd shoot with an S2 if it was more affordable, but having had an M9, 5D MK III and D800 the D800 suits me fine for now.
Click to expand...

Well it's the one I'm going with, I've only come across a few users of Leica and most of them have been.......well I guess I better not actually say, I fail to see where you got jealousy from, as I've already said if I wanted one I would have gone out brought one it's simple I don't want one as I see no use for one as there is nothing that they can do that my existing kit cannot do, I think if you cannot understand that then you need to get some help
 
Phil V said:
I'm always amused by full frame shooters who feel the need to push superiority simply based on a larger sensor/ lower pixel density argument.

Then can't see any justification in a larger sensor / lower pixel density camera than the one they chose.:lol::lol::cuckoo:
Click to expand...

This is true!
 
MWHCVT said:
Well it's the one I'm going with, I've only come across a few users of Leica and most of them have been.......well I guess I better not actually say, I fail to see where you got jealousy from, as I've already said if I wanted one I would have gone out brought one it's simple I don't want one as I see no use for one as there is nothing that they can do that my existing kit cannot do, I think if you cannot understand that then you need to get some help
Click to expand...

Flash sync speed of 1/500s?
 
For 10 x the price, 1/500 sync is the best it offers?

Anyone who watched the camera store's D800 Vs Hasselblad or D800 Vs Pentax 645D, will know it more than stood up well against both.

What I find funny are those who overly defend MF, without ever having used it. And probably never will.
 
Cagey75 said:
For 10 x the price, 1/500 sync is the best it offers?

Anyone who watched the camera store's D800 Vs Hasselblad or D800 Vs Pentax 645D, will know it more than stood up well against both.

What I find funny are those who overly defend MF, without ever having used it. And probably never will.
Click to expand...

This is my feeling too :thumbs: I do understand that the higher resolution is a good thing but not sure that its of that much importance to everyone and I'm really not sure that this particular camera is worth the extra premium that is being paid just for that little red badge
 
Cagey75 said:
For 10 x the price, 1/500 sync is the best it offers?

Anyone who watched the camera store's D800 Vs Hasselblad or D800 Vs Pentax 645D, will know it more than stood up well against both.

What I find funny are those who overly defend MF, without ever having used it. And probably never will.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the statement was incorrect, not justifying the cost of the camera...
 
Fair enough, I would say that the ISO performance,or lack of, on MF sensors, balances that out. In fact, I'd say better ISO performance is greater than having that faster sync speed.
 
Cagey75 said:
Fair enough, I would say that the ISO performance,or lack of, on MF sensors, balances that out. In fact, I'd say better ISO performance is greater than having that faster sync speed.
Click to expand...

If you're not using a flash then definitely!!

But with most medium formats being studio cameras higher iso's are not normally needed.

Just happy i've got a camera with 1/4000s sync speed AND good high iso!
 
Phil V said:
I'm always amused by full frame shooters who feel the need to push superiority simply based on a larger sensor/ lower pixel density argument.

Then can't see any justification in a larger sensor / lower pixel density camera than the one they chose.:lol::lol::cuckoo:
Click to expand...

LOL There's no doubt that, all things being equal, bigger is better. But how much better do you need? Especially when you consider the extra size/weight and exponential increase in price.

With film, medium format was so much better than 35mm there was a big market for Hasselblad, Bronica, Mamiya, Pentax, Yashica, Rollei etc. Every pro shot medium format, every wedding photographer, but not now. Full frame digital has taken that market, and that's why medium format manufacturers (those that are left) are stuggling and have to charge silly prices to survive on low volume sales.

And that's not going to get any better. Medium format sales are so low now, nobody can afford to invest in sensor development and they all use those old Kodak CCD jobbies that are way behind the times. What Leica and Pentax thought they were doing lannching brand new medium-format (so-called) digital cameras into today's market is hard to fathom.
 
MWHCVT said:
This is my feeling too :thumbs: I do understand that the higher resolution is a good thing but not sure that its of that much importance to everyone and I'm really not sure that this particular camera is worth the extra premium that is being paid just for that little red badge
Click to expand...

Not to you, but you don't have to make a living from it. The cost is all relative.

Cagey75 said:
Fair enough, I would say that the ISO performance,or lack of, on MF sensors, balances that out. In fact, I'd say better ISO performance is greater than having that faster sync speed.
Click to expand...

ISO 6400 doesn't matter much if you're shooting fashion or advertising in a controlled environment. The S2 was disappointing some as the base ISO is relatively high at 160 and great high ISO performance isn't something a CCD sensor is known for. If you spend £40k on a DMF system then chances are you can afford a few £k on a D3S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top