Forum Replies Created
RVB;5931 wrote: [QUOTE=Paratom;5930]I am constantly fighting with the M 240 color. It just looks pinkish to me. I also tried custom profile I generated with x-rite. Slightly better but not perfect.
I am even evaluating to go back to a M9p.
By the way there are some cmos which looks fine to me. The A900, the K5 looks ok and the 5dIII is not that bad in regards of color.
To me the “S” sensor still looks best in this regards. Thats why I hope Leica will stay with CCD in the S system.[/QUOTEThe S kodak sensor is very good,lovely colour,I am also weary of the cmos colour,if the next iteration of the S won't have Kodak (true sense) then I would love to see a Dalsa sensor…
Could the M240 colour colour change with a firmware update?
I haven't used a pentax,but have shot Canon's for a while,the skin tones are nice but the D.R and banding is a weakness..
I never used an M,but what I read about it on Diglloyd says that it shows in the blacks.. Would shots taken with/without IR cut off filters determine if it's IR contamination?
[QUOTE=Paratom;5930]I am constantly fighting with the M 240 color. It just looks pinkish to me. I also tried custom profile I generated with x-rite. Slightly better but not perfect.
I am even evaluating to go back to a M9p.
By the way there are some cmos which looks fine to me. The A900, the K5 looks ok and the 5dIII is not that bad in regards of color.
To me the “S” sensor still looks best in this regards. Thats why I hope Leica will stay with CCD in the S system.[/QUOTEThe S kodak sensor is very good,lovely colour,I am also weary of the cmos colour,if the next iteration of the S won't have Kodak (true sense) then I would love to see a Dalsa sensor…
Could the M240 colour colour change with a firmware update?
I haven't used a pentax,but have shot Canon's for a while,the skin tones are nice but the D.R and banding is a weakness..
This is the first I have seen of Leica plans for the sinar system..
WPalank;5859 wrote: Thank you RVP.
If stepping out and you could only carry one lens (may we put weight as a non-issue for the moment?), is there one you prefer over the other, lets say for portraiture?
It seems the 35 may have the “potential” for a little more distortion at the edges being the wider of the two. (??) Would love for you to comment.
Thanks for discussing the number of elements. Given the way the Leica PR people go on and on about the glass for the 45, with almost no mention of the glass on the 35, I was imagining there to be a significant difference in the number of elements, especially a difference of only 1. Thanks for clarifying.
Personally I like the cinematic look of the 35 FOV(28mm in 35mmformat)… I like wide angle portraits outdoors.. with studio light's I would prefer the longer glass,the 120 or 180..
The 35 is more suited to outdoors and walking around by virtue of it's lower weight,this is for me always a consideration…
I am not home at the moment and won't be for couple of weeks but I will post a couple of raw's when I have a chance,I don't think the distortion of the 35mm is bad,it's actually very well controlled,I even use he S30mm a lot for environmental portraits.. here is one of my son.. I like this shot a lot except for the stupid sign tied too the fence.. LoL
WPalank;5828 wrote: Has anyone owned or shot with both and compared images side by side?
Currently I have the 70 and 120 CS to go with my S. Considering one or the other lenses listed in the title as my next lens for Commercial/Fashion.
When reading the description on Dale's and Leica AG's site, it seems like you get a lot more glass in the 45 yet price points are fairly close.
Is minimum focusing distance the same?
Thanks in advance.I have both of these,the 35mm is lighter and MFD is 55cm,the MFD on the 45 is 60cm,the 45 has 12 elements and the 35 has 11 which explains the weight difference…
peterv;5826 wrote: Exactly, there seems to be a trend towards larger sensors in video/digital cinema:
… Panavision unveiled a prototype for a digital camera that will have a sensor equivalent to 70mm…
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/red-epic-dragon-arri-alexa-sony-f55-f65-panavision-70mm-camera/
The diagonal of ‘regular' 65 mm (52.5 x 23 mm) film stock is 56,8 mm
The diagonal of the 45 x 30 S sensor is 54,1 mmIt's only a matter of time Peter,there are also rumours of a Sony/Hasselblad alliance which is aiming to bring a new large sensor to the market with foveon type colour assignment..
Sony are of course pretty big in the cinema world so I believe they would have a vested interest in bringing a digital imax sensor to the market,big studios would lap them up and in the movie game the price would be almost irrelevant.
peterv;5822 wrote: I guess if the blackmagic cam can take the heat, surely a body the size of an S could manage. Anyway, you're right, that's just one of many problems that would need to be solved.
