LocalHero1953 Posted October 17, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) You need to replace the controller with an advisor ;-) A distinction without a difference The advice would be extensive and intensive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 Hi LocalHero1953, Take a look here Gas question. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LocalHero1953 Posted October 17, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 17, 2015 But even the advice is occasionally worth listening to when GAS takes over! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 17, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 17, 2015 My wife is supportive of my Leica GAS (I love my wife) as I am supportive of her handbag GAS (sometimes costing more than my lenses), but getting into digital MF is a big deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sortvitt Posted October 17, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 17, 2015 My 2 cents and 20 seconds worth using Hasselblad, Leica S and M: Printing is the great equaliser. You can see differences on a good monitor, Hasselblad and S have a lot more depth in their files, but prints are indistinguishable for most at sizes up to A3 and maybe A2. Unless you are printing skintones - in which case H and S stand out (in that order). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted October 17, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 17, 2015 Amusingly I've recently had strong interest in the S, and just tried one out at Leica Mayfair to compare vs the M240. Not seen files yet. The S is a beast in weight and bulk, more than I'd expected. So much so that, if I go down the MF route, I'm thinking i might do better with a barbell of M (for many subjects and when handholding) and a tech cam like an Alpa for more considered shots (like your architecture photos and when on a tripod). What I learnt today is that an S couldn't replace my M due to the former's weight and size. But, as I say, I've yet to see the files! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JV- Posted October 17, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 17, 2015 How do you think it compares to Phase One or Hasselblad (or for that matter the MF Pentax)?I have no idea how it compares to those, that kind of things are for someone else to compare. I see IQ as a how much i can get from raw file. Details, dynamics and that kind of things. I would consider this a big issue for the longevity of such an expensive system. Are the replacement motors upgraded units or do they just replace them with the same one that may just fail again. How much of a problem is this? Maybe, if they are idiots, fix is done by putting the same type motor in again but that is hard me to believe. They shame that public feedback what they have been receiving lately and i think they are willing to do much to avoid it in the future. Surely the price will continue to fall, and perhaps fairly quickly fairly soon. At least for the camera body. That depends how badly S(006) owners needs to get rid of they cameras. I have 006 and i will sell it if someone is interested but not for bargain price. Otherwise i just keep it myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted October 17, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK, so back at home now and I've looked at the S (007) + 70mm lens files. My sole intention today was to get a gut response of M files (I own an M240) vs. Leica S files in terms of look / rendering. My reaction = - up to the native resolution of the M240 (i.e., prints no bigger than 20x16 at 300dpi), some benefits of the S might not be so obvious, BUT: - i see remarkably accurate and beautiful out-of-camera colour from the S. Absolutely remarkable. - i perceive much smoother and richer files from the the S - nothing seems to "jar" when i enlarge S files to a very large size on screen, digital artefacts seem minimal compared to the M240. - all in, these seem to create a very different look / rendering - compared to the M240, the S files are a very clear step-up in how i respond to them (perhaps similar to how i respond to 35mm vs. MF film?) - i don't think this is a resolution-only response at all, something much more is creating this rendering difference - is the sensor size differences doing this??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manolo Laguillo Posted October 17, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 17, 2015 I'm not going to answer some of the questions made by those of you, forum fellows, without a Leica S (yet...), questions which express a concern regarding the 'quality' of the files, comparison with the M240, etc. These questions relate to the end of the process, after the photograph has been made. What I am most interested in is the experience of actually making a photograph, how it feels looking at the scene, what kind of previsualization the camera allows, in short, the many things that happen before we make a photograph, before we press the shutter. And in this crucial part of the whole process, the Leica S, with its marvelous classic viewfinder, plays in my own case a role of paramount importance. That is what I was trying to say in that thread I entitled "I have this situation in connection with my Leica S (006)". When I am making a photograph, when I look through the viewfinder, I do inspect carefully, calmly and taking my time, what is happening not only on the central part of the image, but also on the borders of the framed scene. This is a for me a pleasure, it's an anticipation of the photograph not yet made. Yes, I know, this has to be paid for, first with money, and later with stamina, because of the bulk and the weight, but for me that's ok... :-) ... It's true, only when the print is really big (bigger than A2) will the differences between a M240 file and a Leica S file be really visible. In this sense, it's perhaps useless going to the S, or to another medium format digital camera, if your are not printing large enough so that the information those bigger files contain become visible. But... even printing small I would say differences exist between those two files. It's comparable with printing by contact an 8x10'' neg or enlarging to 8x10'' a 4x5'' neg: both prints are 8x10'', but the one made by contact has subtleties and tones the other, made by enlarging, does not have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share #29 Posted October 17, 2015 I have no doubt the files are better and pretty sure it's not just a resolution thing. On the weight side the S is around 1.5kg roughly the same as the Nikon D4. The lenses tend to be heavier except the 70mm is quite nice and compact. The other thing that quite excites me is to use older MF lenses. It seems that the S is compatible with the most MF lens types, including Pentax 67, Bronica and some older hassies which seem to be quite