M9 to S (006)

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you were happy with the Rollei you will be ecstatic with the 006, it is ergonomic and a pleasure to shoot.  Given the low light limitation of the M9, the m240 will be a step in the right direction but if the next M has the sensor of the SL with high iso and dynamic range it will be a quantum leap ahead of the M9 and a worthwhile step-up.  

 

Regarding handheld shooting, the S lenses are all sharp wide open and higher shutter speed requirements are easily met.  If greater depth of field is needed a tripod would be required.

 

The limitation I find with the S in field shooting is carrying more than two lenses, tripods etc.  it can get rather weighty and cumbersome, so I limit to a wide and telephoto which keeps everything mobile in a small pack.

[xiaubauu2009]

Am I correct that Leica has agreed to cover the cost of repairs even if out of warranty?

 

I think that is so. Mine has a sticky Aperture, which has been fixed by Leica Korea, but not sure how much it will cost. Meanwhile my Contax 645 mount is back in Germany, not sure about the status either...

[erlingmm]

Thanks all for your generous suggestions. The kit I am looking at includes the 70mm. Not CS. I understand that is the version optimized for flash. But is that flash, as in studio work? In other words, could I use a simple flash effectively with the non-CS lens?

David 

 

You can use flash without CS just like on any other camera. CS is only necessary when you want to us flash synced on high shutter speeds,  that is, you want to isolate background in daylight settings, or some forms of special purpose photography.

[darylgo]

High speed sync is also available with the SF58 on the S2, and I assume 006, providing a limited work around for non cs lens synchronization. The SF-58 has been discontinued however it's readily available used.

[menos I M6]

 

After 4 1/2 years and thousands of images with my M9, I am considering options.

The obvious move is to the M 240 for its different sensor, higher ISO, allegedly better OV, electronic focusing wizardry and overall refinement. The greatest limitation for me with the M9 its low light limitations - particularly in the shadows at 640 or above (which I do not use).The transition to the M also makes sense because I have three lovely lenses - Zeiss 35mm, Lux 50mm and Elmarit M 90mm.

But, of course, that is the practical right side of the brain talking. The left side, not hampered by such calculations, looks longingly at the S whose 006 iterations are now priced within striking distance of so of their little M brothers. Having shot medium format for several years with Rollei 6008, which I scanned with a Scitex Eversmart Pro II scanner and printed 24" square, I miss a big camera with big output. I carried that box all over the world. I will confess that much of the output when handheld was less than stellar owing to ASA 400 film and an f4 lens. But on a tripod, with mirror lockup and ASA 100 film with that Schneider 90 mm bazooka, the results were extraordinary. And I just love the square look.

The 006 generation is now within my financial reach, along with a 70 mm lens. I know that a perfectly shot image in perfect conditions will be splendid. I found that true with my M9 as well. But as time passed, I discovered that it is mostly a perfect camera for perfect situations. And that, unfortunately, has limited my work. Not to shoot something because it is outside the design parameters of your camera is a bitter pill.

I have read widely on the S 006. Again, perfect under perfect conditions. Many decry its size and weight. That is not a decisive issue for me given my experience with the Rollei. Though people, especially in the Middle East, scattered when I brought it to my eye. I wised up and started using the waist finder which was far less threatening. 

The S 006 seems to have similar ISO issues with questionable use above 800. Not so, obviously, with the 007 which is out of reach. Everyone raves about the big OV so I assume that critical focusing is not an issue. I am pretty good with focusing the M9, though struggle a bit in low light (if I shoot at all). The AF of the S would be a welcome option.

I would be using this camera hand held which also means the need for higher shutter speeds to offset mirror slap and my own vibration. I do tripod work as well in my more deliberate moments. That removes the personal vibration issues (is there a mirror lock-up as with Rollei?).

Ultimately, the M is a much "safer" bet as a walk-about camera. But I just can not get the idea of an S out of my head. For those of you who made that transition - for M9 to S - any regrets/advice?

Obliged,

David

 

David, in your position I would without a doubt upgrade to a Leica M for better high ISO performance.

