Leica S 006 or SL system

[rollsman4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

  Just trying to get opinions about the systems, I know they are totally different but for personal use and doing Portraits and Family groups shots which would you prefer and why.  Enlargements are no bigger than 16x20 and IQ is also Important.  I would like to hear any personal experiences from either one or both.  Thank you.  P.S   I use off camera flash most of the time so I don't rely on shooting wide open even on my portraits I shoot F4.0 or 5.6    Thank you

[Arif]

  Just trying to get opinions about the systems, I know they are totally different but for personal use and doing Portraits and Family groups shots which would you prefer and why.  Enlargements are no bigger than 16x20 and IQ is also Important.  I would like to hear any personal experiences from either one or both.  Thank you.  P.S   I use off camera flash most of the time so I don't rely on shooting wide open even on my portraits I shoot F4.0 or 5.6    Thank you

 

I have the S2, S007 and SL.  I suggest that the combination of SL body (higher ISO/lighter) and S-lenses is probably the most economical at this time and the results are very good. A 70S lens can be bought quite cheap and with the S-adapter, it produces great results for portraits.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rsmphoto]

I use both. To keep it short, the 006, VE 30-90 and 24 SE comprise my daily professional working camera system (mainly int/ext architecture with some lifestyle), and it's superb for that. Wouldn't want anything else, but the SL serves as my work alternate and personal camera. The SL with the 24-90 VE performance is great, but is equivalent to the 006 with it's zoom in size and weight. No great advantage there.

 

For me, what gives the SL an advantage for personal use is that it uses my diverse M lenses so it can be very light, compact, and efficient, carrying multiple lenses if needed in a very small shoulder bag - better sensor performance in low light, of course. I won't delve into the perceived differences between CCD and CMOS. There's plenty of discussion of that elsewhere on this site. I'm ok working with both.

 

Richard

Edited September 30, 2016 by rsmphoto

[tom0511]

With the S you get that special "MF-look", smoother transitions in regards of tones and from sharp to unsharp.

You also get a huge very nice optical viewfinder. You are restricted to low to medium ISo with the S006.

 

With the SL you get faster and moe flexible AF (not just center AF, face detection, dynamic,...), you get a nice big EVF (I prefer OVF for Foto) which is great for video and for using manual lenses, you get faster shooting speed (fms/sec), you can use all kind of lenses. However if you like to use AF there are not many AF lenses available yet. Using S lenses on a SL IMO is a waste of money. First they focus slow and second they are expensive.

 

If you are after maximum image quality, if max. speed is not important to you I would say Leica S.

 

If you want more speed, more flexibility, to be able to shoot in all kinds of light, I would say SL.

 

[Jeff S]

Let's not forget a beautiful OVF versus EVF.  Would it matter to you?

 

I make these kinds of choices by trying and seeing for myself.  I demo-ed an 006 and zoom for a week, and briefly took some shots with the SL in store, reserving judgment for further tests against the X1D and GFX.  For me the S is out until 007 prices come down (the 006 and zoom lacked speed I need in other than ideal light, and I don't use flash), and until Leica permanently fixes the lens issues.  

 

Jeff

Edited September 30, 2016 by Jeff S

[kartal.kendirci@gmail.com]

I have the S2, S007 and SL.  I suggest that the combination of SL body (higher ISO/lighter) and S-lenses is probably the most economical at this time and the results are very good. A 70S lens can be bought quite cheap and with the S-adapter, it produces great results for portraits.

Arif,

 

Tx for the post and suggestion. Indeed I am as well planning to use SL (since affording S 007 is impossible for me at the moment) with S lenses rather than SL ones taking into account their close prices. Maybe this is silly and very personal but, thinking of SL lenses reminding me shiny toys rather than solid tools compared to S lenses. I think I can live with slower AF but my only hesitation is ergonomics (which, size of the SL lenses is already taking it out) and the usage in the field.

 

If you could briefly share your experiences about using S lenses on SL, and maybe a couple of photos showing the size of various SL+S lens setup, that would be great help for me about clearing my mind up.

