Aptus 5 Announced

[Doug Dolde]

http://www.leaf-photography.com/updates1009-en.html

[Thom Bennett]

The price points on these are getting affordable. When we bought a Valeo 17 five years ago it was $17K. Still working fine, too.

[Ed Richards]

The purported 12 stop range in pretty interesting.

[Matus Kalisky]

... wondering how does this compare to Leica S2 ... ;)

[Doug Dolde]

... wondering how does this compare to Leica S2 ... ;)

Instead of wondering why not do a little research and find out.

[r.e.]

I think that Matus was just raising an intriguing question.

They are both new products. As far as I know, nobody has at this point seriously tested either one of them, certainly not comparitively.

In the case of the S2, there is a reasonable argument that the future of Leica depends on this camera. It is very unclear whether the two other cameras that Leica announced at the same time will find significant market acceptance. As someone who was on the verge of buying an M9, I am now on hold due to issues that are arising about the camera's capabilities in relation to the price - not the same issues as with the M8, but significant issues nonetheless. I think that it is fair to say that the M9, for reasons having to do with its ISO capabilities, will be rejected by almost all professional photographers, which means that the buyers will be amateurs who are prepared to spend US$7,000 on a camera that won't perform optimally over ISO 400, and maybe not perform acceptably, in comparison with Nikon and Canon cameras costing a good deal less, beyond ISO 800.

The S2 can succeed only if professionals buy in, but it is expensive; and for its part, Leaf appears to be bringing down the cost of entry into medium format digital.

Matus's is a fair - indeed interesting - question, but not one that will be answered until reports emerge from real world testing, and from thorough analysis of the S2 "system" - for that is what it is, not just a one-off camera, but a system.

There is going to be a lot of discussion about both products over the next few months, and I think that Matus is dead on when he says that part of that discussion is going to be about the S2 in relation to the new Aptus.

[mikeber]

1) The Aptus 5 is only 22M and is based on older technology. (The Hasselblad line doesn't include 22M anymore, that's why the Aptus price is low). When Sony offers their alfa 850 with 24M, questions will be asked if the difference in price is justified.
2) Leica is gambling on the S2, but they are also fighting an uphill battle, since they are a newcomer to Medium Format and to the digital worlds. Their sensor has more then this Aptus, but the price is also much higher. The S2 lenses are also all new and other manufacturers don't have anything for this camera. So for the pro who chooses it, it means everything from ground up.
3) Maybe not for this forum, but I don't understand what the previous poster wants from M9. Personally, I wouldn't buy such product in its first year, but when did Leica promise high ISO performance? I follow discussions on several forums and can't recall anyone predicting high ISO performance with M9, so why the disappointment?
Currently AFAIK no manufacturer offers any 20MPix camera with high ISO performance. None. I bet the Leica S2 will also come short in this respect.

[r.e.]

Mikeber,

The point of my post was to suggest that Matus was raising an interesting question and that the response - "Instead of wondering why not do a little research and find out." - was perhaps a little simplistic.

My comments on the announcement of the S2 and the related announcement of the M9 were intended to expand on why I think that Matus's question is a good one. My basic point - that Leica is gambling plenty on this camera - is apparently a view that you share. As part of expressing that view, I suggested that in the professional market the M9 is DOA. Beyond that, I agree, this is not the right place to get into a discussion about the M9. If you want me to respond to the question that you raise in your third paragraph, feel free to send me a personal message.

[Daniel_Buck]

22mp is plenty of resolution to make decent quality 11x14 prints! I bet it would be fun to use! Still a little to expensive for me though.

[mikeber]

22mp is plenty of resolution to make decent quality 11x14 prints! I bet it would be fun to use! Still a little to expensive for me though.

I agree about the 22mp being sufficient for prints even beyond 11x14. I saw 20x24 enlargements from an older Hasselblad digital back that were just great. However, the question is why use a MF camera with its limitations and hefty price tag, when you can get 24mp in a smaller, convenient, user friendly package with a great assortment of lenses, for only a fraction of the price.
Some people insist that there are no differences between images from 35mm DSLRs and MF, but I disagree. My subjective feeling is that I there are. Question is if it's worth the price.