If the high ISO performance of the M9 bothers, for get the Leica S2.

The S2 has slower lenses than the M system, it needs much faster handheld shutter speeds compared with a Leica M, it is even less of a performer at same ISO speeds than the M9 (I regularly use my M9 at ISO speeds up to ISO 800 while S2 files for me are absolute borderline at ISO 640 - in my opinion the S2 files' advantages do fall apart when moving at ISO 640 or above and one does better use a 35mm SLR or a Leica MM / M)

 

If the large size and slower operations of a Rollei bothered you or limited you in your image taking, hands off the Leica S - the Leica S is much faster and dynamic to use than a Rollei 8xxx but it still is a slow and big camera to handle - absolutely no contest to the very fast, agile and quick Leica M.

I use my S2 for shots where I have time or my subjects to not mind the shot, while a Leica M is easily used in an unobtrusive way to even produce the most candid and natural photographs, very difficult for a S.

 

The Leica S2 absolutely NEEDS lots of light - the amazing image quality it can deliver absolutely diminishes once you cannot use flash or there is plenty of light.

It is NOT a low light camera at all.

Don't let yourself be blinded by the relatively fast f2.5 lenses and even f2 lenses available.

 

When used where it excels, it is an amazing camera and it is the most compact and fastest to use MF digital there is. It is not a substitute for a Leica M by any means.

[jpk]

on S I need 1/3x, that is, a 70 mm should be shot at at least 1/200. You can do slower, but unless you have trained yourself to stable positions, or plain luck, you will lose the advantage of the MF system.

 

I would say "you will lose the advantage some resolution of the MF system"...

 

Even the S2 is not too bad at ISO 1250 if exposed correctly. Color noise seems to be high but is well removable: surprisingly good amount of detail and nice looking fine grain remains. I got sharp shots handhold at 1/focal-length with little luck and more so when standing against a wall with the 70mm.

 

You might want to read maximizing-high-iso-performance-on-the-leica-s2 and m9-iso-performance-new-life

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But the S cameras will move you onto another level altogether. Think 4x5 quality in a body only slightly larger than most pro DSLRs.

 

very much agree - I have now road tested both the S007 and S-E.  Nothing scientific, but just to get a feel for the S files versus the M240 and MM - i used no tripod, and i've been using the S even at typically "not ideal" slow shutter speeds like 1/125 on the 70mm.

 

For LARGE prints ...... the S series is miles ahead versus the M's .... it is so superior in its look/rendering/image quality that the comparison with the M is barely worth it.  The S is the first digital camera that i've tried where -- FINALLY -- I'm not gonna miss drum-scanned (+ low-speed) sharp 6x7 film like Acros or Provia AT ALL.  The files are so smooth when you look at the enlarged in-focus areas, it is that beautiful, and the bokeh is truly 100% smooooooth with no swirls anywhere off the S 70mm.  The quoted opinion on 4x5 quality is is not far off the mark ..... I used to be a 4x5 user too, and even if the S's 38MP isn't quite there in terms of very-very fine detail vs. a perfect (say 250-350mb) drum-scanned 4x5, it sure makes up for it in terms of pixel acuity to provide an image that looks as sharp and as beautiful as 4x5 (that was a non scientific view again -- but i'm looking at a 50x33 inch print at 300dpi from a S007 that was done off a high end printer from the flagship Metro Imaging that looks remarkably similar to 4x5, even when nosing the print.  And the S probably has  better color accuracy and certainly much better edge sharpness ....).

 

If all i wanted was SMALL prints (or viewing online), yes, the S's difference versus the M (especially if you use the M lens wide open) will probably be much smaller, and in that case i'd stick with an M for its compact size ..... 

[Printmaker]

very much agree - I have now road tested both the S007 and S-E.  Nothing scientific, but just to get a feel for the S files versus the M240 and MM - i used no tripod, and i've been using the S even at typically "not ideal" slow shutter speeds like 1/125 on the 70mm.

