Met someone on the street with the new S

[Torquinian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have only seen one that this chap was keeping it under cover here in Melbourne.

He actually was kind enough to let me hold it for a few seconds,don't know if he has still got it.

 

Personally I think Leica should have made the R10, I would have bought one by now.

 

Ken.

 

I couldn't agree more; I have three R cameras and nine lenses and feel as though I have been abandoned by Leica. The rangefinder cameras just don't suit my sort of photography and the S2 is way too expensive. I shall be going to the Leica Society weekend in Bath soon and there may well me an S2 to drool over.

[Lax Jought]

The rangefinder cameras just don't suit my sort of photography

 

How do the R and S cameras suit your photography as opposed to the rangefinders? I've never had the pleasure to use either the R or S cameras but I'd love to. I think they can't be my 'carry-everywhere' camera though because as I understand it they're not as versatile as the rangefinder (which in turn is not as versatile as and SLR or DSLR too).

[Advertisement]

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

[erl]

Consider it to be a bit like the difference between a pick-up truck and a sedan. They both 'get there' but with a different purpose and ability.

[Lax Jought]

I guess the only way I'd know how the S works is to actually hold one in my hands.

 

Do the S lenses have a long focus throw?

[erl]

As someone who spent most of his life working with Hasselblad I can say that if were still working for a living, I would probably be using the S2 in it's place, based on a brief encounter with it.

[mwilliamsphotography]

How do the R and S cameras suit your photography as opposed to the rangefinders? I've never had the pleasure to use either the R or S cameras but I'd love to. I think they can't be my 'carry-everywhere' camera though because as I understand it they're not as versatile as the rangefinder (which in turn is not as versatile as and SLR or DSLR too).

 

Versatility depends on how versatile your photographic interest are.

 

For me the main draw of the S2 was it's handy 35mm type form factor with a bigger sensor and ground up digital era, fast aperture lenses (for MFD) that can take consistent lens-to-lens advantage of that sensor.

 

Importantly, it is a dual shutter camera with focal plane shutter speeds to 1/4000, and with a flip of a switch becomes a leaf shutter camera with sync speeds to 1/1000 while working with strobes = versatility

 

It is a studio camera that can be used like a 35mm DSLR in many other circumstances = versatility

 

A rangefinder is a horse of a different color ... a different discipline and approach to making photographs.

 

The two are not easily confused in use or purpose.

 

-Marc

[proenca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I come from a long line of M and I'm completly uncapable of detaching fully with them.

 

It was with the M cameras, long time ago, film days, before the M8 was a mirage, that I got in love with Leica and its lens.

 

Since then, I had them all - M8, M8.2, M9. Love them, hated some ( M8 ;p ) and now have the S2.

 

Bigger ? Yes. Loads.

Heavier ? Yup. tick that box. two times just to be sure

 

Now the files.. are just.. a M9 on steroids. Lots of steroids.

 

I loved the M stealthiness and its all gone with the S2. But getting used to it.

 

However, when I nail a picture.. its just superb. It really is something competly different.

 

Shouldnt be M9/M240 vs S2. They are so different. Horses for courses.

 

And yes, I use my S2 as Kurt ( he was one of my great inspirations and culprits in thinking that buying a S2 was a good idea to use a walk around camera ) , not a daily basis but whenever I can.

 

It has low light limitations - alas, the M8 and M9 had already, so I'm more than used to it. But when it nails the picture, oh boy, are you in for a treat.

[Lax Jought]

Versatility depends on how versatile your photographic interest are.

 

For me the main draw of the S2 was it's handy 35mm type form factor with a bigger sensor and ground up digital era, fast aperture lenses (for MFD) that can take consistent lens-to-lens advantage of that sensor.

 

Importantly, it is a dual shutter camera with focal plane shutter speeds to 1/4000, and with a flip of a switch becomes a leaf shutter camera with sync speeds to 1/1000 while working with strobes = versatility

 

It is a studio camera that can be used like a 35mm DSLR in many other circumstances = versatility

 

A rangefinder is a horse of a different color ... a different discipline and approach to making photographs.

 

The two are not easily confused in use or purpose.

 

-Marc

 

I guess my main concerns if I was to buy into the S2 system is:

 

(i) manual focusing, I have totally bought into manual focusing now. I have a Canon 7D DSLR but autofocus feels very finicky to me and I can generally focus faster. The reason why I asked about the focus throw of S lenses is because I wanted to know how easy it is to manually focus with the S.

 

(ii) low light, I really like low light photography. As I understand it, the S doesn't perform very well at high ISOs and with f/2.8 lenses, I think that would make it difficult in low light.

 

(iii) rangefinder focusing - that's what helps me with fast focus and focusing in low light.

 

So that's why I think the S isn't for me even though I'd love to get into medium format.

[Torquinian]

I was out doing some shooting in the CBD yesterday, and amidst the many people toting Canons, Nikons, Sony NEX and Olympus cameras, I noticed a fellow with a very large black camera. I blinked and realized that he was carrying what looked like a S2. I've never, ever seen one in the wild before, so I had to stop and talk to him.