[rdenney]

Question is if it's worth the price.

That is always the question.

But I think medium-format digital has some ability to compete on more than just the quality increase resulting from the larger format (and that is always meaningful independently of the number of pixels). The working pro photographers I know are fighting for their lives right now, and part of the reason is that their Canon and Nikon digital cameras look just like Uncle Harry's Rebel or D40 to most brides and their mothers. When I did weddings back in the deeps of time, I gained credibility with those being photographed by wielding what was obviously (to them) a professional camera. Yes, it's smoke and mirrors, and I still had to deliver the results, but many clients are not experienced in these matters and such perceptions are important.

So, for many kinds of professional work, a $7000 Pentax 645D or a an Aptus mounted on a Hassy V with old lenses might not cost more than a Canon EOS1DsIII or a Nikon D3X (whatever--I don't keep up with all these new models), but it will have a professional appearance and the image quality to back it up. ISO 800 is abundantly fine, and decades of successful wedding photos were made when photographers had to manually (gasp!) advance the film and separately (double-gasp!) cock the shutter. The features of the high-end Canons and Nikons just aren't relevant to the requirements of many working pros. If the images can be recorded reasonably quickly on CF cards and if the camera can work a whole gig on a battery charge, then I think there will be a market.

But $25-30K plus glass for an S2? I think these will appeal to those buying cachet, which is probably not the average working pro. The wealthy amateur has been the mainstay for Leica and Hasselblad both for a very long time. Whether Leica succeeds with it depends on how many of those wealthy amateurs buy them compared to their business model expectations.

Rick "who didn't see much in the Aptus announcement about what cameras it would fit" Denney

[r.e.]

ISO 800 is abundantly fine, and decades of successful wedding photos were made when photographers had to manually (gasp!) advance the film and separately (double-gasp!) cock the shutter. The features of the high-end Canons and Nikons just aren't relevant to the requirements of many working pros.

From what I can see, a lot of people are dismissing the M9 precisely because they don't think that IS0 800 is abundantly fine, ISO 800 itself being questionable because the camera is geared to ISO 400 and below.

For example, here is a phototograph taken with a Leica M3, 90mm lens, under pretty common available light conditions. The exposure was 1/25th sec hand held, lens wide open at f2.8 and ISO 1600. I regularly shoot like this (although now my 90mm is an f2), and frequently have to go to ISO 3200. There isn't a lot of room and there's often a tricky balance involving lens selection, shutter speed, f stop and film choice/deciding to push development.

Now, have a look at what this page shows can be done with a Nikon D3: http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/

The gulf in available light performance is huge.

I am keenly interested in making the move from film to digital for 35mm work and I want to stay with Leica. Unfortunately, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that an M9 would actually be a liability.

http://www.troutyriver.com/11_ep.jpg

[mikeber]

Wedding photography isn't the main target of Aptus digital backs and the Hassy. I think they target those photographers who shoot their work in the studio for advertising, editorials, fashion and consumer products. Most wedding photos (with the exception of a few portraits) aren't enlarged that much. In some cases, the commercial customers don't see the equipment the photographer uses and they can impress only with their images. In other settings, a MF digital camera is the norm and everyone around expects to see that, however, these are not "mother of the bride" type of customers, but designers and editors.

[r.e.]

Mikeber, I think that you are absolutely right about the S2 target market. The full buy-in for S2 is going to be something like $28K before lenses. The lenses command premium prices as it is, and the S2 versions will be sold at a premium on the premium.

This is not wedding photographer gear.

More importantly, and at the risk of flogging a dead horse, wedding photographers have become used to ISO performance that is out of this camera's league. Nobody in the wedding biz is going to shell out this kind of cash so that they can go back to flash.

It's a studio camera. Maybe there will also be a high end architecture market and high end fashion market.

[Gordon Moat]

Definitely if you need a very low light capable camera, then you are not going to find either a MFDB, nor the Leica S2, nor the Leica M9 to fit your needs. However, I think that is a very small segment of the market. If demand for low light capable cameras was really higher, then more compact digital cameras would have that capability, and some companies might give up on the built in flash.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09062503phaseoneleaf.asp

I have to wonder what PhaseOne plan for Leaf. The chips in the Leaf have been Dalsa sourced, despite that Kodak got Leaf as part of the package they bought when they acquired Creo. If PhaseOne simply decided to switch Leaf to Kodak chips, then I don't think there would be anything distinctive about the Leaf backs.