 

For LARGE prints ...... the S series is miles ahead versus the M's .... it is so superior in its look/rendering/image quality that the comparison with the M is barely worth it.  The S is the first digital camera that i've tried where -- FINALLY -- I'm not gonna miss drum-scanned (+ low-speed) sharp 6x7 film like Acros or Provia AT ALL.  The files are so smooth when you look at the enlarged in-focus areas, it is that beautiful, and the bokeh is truly 100% smooooooth with no swirls anywhere off the S 70mm.  The quoted opinion on 4x5 quality is is not far off the mark ..... I used to be a 4x5 user too, and even if the S's 38MP isn't quite there in terms of very-very fine detail vs. a perfect (say 250-350mb) drum-scanned 4x5, it sure makes up for it in terms of pixel acuity to provide an image that looks as sharp and as beautiful as 4x5 (that was a non scientific view again -- but i'm looking at a 50x33 inch print at 300dpi from a S007 that was done off a high end printer from the flagship Metro Imaging that looks remarkably similar to 4x5, even when nosing the print.  And the S probably has  better color accuracy and certainly much better edge sharpness ....).

 

If all i wanted was SMALL prints (or viewing online), yes, the S's difference versus the M (especially if you use the M lens wide open) will probably be much smaller, and in that case i'd stick with an M for its compact size ..... 

Hi Jon

I got the S2 to take some of the workload off of my 4x5 and BetterLight scanback. Before I got into scanbacks, I had a pair of Crosfield drum scanners along with 8x10 and 4x5 cameras supported by an in-house E6 line. Old school. (I go back even further to 30x30 process cameras, but I digress...) What I found was the S2 held its own against the 4x5. True, the BetterLighr back gave me 309 MB which allowed me to print in excess of 40x60 inches but the vast majority of my client's work only needed to be printed from 16x20 to 24x36. Native resolution on the S yields a 20x30 inch print but the files can be rezrd up to 40x60 quite easily. So the S2 covers just about everything the average photographer is likely to want to have printed.

 

In terms of absolute quality I've found that scanbacks have it over scanned film because they work directly from the subject and have far more dynamic range. With film you are limited to the characteristics of the film. Shadow detail can be a real problem - especially if polarization or cross polarization is required. While a good scanback may be the highest quality file, the S2 comes very close. I'd certainly take an S2 file over drum scanned film any day. But I'd be curious to see how the new sensor in the S 007 holds against a scanback. The S2 files required a slight curve expansion (or moving the shadow slider in LR to 50) to capture full DR when cross polarized. Gaining 1-2 stops of DR would capture the full range of tones and therefore make this camera the perfect capture device.

 

On a less technical note, any S is one hell of a camera.

[jip]

I enjoy reading all this talk about cross polarisation, scan backs and 4x5 film etc etc.

 

However I cannot comment on this, I'm from 1993, and the only film I've developed is 135 and 120 film at home, and printed with my DURST. Or scanned negatives with a Nikon Coolscan.

 

What I can say is that the S delivers the nicest colours of all digital cameras I've ever used, and the lenses are just amazing. Stopping down is in my eyes truly just to gain depth of field.

 

It's also the most versatile medium format system I think, it can mount S lenses, Hasselblad HC and HCD lenses and all the Contax 645 lenses with full compatibility.

 

The camera as all professional Leica cameras M, S, R8/9 has a great user interface, with nicely laid out buttons and menus. (The S2 was less intuitive user interface wise)

 

To sum things up, I just love the S, and M series. They are both really different and both shine at their own purposes.

 

I'm in the process of writing an article about the S series and photography with the S, where I'll try to show you should just use the camera in any condition. Sure an M is better suited for street photography, that doesn't stop me though from doing just that with the S.

 

Currently I'm shooting the S 006 with Hasselblad 300mm lens for shots like the one below:

 

 

[jpk]

I have now road tested both the S007 and S-E.

 

What are your findings regarding image quality at comparable ISO between the 006 and the 007? Where does the 006 show up it's limits in real world usage?