 

Tx in advance

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the SL, S2 and type 007. Certainly the 007 has the best image quality of the three in both term of resolution and dynamic range. The OVF is lovely although I am an EVF convert all the way. However the AF speed is lower and the single AF point is very limiting after shooting with the SL. With the S you can option to CS lenses for faster flash sync speeds with non TTL flashes including studio heads. The S lenses are fantastic although the SL standard zoom is a bit better than the S 30-90.

 

The SL is faster and more versatile. At 16x20 the IQ difference between that and the 007 would be there but of minor importance. The SL has more dynamic range tham the type 006 and better high ISO performance but is a stop behind the type 007. If you put the absolute best glass on the SL (Otus, S lenses or the new SL summilux 50) the results are brilliant. Adapted S lenses do focus slower than SL lenses but they are almost as fast to focus as they are on the S007 and faster than my S2. Optically they're absolutely first rate. I have no issues using S lenses on the SL. The SL can AF anywhere in the frame has live exposure preview, is more responsive and 30% lighter than the S. It can also be adapted to hundreds of lenses including AF lenses from Canon and Nikon.

 

If I were choosing only one it would be the SL because of it's versatility and speed of use. If I only worked in a systematic and controlled environment I'd pick the S first.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

If you're only making 16x20 sized prints and shooting personal and family photos, I can't see any point at all to spending twice as much for an S 007 and S lenses over an SL and its excellent SL24-90 lens, or even spending for the SL plus the adapter, plus the twice as expensive, much heavier, much larger S lenses without any IS ... it just doesn't make any sense to me. 

[Jeff S]

If you're only making 16x20 sized prints and shooting personal and family photos, I can't see any point at all to spending twice as much for an S 007 and S lenses over an SL and its excellent SL24-90 lens, or even spending for the SL plus the adapter, plus the twice as expensive, much heavier, much larger S lenses without any IS ... it just doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

And it would make even less sense if you then had to wait 6 months for your broken S lens to returned.....without, by the way, any assurance that it wasn't repaired with the same faulty AF mechanism....even though repaired for free.  Some members here have had that happen with 3 or 4 lenses (and some with multiple body issues, too).

 

Jeff

[LorenzoLandini]

The original post was inquiring about the S006 and the SL, not the S007. The S006 and SL have a similar price and I think it's fair to look at both. Different story with the S007 that cost twice as much. 

 

I did the same and considered both. In my opinion the greatest appealing of the SL was the ability to use both the M and R lenses and whoever already has a few of them the SL is very attractive. 

 

Personally and notwithstanding my existing set of both M and R lenses, I decided to go for the S006. The size of the sensor matters and getting a medium format sensor at the price (actually less) of a full frame sensor was a very appealing proposition. I print larger than 16x20 and therefore resolution matters too. When compared to other medium format system, in my opinion the S  (regardless whether 006 or 007) offers a good compromise between portability (weight, size, etc) and IQ and the S lenses are still among the best lenses available on the market. This was very attractive as I have been using a 4x5 and at times its weight/size became an issue while traveling and I couldn't afford anyway a proper technical camera with a good high-resolution digital back (I do primarily landscapes). The S was a compromise and a good one. 

 

With all respect though, if you're shooting primarily family portraits printed no larger than 16x20 I think the S is an overkill and maybe a new SL with full warranty and its ability to use almost any lens on the planet would be a more appealing proposition. 

 

cheers 

[BigBabyEarl]

Regardless of the price differences which btw when dealing with second hand equipment is completely reasonable (including 007) the difference for me is the files. There is no question, not even close that an S produces superior images. I have an 007 because I basically stole it used, but I would completely be happy with the 006. The images jump out on your monitor. The SL system really shines for M users who want an EVF and soon to come AF lenses for versatility. There does seem to be a redundancy with SL AF lenses and S lenses. Used, a 100 S is about the same price (sometime less) than the new SL 50. I have a hard time with that when I consider how much nicer the files are on an S. It does feel like Leica has created tools that suit different needs and the best answer is always buy them all, but as I'm learning that really adds up quick and the truth is you can only shoot one. As a hobbyist, I have found the most joy as of late shooting the S 007 with my only lens the 100 S. I am contemplating thinning my M lenses down to just the 50 APO and focusing on the S. As for 6 months wait for repairs it really depends on your relationship with your dealer. Direct to Wetzlar should be around a 3-4 week turn around. So point is for family portraits or professional use, there is a difference in file quality that ultimately may be appreciated even if it only lives on a monitor.