reasonable. Although I think everyone needs at least once Leica S lens. The MTA curves are unreal which is probably not a trivial reason for the S look and detail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted October 17, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 17, 2015 It's true, only when the print is really big (bigger than A2) will the differences between a M240 file and a Leica S file be really visible. In this sense, it's perhaps useless going to the S, or to another medium format digital camera, if your are not printing large enough so that the information those bigger files contain become visible. But... even printing small I would say differences exist between those two files. It's comparable with printing by contact an 8x10'' neg or enlarging to 8x10'' a 4x5'' neg: both prints are 8x10'', but the one made by contact has subtleties and tones the other, made by enlarging, does not have. I guess this is true. I tried an A2 size printer and might some day try to figure out where I could hang prints that large, . But my evaluation is not really based on pixels and resolution, so I am not yearning for bigger. There are several remarkable M lenses, but none that draw images like what is possible with the S 24mm and the S 100mm, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted October 17, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 17, 2015 First thing I had to get used to was: Shoot at 2.5 or 16 quality is almost equal... Shoot at 0.5 meters or infinity and quality IS equal. Corner to Corner sharpness like I've never seen before in any M lens even at 2.5 Talking about the S006 and 70mm See my photos with the S006 and 70mm here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jipvankuijk/albums/72157658117667346 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted October 17, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 17, 2015 Add prime lenses from 24mm to 180mm with no difference (I do not hold the zoom to the same standards) and it becomes even more stunning ;-) john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted October 18, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 18, 2015 I use the T, M and S (amateur) and a Nikon DF for low light and find the difference in IQ is visible even when looking on screen. 1) I think the S lenses draw more neutral with sharpness all over the frame and nearly no vignetting (compared to M lenses) 2) I think skin color is better with the S 3) tonality is better/more subtile as well, same valid for microdetail 4) transition between focused subject and background is different / smoother with the larger sensor Sadly I havent used the M much in the last months, it was more when there was enough light and camera size was not a problem I use the S (even for Sunday afternoon family walk), and if I want smaller size I often switch to the T. The S system is maybe expensive, but the IQ amazes me again and again and it is also a joy to work with the big bright viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVB Posted October 18, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 18, 2015 I have no doubt the files are better and pretty sure it's not just a resolution thing. On the weight side the S is around 1.5kg roughly the same as the Nikon D4. The lenses tend to be heavier except the 70mm is quite nice and compact. The other thing that quite excites me is to use older MF lenses. It seems that the S is compatible with the most MF lens types, including Pentax 67, Bronica and some older hassies which seem to be quite reasonable. Although I think everyone needs at least once Leica S lens. The MTA curves are unreal which is probably not a trivial reason for the S look and detail The 100mm Cron is also quite light.. a fabulous lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted October 18, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 18, 2015 The 100mm Cron is also quite light.. a fabulous lens. In certain circles of "clinicalness" and "transparency," the Karbe team lenses have been dismissed as not very interesting. My first reaction after shooting the S 100 was that Karbe had developed a masterpiece that underpins the beautiful qualities of Mandlerian rendering with Karbenisches pop and bite. IMHO, stunning close focus capability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dritz Posted October 22, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 22, 2015 In certain circles of "clinicalness" and "transparency," the Karbe team lenses have been dismissed as not very interesting. My first reaction after shooting the S 100 was that Karbe had developed a masterpiece that underpins the beautiful qualities of Mandlerian rendering with Karbenisches pop and bite. IMHO, stunning close focus capability. The S100 is the reason to have the camera. I recently shot an outdoor event (private party). Of the 600 images, perhaps 580 were taken with the S100. I was hoping for the organic look of the 80-R, it's there but it also has so much more in terms of even performance across the field wide open. The bokeh is beautiful, smooth, reduced in contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 22, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 22, 2015 However, other than what I see on my computer screen I'm not sure whether the benefits of the S are worth it over the M for printing up to 21 to 24 inches which is my usual print size. If you are photographing for a screen or only to prints of this size it may well not be worth it. Keep in mind, too, that larger files will also allow for more cropping, without sacrificing quality at your print sizes. Cropping may not be your thing, but the increased flexibility that comes with larger files is similar to using larger negs in the film days.....it allows one to 'work' the print without as much degradation in detail or tonality. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 22, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 22, 2015 Keep in mind, too, that larger files will also allow for more cropping, without sacrificing quality at your print sizes. Cropping may not be your thing, but the increased flexibility that comes with larger files is similar to using larger negs in the film days.....it allows one to 'work' the print without as much degradation in detail or tonality. Jeff Thanks Jeff, you're right. I have no problems with cropping, resizing, levelling horizons, or whatever I think the photograph needs. I often shoot planning for a format crop or because I can't quite get to the position I want to take the ideal composition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dritz Posted October 22, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 22, 2015 Forgot to attach this example. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/251969-loving-the-s100-for-portrait/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.