[Deliberate1]

Hi Jon

I got the S2 to take some of the workload off of my 4x5 and BetterLight scanback. Before I got into scanbacks, I had a pair of Crosfield drum scanners along with 8x10 and 4x5 cameras supported by an in-house E6 line. Old school. (I go back even further to 30x30 process cameras, but I digress...) What I found was the S2 held its own against the 4x5. True, the BetterLighr back gave me 309 MB which allowed me to print in excess of 40x60 inches but the vast majority of my client's work only needed to be printed from 16x20 to 24x36. Native resolution on the S yields a 20x30 inch print but the files can be rezrd up to 40x60 quite easily. So the S2 covers just about everything the average photographer is likely to want to have printed.

 

In terms of absolute quality I've found that scanbacks have it over scanned film because they work directly from the subject and have far more dynamic range. With film you are limited to the characteristics of the film. Shadow detail can be a real problem - especially if polarization or cross polarization is required. While a good scanback may be the highest quality file, the S2 comes very close. I'd certainly take an S2 file over drum scanned film any day. But I'd be curious to see how the new sensor in the S 007 holds against a scanback. The S2 files required a slight curve expansion (or moving the shadow slider in LR to 50) to capture full DR when cross polarized. Gaining 1-2 stops of DR would capture the full range of tones and therefore make this camera the perfect capture device.

 

On a less technical note, any S is one hell of a camera.

OP here. Printmaker, I am most obliged for your insight. Having combed the known universe for reviews of the S, yours is the first I have seen that compares output from the S to scanned MF/LF film and how that IQ/DR translates into actual prints, which is my true litmus test (perhaps yours as well given your moniker).

As I noted above, most of my film work was with the Rollei 6008 system which is brilliant. The rig has the same "scientific instrument" quality that I feel when the M9 is in my hands, and I spin the collars of a Leica lens. A properly exposed slide scanned on the Scitex flatbed (with oil) yielded a beautiful file that was, if I recall correctly, in the range of 200mb. With the Epson 7800, I print 24" square images that were very satisfying. To think that the S could actually exceed those results without going through the tedium of scanning (ie: dust picking, etc) is just inspiring. And that they may be so good that I could rez up and they crop to square (my preferred format) is an option I never thought possible with a 36mp sensor. But I guess the lenses have something to do with that as well.

I confess a lack of techincal knowledge and experience when comparing film and its digital equivalent in what might be considered the same format. If I were to take my best Provia slide shot with the amazing Schneider 90mm/Rollei 6008 on a tripod, and compare the same scene with the S 006/70mm, how might they differ in terms of DR/IQ?

Regards

David

[Sailronin]

I'm currently shooting the M9 and S (006) systems. For "walk around" street or travel shooting the M9 is wonderful; light weight, unobtrusive, and very fast to use. The files a lovely and will print very well to A3+ size with no problems.

The S is in another league. Auto focus and ergonomics make it feel like a pro 35mm but that is a negative in that you need to exercise more discipline in shooting to get the full benefit of both the lenses and sensor.  When used like a medium format (i.e. mono/tripod or high shutter speeds handheld) the files are stunning. 

I traded in my trusty Hasselblad 501cm and CFV50 back for the portability and weather sealing, thinking that there may have been a sacrifice in file quality from the 50mp back...completely wrong. With the modern Leica lenses designed for the S the files are superior to the CFV files with older style Zeiss lenses.

 

Comparing the slide shots to an S file is an interesting exercise.  I've been comparing the S files to either the CFV50 files or some Fuji RVP 100 slides shot with a Rodenstock 45mm and find the S files are equal or superior when printed. My Flickr account  (David Reams) has albums assigned by camera or digital back if you want to compare although on a monitor it's difficult to see any differences.

 

I don't think you would regret going to the S (006) unless you need live view or high ISO.

 

Good luck

Dave

[Deliberate1]

Dave, very helpful comments, especially illuminating the comparisons that you make among your various systems.