Edited December 20, 2016 by BigBabyEarl

[ZHNL]

Current S price is unfortunate for Owners but a steal for buyer. I think either they abound the S or the price will pick up nicely in the near future with new body introduced. We will see. As for S and SL, The file quality is at different caliber. I don't shoot zoom unless I can't change lens during travel. I don't see big size benefit of SL so far if I shoot prime. Summicron SL might change that a little. 

 

S system to me is full of problem at the same time with love. The reason I stay is it happen does a few thing so nicely: shooting experience and file quality. 

 

However I would have given SL more weight if I want use R or M glass on it. but M lens has to be on rangefinder IMO to shine. EVF is mostly a negative point to me with a few cases I want it. I handled the SL and shoot it extensively a few hour in Leica store and keep the files. NO love from a hardcore OVF shooter and owner with S file quality expectation in mind but that is just me. 

[Arif]

Arif,

 

Tx for the post and suggestion. Indeed I am as well planning to use SL (since affording S 007 is impossible for me at the moment) with S lenses rather than SL ones taking into account their close prices. Maybe this is silly and very personal but, thinking of SL lenses reminding me shiny toys rather than solid tools compared to S lenses. I think I can live with slower AF but my only hesitation is ergonomics (which, size of the SL lenses is already taking it out) and the usage in the field.

 

If you could briefly share your experiences about using S lenses on SL, and maybe a couple of photos showing the size of various SL+S lens setup, that would be great help for me about clearing my mind up.

 

Tx in advance

 

Hi,

Attached please find a portrait taken with the SL and S-70 (1/125 at F2.8 handheld). I personally prefer the subject separation and bokeh of this combination versus the 24-90 SL.  I think they are different tools for different uses.  The S-70 is the smallest of the S lenses and others would be quite similar in size to the 24-90 so may not work for you.  If I want to go really small, I use the APO-50M on the SL which again has very good quality and focussing/framing are quite accurate on the SL.

Thank you,

Arif

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[albertknappmd]

SL is the way to go as you are going to enlarge photos substantially...

Albert     

[Likaleica]

SL is the way to go as you are going to enlarge photos substantially...

Albert     

 

Albert, did your computer autocorrect?  You're a die-hard S user.

[albertknappmd]

ooops..

I meant that SL is the way to go IF YOU ARE NOT PLANNING substantial enlargements...

Soooo sorry!!

 

Albert     

[peterv]

Albert, I understand what you say, but reading this thread I think we should all agree that if we make photos to create a family-legacy, prints are fine but the bulk of what we create today (which will be watched by our children, grandchildren, etcetera) is going to be displayed on - at least 8K - screens. Sure, make 16 by 20 prints of your best photos, but I've found that people, especially the young, like to watch series of photos on a display.

 

From that, I think that one can not have enough resolution, and that for future-proofing your family photos IQ-wise, the S is the best bet the OP can make at the moment. (In comparison with the SL)

[EoinC]

Albert, I understand what you say, but reading this thread I think we should all agree that if we make photos to create a family-legacy, prints are fine but the bulk of what we create today (which will be watched by our children, grandchildren, etcetera) is going to be displayed on - at least 8K - screens. Sure, make 16 by 20 prints of your best photos, but I've found that people, especially the young, like to watch series of photos on a display.

 

From that, I think that one can not have enough resolution, and that for future-proofing your family photos IQ-wise, the S is the best bet the OP can make at the moment. (In comparison with the SL)

Both of my daughters, who grew up with digital imagery, greatly prefer a physical print. Don't underestimate the tactile value of a piece of rag.

[Jeff S]

Smart daughters.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[R3D-D0T]

With AF failures and some bodies suffering from sensor corrosion, not to mention the long turnaround to get these repaired, I cannot honestly recommend the S system to anyone.