# Nikon D800e vs. Leica S2



## CaptainNapalm (Apr 17, 2013)

Read a few interesting articles today on the net which compelled me to do some more research on the subject.  After looking at many image comparisons among other tests, it becomes obvious that the Nikon D800e is on par with image quality as the Leica S2 Medium format camera which punches in at a price tag of a whopping $23,000.00.  This is truly incredible when you think about it.  The D800 costs a small fraction of the cost, a mere $3000 when compared to the Leica.  From what I saw, the colour accuracy was actually better on the D800.  Makes me appreciate this camera even more now and really does support the fact that it is great value for the money.  Among the few articles I found today, this one was quite informative and interesting: 

An unfair fight? 35mm vs Medium Format: Nikon D800E and the Leica S2-P ? Ming Thein | Photographer


----------



## Derrel (Apr 17, 2013)

Yes, a really good comparison he did. THose Leica lenses are apparently, most amazing. We are fortunate to live in these times...my first digital camera was the old Nikon D1...a 2.7 megapixel body with a very crude, primitive aspect to almost all the peripheral accdessories: the software was crude; the color space was sort of wonky and NTSC1953-"like"; the dynamic range was nothing like we have today; noise even one EV above baseline began to creep in; and the Custom Functions were all number/letter codes; there were NO WORDS used in the Custom Function set-up menu!!! We used cheat-sheets to know if C.F. # 19 was supposed to be A,B,or C (more or less!). My first 1-gigabyte IBM Microdrive set me back a discounted $400. Nikon Captgure software was $300, just to be able to shoot and decode RAW files. There WAS NO highlight/shadow recovery slider system. Digital FILL light was years in the future.

Now? We have a $3,000 Nikon that approaches, or equals,or betters, the performance characteristics of a $23,000 Leica medium format body with lenses that cost $15,000 or something...and which beats the pnats off of it in terms of autofocusing speed and sureness, TTL flash, and other _high-tech techie-tech_ stuff...


----------



## Rhoads238 (Apr 17, 2013)

An interesting read. thanks for sharing. I was wondering how they would compare recently but didn't get into researching the thought. It makes you wonder why people would bother spending an extra 20k for only marginally better performance.


----------



## O'Rork (Apr 18, 2013)

Testing labs are putting the D800/E at the top of the heap for image quality in it's class, hard to argue with that. The price point for that is amazing. We could start arguing the shortcomings of the D800, as there are some, but in the end it's the best IQ DSLR money can buy IMHO. If I was a pro people shooter the D800 would be a must, but since I'm a hobby shooter a lesser body (D600) does me well.


----------



## gregtallica (Apr 18, 2013)

Rhoads238 said:


> An interesting read. thanks for sharing. I was wondering how they would compare recently but didn't get into researching the thought. It makes you wonder why people would bother spending an extra 20k for only marginally better performance.



Exactly what I took away from the article.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 18, 2013)

One thing the D800 will never have over the Leica: A medium format sensor.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Apr 18, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Yes, a really good comparison he did. THose Leica lenses are apparently, most amazing. We are fortunate to live in these times...my first digital camera was the old Nikon D1...a 2.7 megapixel body with a very crude, primitive aspect to almost all the peripheral accdessories: the software was crude; the color space was sort of wonky and NTSC1953-"like"; the dynamic range was nothing like we have today; noise even one EV above baseline began to creep in; and the Custom Functions were all number/letter codes; there were NO WORDS used in the Custom Function set-up menu!!! We used cheat-sheets to know if C.F. # 19 was supposed to be A,B,or C (more or less!). My first 1-gigabyte IBM Microdrive set me back a discounted $400. Nikon Captgure software was $300, just to be able to shoot and decode RAW files. There WAS NO highlight/shadow recovery slider system. Digital FILL light was years in the future.
> 
> Now? We have a $3,000 Nikon that approaches, or equals,or betters, the performance characteristics of a $23,000 Leica medium format body with lenses that cost $15,000 or something...and which beats the pnats off of it in terms of autofocusing speed and sureness, TTL flash, and other _high-tech techie-tech_ stuff...