Since you have invested in Hasselblad, have you tried those lenses on the S body via adapter? I have been reading about quite excellent results with Contax lenses which are fully adapted to the S body via a painfully expensive ($2000) adapter. It is "nice" of Leica to make that flexibility available - but you gotta pay to play.

Have you found that the S has similar low light limitations as the M9, assuming similar camera settings. I hesitate to shoot the M9 at greater than 640, and especially if dealing with dark shadows which produces nastiness when you try to raise the shadow detail in PS. I have no illusions about the S being a low light camera, at least hand held or if attempting to freeze motion. I just want to know if I will essentially be facing the same shooting parameters, or if, given the file quality, I could use to greater advantage the technique whereby you shoot at, say 640, at a fixed aperture opening and minimum shutter speed, say 125 and then try to raise the shadows in PP. It works very well with the M9 - sometimes. Hit or miss.Again, with a bigger sensor and greater DR, are the S files more malleable and recoverable than from the M9?

Thanks for the help.

David

[Manolo Laguillo]

I just want to insist on what has been previously said by others: the S(006) is an amazing camera!

 

I've been using for decades 4x5 and 8x10 film, and I am sure: the S delivers quality comparable to the one you get from 4x5 negs.

 

After buying the S(006) I found myself not using the M(240) at all, so I recently sold it and the MM as well, and bought a M(246) for doing B/W in low light scenarios. These 'available darkness' situations are normally better suited for B/W, as I personally and completely subjectively understand it. The M(246) will be used, of course, in normal light scenarios too.

 

My equipment is now as follows:

S(006) + S 30-90 mm + S 70 mm + Pentax 67 45 mm with Zörk shift adapter.

M(246) + various M lenses + PC Super Angulon R 28.

 

Bottom line: if you work mostly with plenty of light, or won't be afraid of carrying a tripod, because your way of doing calls for it, go straight for the S(006), and skip the M(240).

 

I would keep the M9, it would be a pity not having a Leica M ... and the little money you can get selling it won't help you very much in buying the S(006).

[Deliberate1]

 

I would keep the M9, it would be a pity not having a Leica M ... and the little money you can get selling it won't help you very much in buying the S(006).

Sad, but so true. Looks likes I have corrosion on my M9 sensor. Will send it back for replacement and then put it on the shelf, along with all those lovely jewels.

Manolo, have you converted any of your S images to B&W? While there are numerous threads dealing with M digital conversions, I have found nothing in this forum addressing this issue. I am sure I can guess - spectacular. With the M9, I would often convert to B&W images that had good composition but unacceptable IQ. Given the low light limitations of the S, I can imagine doing the same.

Thanks for your thoughts.

David

[Sailronin]

Hi David,

so far I've "capped" the S at ISO 400, others have had good success with higher ISO but I prefer a tripod and less post processing. I kept two of the Zeiss "V" series lenses, the CF 50mm Distagon and CF 250mm Sonnar, both of which produce good results but not in same class as the Apo- Summarit or Apo-Elmar series. These are of course manual focus so a much less expensive Metabones adapter is all that is required. They but are slower to use but very useful as Leica does not have a really long lens solution to for the S.

Dave

[menos I M6]

Dave, very helpful comments, especially illuminating the comparisons that you make among your various systems.

Since you have invested in Hasselblad, have you tried those lenses on the S body via adapter? I have been reading about quite excellent results with Contax lenses which are fully adapted to the S body via a painfully expensive ($2000) adapter. It is "nice" of Leica to make that flexibility available - but you gotta pay to play.

Have you found that the S has similar low light limitations as the M9, assuming similar camera settings. I hesitate to shoot the M9 at greater than 640, and especially if dealing with dark shadows which produces nastiness when you try to raise the shadow detail in PS. I have no illusions about the S being a low light camera, at least hand held or if attempting to freeze motion. I just want to know if I will essentially be facing the same shooting parameters, or if, given the file quality, I could use to greater advantage the technique whereby you shoot at, say 640, at a fixed aperture opening and minimum shutter speed, say 125 and then try to raise the shadows in PP. It works very well with the M9 - sometimes. Hit or miss.Again, with a bigger sensor and greater DR, are the S files more malleable and recoverable than from the M9?