 

He said that it wasn't the S2, but the S, with the 70mm Summarit. He got it in February and was extremely happy with it. A fairly young guy, he said that he used it for travel, and not for work! He noted the M9 in my hands and remarked that he had one, too. I asked him if he had the new M, and he said no, but he was waiting for it. And he suggested that instead of the new M, I should get a S: "the images are so much better", he said.

 

It puts another perspective on things, certainly. On numerous occasions people have made remarks about the cost of my M9, which was admittedly an extravagant purchase. But here was a young guy with his girlfriend, walking around an art gallery in the City and enjoying himself with a brand new S.

 

Has anyone seen a S or S2 in the wild, as it were? This surprised me just as much as when I saw someone carrying a Red Epic in minimal kit form, shooting the Christmas lights in a local street.

 

I went to the Leica Society weekend near Bath recently and was hoping to see an S2 but all the neck ornaments there were all rangefinder cameras, including some 1930's models. Not a SLR to be seen.

[Stuart Richardson]

I guess my main concerns if I was to buy into the S2 system is:

 

(i) manual focusing, I have totally bought into manual focusing now. I have a Canon 7D DSLR but autofocus feels very finicky to me and I can generally focus faster. The reason why I asked about the focus throw of S lenses is because I wanted to know how easy it is to manually focus with the S.

 

(ii) low light, I really like low light photography. As I understand it, the S doesn't perform very well at high ISOs and with f/2.8 lenses, I think that would make it difficult in low light.

 

(iii) rangefinder focusing - that's what helps me with fast focus and focusing in low light.

 

So that's why I think the S isn't for me even though I'd love to get into medium format.

 

Well, this is several months late, but maybe it is still useful to you or someone else.

 

The manual focusing on the S2 is excellent. The focus action is very smooth and precise, far more than for any other AF lens I have used. It is even better with the split image microprism screen, which is unfortunately also breathtakingly priced at 450 dollars. That said, the S lenses are so sharp, that I have found that the AF does a better job than my still young eyes are capable of! AF is fairly quick, though not in comparison to modern 35mm DSLRs. The good news is that the accuracy is superb, at least in my experience.

 

If low light handheld photography is your thing, the M system or a DSLR would likely be a better bet, unless you need medium format. If you need medium format, then the S is probably the best choice given the easy to hold form factor and bright lenses. The ISO levels on the camera all perform well by my criteria. I would not hesitate to use any setting, particularly when you remember that it is a 37mp camera, so the noise you see at 100% is going to be much less apparent than it would be in a lower resolution camera. You can get good results handheld at lowish speeds with the S2, but you will be sacrificing a lot of the resolution you are paying for. It is a demanding camera technically. You will also be mostly sticking with the 70mm and wider as well, as hand-holding the longer lenses at slow speeds will simply not be worth the effort.

 

If you are doing low light tripod photography, the S2 is extremely good. I do a lot of nighttime landscapes and cityscapes, and the S2 produces exceptional long-exposure images up to 125 seconds at ISO 160. I would say the ideal range is shorter than 30s. At these speeds it has very low noise, exceptional dynamic range (it will hold the highlights and extreme deep shadows) and excellent color accuracy. It is significantly better than the D3 I had in terms of the character of the images taken at night. The D3 could go further though, of course, but not as well.

Here are a few low light shots taken with the S2. All were on a tripod, and have exposure times of several seconds up to about 2 minutes. I know they are very small for the web, but they are extremely high resolution and sharp to 100%.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Oh, and on the issue of being noticed with the S2 or seeing them in the wild...well, pretty much a no in both cases. I am fairly certain I have the only one in the country (Iceland), so no one else has one around to see. Mine is taped up on the logo and red dot...not really interested in people knowing what it is. I have had one or two people inquire about it, but I mostly use it for landscape and studio work, so I am not out on the streets with it that often. I prefer an M camera for travel and street work, as the S2 is a bit big and unwieldy for that in my opinion. Of course, if you can bring yourself to work that way, your results will be exceptional. The file quality is like that of the M9, though better in every aspect...it has a similar color palette and "look", only with more resolution, better color depth and dynamic range. The are excellent files! But for my travel and documentary style work, the M9 is often a better tool.

 

I recently did a food reportage for a Russian food magazine and used both the S2 and M9. Images from both wound up being used in the article, and they blend together perfectly. I had one part where I was shooting fish processing guys hanging up fish to dry in the rain, and the S2's autofocus, weather-sealing and dynamic range were a godsend there. But in one restaurant the manager was quite leery about me shooting for the article in their restaurant, and she asked me what kind of camera I had (apprehensive about the size), and when I pulled out the M9 she just went, "Oh, that's fine. I thought you meant a big professional camera!" People are funny...that was probably the most professional camera she had ever seen, but to her it was a toy and therefore ok and not going to bother her customers.