Like I said, video would have to stand out and be top notch to be worth the trouble. If the S line could produce high quality video, that would make quite a few heads turn. Fingers crossed …
This got me wondering how long before we see digital imax…
peterv;5811 wrote: Rob, a CCD and a CMOS version may very well be a good idea. I've read somewhere that around the announcement of the S system Leica talked about bringing different S models. A high ISO CMOS reportage S camera should be interesting for documentary work, perhaps with a pancake 45 mm that Rolo was suggesting?
Hi David, I wonder what kind of video you'd be thinking of?
If Leica can make it work really well, not just as an after thought because of the CMOS sensor, I'd welcome such a move, but I have my doubts. How would they implement live view? (I know, with MLU, but how well would this work?)
Would they use a good codec and a high bit rate? I don't think in 2014 (assuming a new S would appear at Photokina) ‘merely' HD would do, it would have to be 4K. Could a new image processor move all these data? Would there be AF for video, difficult with MLU … How would you focus? And what about sound? Etc, etc.
A lot of work would have to be done still, to make an S with video work. Again, not just as an extra gimmick, but as a feature that would attract the moving image crowd.The larger sensor would surely make interesting video images, though pulling focus would be quite hard to do … Thoughts?
Would cooling be a problem.. Wouldn't 4k recording generate a lot of heat?.
On the subject of sensors this looks interesting.. http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=13673
It's only a matter of time before we see 20stops
peterv;5800 wrote: +1 I'm quite happy with the colors and the IQ the S2 gives me and I'd like more MP's and DR.
Perhaps CMOS would be a wise decision for Leica because on the MF forums there seems to be a high demand for better high ISO and live-view, so this could bring in new customers for the S. If Leica manages to keep the price of entry into the system a bit lower that would help a lot too.
OTOH, I know of at least two high profile photographers who say they don't like the (colour-) rendering of the M240 sensor. I tend to agree with them from what I've seen floating around. Maybe if the upcoming S gets a CMOS, Leica should take a long hard look at other sensor manufacturers, besides CMOSIS. After all, we're talking about their flagship camera. Color and IQ should come first.
Peter,I would agree that cmos should only be considered if they can produce the same colour and tonality,otherwise they should stick with CCD,or perhaps offer a CCD and CMOS version ,I think phase one are planning to offer both in the future..
David Farkas;5796 wrote: I'd love to see a CMOS with live view and video capability, but currently there are no medium format sized CMOS sensors. Imagine the sensor performance of the M 240 with the resolution and lenses of the S…
One other reason for cmos would of course be high ISO improvements … with such a sensor there would probably be no need for a 35mm digital unless you shoot sports..
David Farkas;5796 wrote: I'd love to see a CMOS with live view and video capability, but currently there are no medium format sized CMOS sensors. Imagine the sensor performance of the M 240 with the resolution and lenses of the S…
David,a CMOSIS sensor is what I think will be in the next S,it needs to be 16bit and at least 60mp though.
Live view is very helpful for achieving critically sharp focus,but it should also be implemented better than M live view which is limited compared to Canon live view,e.g.: can't move the focus point.
Robert
Arif;5794 wrote: CCD, I like the S as is but would like a little higher ISO 🙂
I agree,CCD has great colour and tonality at base ISO,a Dalsa sensor with 4microns (4microns on the S sensor gives +100mp) with sensor + and 13-14stops DR would be irresistible.. 😀 and a monochrome version..
Very nice shots and a great way to View Washington..
David K;5777 wrote: In both posts the bottom image was taken with the Leica lens. RVB…the RAWs look dramatically different and I did my best to make them match. Maybe with a profile and lens correction in LR it could be done better. Keep in mind this is a zoom vs prime comparison as much as it is a Contax/Zeiss vs Leica comparison. A fairer comparison might be zoom to zoom. But for my purposes this zoom does the trick…for about 15% of the cost of the Leica zoom (not counting the adapter).
Contax glass is very good,Erik Almas uses Contax(and IQ160 back) and his images are beautiful,I have the S zoom on order but I believe the Zoom is as sharp as the prime's,just slower and without C.S (maybe a little less sharp in the corners…) but keep in mind that S glass is probably the best glass on the market, newer design than Contax,considerably more expensive too (as you pointed out)..
How you process the files can narrow the difference in appearance..
On balance Contax is good value for money..