Thanks for the help.

David

The Leica S2 I have used since summer 2013 has the same ISO limitations you know from your Leica M9.

The issue with the Leica S is though that it is not just limited by it's ISO sensitivity with the exact same behavior as the M9 sensor, but additionally is limited by:

 

- slower lenses (you don't have a Noctilux or even Summilux lenses to extend your low light capabilities - one of the reasons I used a f1 Noctilux a lot when my digital M was a M8.2 was that I stopped pushing ISO higher than ISO 640)

Your fastest lenses on the S are f2 lenses - that is one or two stops slower than lenses available for the M9.

 

- you need faster shutter speeds to produce meaningful quality with the S - sure you can shoot at 1/15sec all day long with the 70/2.5 and compete with the people who will love to tell you on the internet that they can easily handhold the S at such shutter speeds.

You will loose the very advantage the S provides with it's superior acuity and high detail by ruining your images due to its mirror and shutter vibration.

There is no way around this disadvantage a DSLR has compared to a Leica M.

I feel the slow shutter speed disadvantage between S and M from extensive use is about a two stop disadvantage.

While easily shooting a Leica M 50mm at 1/30sec consistently, you will be hard pressed to get consistent results with the S + 70mm at 1/125sec

 

As I mentioned earlier - the S is not a lowlight camera by any means - you need lots of light (I don't even use it on rainy days, as any M is just so much better with faster glass).

When you have light and can use reasonable shutter speeds at ISO of 320 or slower, the S out performs any other camera I have used. It produces amazing files.

 

You can push and pull ISO 160 and ISO 320 files from the S2 with MUCH more flexibility than comparable Leica M9 files AND have plenty of pixels available.

Sometimes I do like a different format from 2:3 files from 35mm and cropping the S2 files to 4:5 or even 1:1 nets amazing files with still plenty of detail to print large.

 

A Leica S2 cannot replace a Leica M9. It can beautifully extend your capabilities as it can provide qualities the M9 simply cannot deliver. On the other hand the M9 can be pushed into service where the S2 simply fails.

 

It is YOUR photography that sets the parameters if just a Leica S will make you happy or if you will miss the capabilities of a M9 (compact size, low weight, fast operation, better lowlight abilities due to fast lenses, …).

 

Another question should be asked, which I run constantly into when using the S2 (and other SLR cameras).

I use many lenses on the S2 which are either manual focus only or work best when used manually focussing even though they offer AF capabilities with the S2.

 

How good are you, focussing on a ground glass with a camera that provides 37MP (or compare this to a drum scanned 6x6 slide with a 120/4 focussed wide open at close distance)?

Personally I can shoot really fast lenses on a Leica M all day long and have no focussing issues - rangefinder focussing comes easy to me, natural and fast.

Focussing on the focussing screen on a SLR does the complete opposite to me - I am struggling, no matter if it's a beautifully made Maxwell screen on my Rolleiflex, the very high quality MF screen in my S2, the Rolleiflex 8000 series screen in my Exakta 6x6 or the modified Canon full matte screens, I use in my Nikon DSLRs to focus fast lenses like the 58/1.2).

 

If manually focussing a SLR comes natural to you, you will love the Leica S. If you are more of a rangefinder person, you might struggle with the Leica S' focussing abilities.

 

The AF with Leica S lenses is relatively slow but when it locks, it seems to be absolutely dead perfect in focus (better then the very fast AF in my Nikon DSLRs).

It is too slow though for consistent results with dynamic subjects - even though it does have a continuous focussing mode you cannot track moving subjects faster than a slowly walking person.

This forces you often enough to just manually focus with the S.

 

Sad, but so true. Looks likes I have corrosion on my M9 sensor. Will send it back for replacement and then put it on the shelf, along with all those lovely jewels.

