Leica S2 DSLR hitting UK scene in October for eye-opening $26,165 without lens
By Ross Miller 
posted July 29th 2009 11:55PM
posted July 29th 2009 11:55PM
posted July 29th 2009 11:55PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"I've never met a serious photographer who uses Canons."
Sorry, but this is a pretty asinine statement. Annie Leibovitz uses a number of cameras, Canons included - is she not serious?
Certainly not, it just means I've never met her.
...and so your statement speaks more about who you've met than about those that actually use the product... which still leaves us with an asinine comment.
Wow, you're a genius WhyFi, you've caught me out. Or maybe it was just humour, something you're obviously not familiar with.
Meanwhile, why would any serious photographer use Canons when you can get a superior range of high quality optics with Nikons? I'm sure some professional or art photographers use Pentaxs, doesn't mean that Canons come any closer to satisfying the needs of serious photographers.
Oh, you're workin' on the non-funny, even in a dry way, humor? Good luck with that.
Now, there are certainly reasons to argue Nikon vs Canon, but serious glass isn't one of them. Get back to me when they have a real answer to the 85L, 35L, any/all of the tilt/shift lenses, etc.
that's totally opposite from the photographers that I've known and they all use Canons i.e. 5DS Mark 2s, 50D, 40D, and etc...
He impressed the folks at sports illustrated?
That's a load of BS ... Most of their photogs will probably shoot with equal or even better lenses. I'm not saying his pictures aren't good, but they manage to get the same or better quality as your uncle. If they would have been impressed, it would have to be because of composition or subject.
This won't be a camera for the pro sports shooter. Neither is a Hasselblad or Mamiya, ... but they would set you back about the same amount ... and these ain't obscure brands. A lot of portrait-photographers would laugh in your face when you would tell them to use a Canon with "Luxury" lenses.
And yes they are overpriced ... but have you ever held a Leica in your hands?
It's like comparing Honda's (very good and well built cars, and the high end models aint cheap either) to a Bentley.
Both will have more or less the same features, but built quality for one is indeed very very very much better.
(At least it used to be, dunno if this model will live up to the Leica name/fame)
Medium Format != Consumer/Prosumer DSLR
I guess there are still a lot of uninformed people that think this product is for them. As others said, these are intended for studio professionals and in a whole different league from 35mm APS-C DSLR's. If you do this for a living then it'd be worth it, as most people commenting here do not do it for a living just walk away.
Also for the ones complaining about the more megapixels is not better, for these professional lines usually there are a boatload of other features that have been improved (autofocus, dynamic range, burst fps,etc). The marketing department just thinks that people would think this is better because of the higher MP (just like it was with the Hz on CPUs, now it's the number of cores).
Did you read the article? It's a medium format. Not a 35mm full-frame.
Like others have said, if someone's job calls for it, they could consider. For example, fashion photographers.
As for Leica users, are you saying Henri Cartier Bresson didn't know about photography? Of course he could use a $5 toy camera and would still get results. But was he conned for paying for some overpriced gimmick?
I know a lot of photo journalists who prefer Leica M system, because, if they ruined the camera completely while on the run in the middle of a riot or war, whatever shot they had, would still remain safely unexposed in the body, since there isn't a film back that would pop open. In the modern digital world, taken shots are pretty secure in flash drive. But most I know still believe their M system would outlast digital SLR under heavy abuse. They would love to switch to digital SLR for post-processing, yet, all ended up sticking with their film-based M system.
That said, if I were to get on medium format, I'd rather get a Contax 645 / Zeiss system, and add a digital back which I can upgrade when needed.
My previous comment was a reply to -The "i"-
No i'ts nothing as complicated as that. Anyone with a character in their name such as the quotation marks in 'The "i"' does not get reply posts in their initial posts, rather, it creates a new post at the bottom of the page.
That's hilarious. *facepalm* for the engadget code hackers.
Your camera has a tiny sensor. Read the specs.
50% of that price = The Red Dot.
How many times do we have to hear about you and your uncle kurt? (i)
We get it, you are a flaming canon fanboy.. enough now
Seriously though, I think anyone who thinks this is overpriced really doesnt understand it.
A short while ago a top fashion shooter came over here and did work for 3 days and his fee would easily pay for this camera.
But having medium format image quality in dslr format built to Leicas outstanding quality.. its really a very good price.
For me though my D3 is a better camera than i am photographer! Maybe a D4x one day.... :)
Here's the prices in Euro ex vat:
http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_S2_dSLR.html
It's a bit of money, but as stated it's for pro studio and on location use.
It is important to note the quality European engineering that goes into the £260 'professional battery charger'. Clearly here, the slightly elevated price is easily explained by the precision engineering involved.
30x45mm sensor? The nice.
Maybe Engadget should start with a "list of used terms" or something.
Although this looks like a DSLR, it really isn't like one you've ever seen.
It's not full frame, it's above that ... this is medium format.
Every decent medium format camera will cost you several times the price of a full frame canon/nikon/sony/ etc.
MP's are still very very important in this range of cameras. They use these things to blow images up as big as apartment buildings.
One of the uses for example is with all the post processing happening today, you want to be as precise as possible.
But there are much more advantages to it.
It's not because something looks like something you know, that it is what you think it is.
... even if your uncle is a wedding photographer ...
You are clearly an asshole.
Previous comment a reply to "The i"
I'll wait for the cheaper Panasonic version.
I'm a photographer. This camera is in no way made for anything other than fine art prints (or maybe even fashion). If you're in the fine art business, this camera is worth it. If you're in the wedding business, you had better have a 2TB external hard drive for every wedding you do. I admit, it would be nice to have that much detail in every shot, but when you shoot a wedding (in which the number of images reaches in the thousands), it's just not reasonable.
"I've never met a serious photographer who uses Canons."
You may not have met them, but then I must have imagined all those white EF-lenses at sports events in the last 20 years.
I think the problem here is that there seems to be some ignorance of the medium format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film)
This camera has a "30 x 45 mm sensor built into a 35mm-sized body" as stated in the linked article. This is 1350mm². A "full frame" is only 864mm².
Also for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
i