There is relevance in comparing the Leica S2, though I think more because it uses a Kodak chip. I have the September/October 2009 issue of LFI (Leica Fotografie International) in which the new M9 and new S2 are featured; check page 30 for an ISO 2500 shot from the M9. The printed images in the magazine are quite good, and I think either is more than capable of professional level editorial or advertising related photography. I would never consider either for news or sports, though mostly due to the high equipment costs relative to the pay levels in those realms.

Leaf and PhaseOne have done well with lease set-ups and availability of rental gear. Hasselblad needed to follow that with their own set-up. In order for Leica to gain professional interest, they will need to have lease plans, and rental gear available. I can't imagine a wedding or portrait photographer getting any of these, but I suppose if the price levels drop enough some might make that jump. This gear is more for commercial advertising photographers, or wealthy amateurs.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[r.e.]

There is relevance in comparing the Leica S2, though I think more because it uses a Kodak chip. I have the September/October 2009 issue of LFI (Leica Fotografie International) in which the new M9 and new S2 are featured; check page 30 for an ISO 2500 shot from the M9. The printed images in the magazine are quite good, and I think either is more than capable of professional level editorial or advertising related photography.

If the M9 can credibly handle ISO 2500, I'll be buying one. That gets me where I need to be. But right now, that proposition is contrary to everything that is being said on the internet. Even Erwin Puts, the ultimate Leica fanboy, has written a lukewarm review, on this and other counts. In a comparison with the D3, he actually concludes that the latter is a better camera; which is saying something, given that the D3 itself (if I understand correctly) is on the way to being replaced with Nikon's next latest and greatest.

For what it's worth, the internet scuttlebut is that Leica will pull another Leica M8 routine; introduce an M9.2 in about a year that fixes a basic problem, in this case ISO performance. I have no idea whether there is any truth to this, but if it gains currency, it will encourage a lot of people to hold off.

I do have kind of a problem with spending $7000 on a camera that can't peform as well, in conditions for which the Leica brand is historically renowned, as my 55 year old M3 :)

[Gordon Moat]

The paper and printing quality of LFI magazine is a step better than the majority of magazines. Find a copy of that issue I mentioned, and then grab a loupe to look at the printed pages. The next issue of LFI will have even more of the M9 and S2, with more printed images. They do not use a conventional line screen in the printing, so you can safely assume that quality demands are higher than typical mainstream magazines.

Obviously neither camera is a Nikon D3 nor D3S, and if all you wanted to do was high ISO, then I would recommend either Nikon over any Leica, or any MFDB. I would even recommend a D3 or D3S over the Nikon D3X, if and only if your main usage was high ISO imaging. Nikon really nailed it with these cameras, and I think it will be a while until any company launches something that comes close.

I do a ton of night and urban low light imaging, so I understand low light needs very well. In all honesty, as good as current gear can perform, I still prefer using film and certain film cameras. I would be more likely to buy a Leica M7 than an M9, but then again I am very happy with my Bronica RF645. Most of the time I am at ISO 800 to ISO 1600, and very rarely beyond that. I have used Kodak E200 out to 4 2/3 stops, Fuji Provia 400X out three stops, in medium format, and a few more films in smaller cameras out to ISO 6400. Other than surveillance and reconnaissance, using anything beyond ISO 6400 seems more likely novelty than useful imaging. The majority of my commercial work is done at ISO 100 and ISO 200, and that is for location work, not studio imaging.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[r.e.]

Gordon,

I'll be on the lookout for the magazine, including the upcoming issue.

I'll have a chance to try an M9, hands-on, next month. I think that that is the only thing that is going to resolve this for me. Part of the issue is indeed one of "look" in comparison to pushed film. I agree that anything beyond ISO 6400 is mostly novelty. I have no need to go to 12800, and I don't really need 6400. ISO 3200, or even 2500, would be sweet.