Manolo, have you converted any of your S images to B&W? While there are numerous threads dealing with M digital conversions, I have found nothing in this forum addressing this issue. I am sure I can guess - spectacular. With the M9, I would often convert to B&W images that had good composition but unacceptable IQ. Given the low light limitations of the S, I can imagine doing the same.

Thanks for your thoughts.

David

If you have the means to keep your favorite M lenses and keep the M9 after repair AND add a Leica S2 as a digital MF system, you will love it.

If you have to replace the M system with an S2, ask yourself about the points above.

 

Could you live with just a Rollei 8xxx ? The  you will love to just use a Leica S2 with select lenses.

 

One last thing: if going for a 37MP camera, make sure the computer you work these files with is up to scratch.

My old first gen Retina 15" MBP kind of works ok-ish with the S2 files - a bit languish. The MacPro works beautifully.

I am in the process of replacing my first gen 15" Retina with the current model and hope to get a better performance for the S2 files.

I use Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop CS6 almost exclusively and batch processing S2 files is painfully slow while M9 and MM files run very fast.

[jpk]

The MacPro works beautifully. I am in the process of replacing my first gen 15" Retina with the current model and hope to get a better performance for the S2 files.

 

Plus a really good screen: otherwise all the color fidelity of the S system is useless. I upgraded my Eizo ColorGraphic display to an even better Eizo, the improvment is HUGE: I always felt unsure about the colors, on the new Eizo I instantly know if I got it right or not. It takes me considerably less time to fix the colors.

 

Hardware screen calibration and a video card with 30bit color depth output is mandatory.

 

In my view it does not make any sense to buy into the S system and work on a 500 bucks screen or even a Mac Retina...

 

The day you buy an Eizo (or comperable) you will hate yourself for each single day not having bought it earlier

[erlingmm]

Plus a really good screen: otherwise all the color fidelity of the S system is useless. I upgraded my Eizo ColorGraphic display to an even better Eizo, the improvment is HUGE: I always felt unsure about the colors, on the new Eizo I instantly know if I got it right or not. It takes me considerably less time to fix the colors.

 

Hardware screen calibration and a video card with 30bit color depth output is mandatory.

 

In my view it does not make any sense to buy into the S system and work on a 500 bucks screen or even a Mac Retina...

 

The day you buy an Eizo (or comperable) you will hate yourself for each single day not having bought it earlier

 

Well, the new Eizos are incredibly expensive. I bought a LG 31MU 4k, and I am very happy with it, a Mac Pro can drive it, but the set-up is a bit complex.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[menos I M6]

Plus a really good screen: otherwise all the color fidelity of the S system is useless. I upgraded my Eizo ColorGraphic display to an even better Eizo, the improvment is HUGE: I always felt unsure about the colors, on the new Eizo I instantly know if I got it right or not. It takes me considerably less time to fix the colors.

 

Hardware screen calibration and a video card with 30bit color depth output is mandatory.

 

In my view it does not make any sense to buy into the S system and work on a 500 bucks screen or even a Mac Retina...

 

The day you buy an Eizo (or comperable) you will hate yourself for each single day not having bought it earlier

When I bought my current desktop Mac last year, nobody offered a really good 4K monitor back then as the technology was just picking up.

Eizo has introduced this year a true contender of a screen to match and mine is awaiting delivery finally ;-)

 

I was waiting it out a long time, thinking about two 27" Eizo monitors for the workstation or other routes … pricing and availability (not to talk about after sales service) is very, very, very different here in China mainland from the rest of the world unfortunately.

 

It is lucky that just before the business year ends Eizo makes these 31" 4K monitors available ;-)

If it's any good, a second unit will arrive in Q1 next year.

 

The Retina 15" is quite good (it does not show the entire range a wide gamut monitor will show) but it does not really matter, a long as you consistently calibrate and check your proof prints. Up to recently I also had access to calibrated Eizo monitors at a studio which did large printing for me but they unfortunately shut down now.

 

My point: it's nice to have great monitors but even if the monitor is no match to what the camera sensor can produce there are workarounds. It's not like you had these technological luxuries when wet printing after all.