Yes that's what I've read everywhere, that ALL Leica lenses are exceptional when it comes to performance or build quality where as there are few poor FX lenses in circulation by Nikon as well as fair and of excellent quality.  But this isn't because Nikon can't make all lenses exceptional.  They just have to offer the public lenses at different price points, which is good, you decide what to get and at what price point and, well you get what you pay for.  Leica doesn't share that approach I suppose, if you are buying a $23,000 camera, you're not going to be the type of consumer who will want to save a few hundred (even few thousand) of dollars on lenses in exchange for some lack of quality.

Yeah I remember memory being much more expensive when I was a kid but $400 for a gigabite is crazy, when now we can buy an external 16GB (jump) drive for $20 bucks.  But obviously one could do much more back then with a gigabite than what we can do now, files were 50KB where as now your average high quality photo file is 10MB++. 

It will be interesting to see what the next 20 years will bring.  I just took a peak at some cameras that were the top of the food chain just 7 years ago and they are nothing compared to what we have now.  They had much more limitations and less "auto" functions.  It's scary to think that with our exponentially increasing rate of technological advancements it may actually be impossible to take a bad picture in 10 years time, anyone may have the ability to shoot perfectly exposed photos and we may even have smart devices correcting our composition based on the data it sees in the viewfinder.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Apr 18, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> One thing the D800 will never have over the Leica: A medium format sensor.



Of what benefit will a medium format sensor be over an FX sensor if the image quality is similar? Will the only difference be when blowing up the photo to larger than billboard size? Perhaps you'll be able to recover more detail once blown up to monumental proportions? I'd be curious to know.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 18, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> Of what benefit will a medium format sensor be over an FX sensor if the image quality is similar? Will the only difference be when blowing up the photo to larger than billboard size? Perhaps you'll be able to recover more detail once blown up to monumental proportions? I'd be curious to know.



More control over depth of field, leaf shutters, higher sync speeds etc.


----------



## gregtallica (Apr 18, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > Of what benefit will a medium format sensor be over an FX sensor if the image quality is similar? Will the only difference be when blowing up the photo to larger than billboard size? Perhaps you'll be able to recover more detail once blown up to monumental proportions? I'd be curious to know.
> ...



I don't know what the latter two are, but the first one - I could definitely live without the DOF and bokeh of MF to save $20,000.


That said, I don't ever expect to even _hold_ a Leica S2 in my life, and my previous statement may be why hahaha


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> One thing the D800 will never have over the Leica: A medium format sensor.



One thing the Leica will never have over the D800e: autofocus that's actually capable of pulling focus on moving targets. And TTL flash. And affordable zoom lenses. And 50 years' worth of F-mount lenses. Oops...that's four things...

Yeah...the Leica S2 was simply amazing *when it came out*...but like so much Leica digital, it was surpassed by smaller, more-nimble, more-experienced digital camera manufacturers. I think that the rumor of a "Nikon medium format camera" that we heard so,so,so much about was actually the D800 in prototype form!!!

Pentax's 645D...same thing...about on par with the D800, but $10,000 and hardly available anywhere...and also lacking lens-wise for action work, or other "fluid" types of shooting. The Leica will always have the snob appeal factor over *any* Nikon, however, so there is that, and that is an important part of the Leica mystique. The bad part about the Leica is that, unlike many (but not all) other MF digitals, the sensor is locked into ONE, specific, individual body; no instant "slap on a new back" upgrade path like going with a Phase system, or whatnot. But still...it has a KILLER lens system, and apparently the ergonomics of it are good, for medium format, which all too often has been, well...clunky and kind of kludgy.

I thought the worst thing about the Leica S2 from Ming Thein's review/comparison was the description of the 120mm Macro lens as being almost the same size as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR-NIKKOR... man...that sounds like a regal PITA. I wish he had tested some of the Leica leaf shutter lenses. He didn't touch upon the body being inextricably tied to ONE sensor either. I dunno...ALPA's new technical camera system actually looks more appealing for that kind of money...still, there's a place for every camera on the market.


----------

