Jon Warwick Posted November 21, 2015 Share #1 Posted November 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used a 007 + 70mm a month ago. Mind blowing, beautiful images. 3D pop on prints sized at 50-60" that I felt that I could walk into ..... But the S007 is beyond what I want to pay at present. So then I tried a S-E (same sensor as 006) + 70mm. Bit more noise and less ISO capability than the 007, obviously, but still rich colored and detailed files. The S-E files were WAY better than my M240 ..... Then - today - I tried the S2 + 35mm (I wanted to try an S one last time and they didn't have a 70mm and also reckoned the S2 CCD would be nearer to what I'm more likely to buy, namely the S-E). Very disappointed by the S2 + 35mm. Files looked like the M9, weak colors, no pop, nothing exciting ...... So ..... was there an upgrade from the S2 to 006 sensor?? The rendering and overall image quality looks very different - is that your experience too? I partly ask given I am not sure if this also owes to me trying the S2 with a wider angle lens than the 70mm (that I tried on the S007 / S006)? Thanks for any comments & thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 21, 2015 Posted November 21, 2015 Hi Jon Warwick, Take a look here S2 vs S006 sensor. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jip Posted November 21, 2015 Share #2 Posted November 21, 2015 The S2 has the exact same sensor as the S006 and S-E, the S006 has a renewed DAC around the sensor though. Basically: the S006 has the same sensor, but everything around it has been upgraded, and so has the software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted November 21, 2015 Share #3 Posted November 21, 2015 Something is wrong there, I have never really fallen for my 35mm but cannot fault it john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted November 21, 2015 Share #4 Posted November 21, 2015 I used a 007 + 70mm a month ago. Mind blowing, beautiful images. 3D pop on prints sized at 50-60" that I felt that I could walk into ..... But the S007 is beyond what I want to pay at present. So then I tried a S-E (same sensor as 006) + 70mm. Bit more noise and less ISO capability than the 007, obviously, but still rich colored and detailed files. The S-E files were WAY better than my M240 ..... Then - today - I tried the S2 + 35mm (I wanted to try an S one last time and they didn't have a 70mm and also reckoned the S2 CCD would be nearer to what I'm more likely to buy, namely the S-E). Very disappointed by the S2 + 35mm. Files looked like the M9, weak colors, no pop, nothing exciting ...... So ..... was there an upgrade from the S2 to 006 sensor?? The rendering and overall image quality looks very different - is that your experience too? I partly ask given I am not sure if this also owes to me trying the S2 with a wider angle lens than the 70mm (that I tried on the S007 / S006)? Thanks for any comments & thoughts. I would not expect the S-E to be that much better than the S2, maybe a stop better in iso terms. Also I have found the 35mm to be a very good lens, so I do not understand your observation. Maybe it has to do with the focal length and any associated depth of field differences? Just a suggestion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted November 23, 2015 Share #5 Posted November 23, 2015 The S2 and S-E share more similarities than differences. Leica tweaked the sensor output, dropping the base iso from 160 to 100. That shouldn't make the S2 look poor in comparison. Here's one that shows the dynamic range/colors of the S2/30mm lens, DNG to jpg using lightroom with no manipulation, slight cropping. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253431-s2-vs-s006-sensor/?do=findComment&comment=2934992'>More sharing options...
albireo_double Posted November 23, 2015 Share #6 Posted November 23, 2015 I don't find the S2 output disappointing compared to the S007. I suggest that you create profiles for both in Lightroom and then compare. If it's worth anything, you can compare some of my shots taken with the S2 here: https://openeyesphoto.smugmug.com/Uganda2012/ or here: https://openeyesphoto.smugmug.com/Guadeloupe/ with some shots taken with the 007 here: https://openeyesphoto.smugmug.com/TRANSYLVANIA-2015/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted November 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Many thanks to all of you for your help. I think some of your comments are potentially right about my observation, which I'm thinking is a mix of (i) using the very wide S 35mm lens in this instance that's taken away some of that draw of the 70mm (especially as I'm typically a "normal lens" person); (ii) color profiles etc of the CCD .... my main experience of digital is from the M240's CMOS (before that I was mainly using MF Film). After some adjustments, however, I'm starting to understand the CCD look -- I'm starting to quite like it, in fact. The CCD out of camera looks less overtly saturated than the M240 colors and rather more like Portra 160. Very natural / neutral in some ways. All the S's I've used have amazing colors though. I've sent for a large test print to Metro Imaging and we'll see what it looks like and where I stand. All in all, though, I've been HUGELY impressed by the image quality off the S so far (especially on the first 2 efforts). I'm considering potentially selling the M240 and going all-in to exclusively use an S-E. Whilst I really like the rangefinder experience and light weight, I simply can't get over the image quality I'm seeing from the S - it's a long way ahead of the M for large prints. The size and weight of the S will be quite different, but it's rather reminiscent of my days with the Hassie 501 and the Mamiya 7, and they were pretty good days ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 23, 2015 Share #8 Posted November 23, 2015 To be clear. The S-E is a (006), therefore an S and not an S2. It's exactly the same body as an S, but with a grey top plate instead of black. The differences between the S2 and the (006) are clearly documented with improved AF system, 100 ISO base sensitivity, control stick, integral GPS and more. Whether any of the changes is worthwhile is for you to decide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted November 23, 2015 Share #9 Posted November 23, 2015 If you are doing large prints there will be a bigger difference between M and S than some other uses john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted November 23, 2015 If you are doing large prints there will be a bigger difference between M and S than some other uses john Yes, and it's the ability to print large - and at the image quality I've seen so far -- that is moving me away from the M and towards the S. If I was doing small prints or web use, I'd be MORE than content with the M (or even less). It's not all about megapixels either. I have enlarged both S and M files in a print size that acknowledges their respective megapixel differences to attempt to look at the prints on a "like for like" resolution basis. Every time, the S has won. Pixel level acuity (especially on the S 007 where I think Leica has knocked the ball out the park) looks noticeably higher than my M, but more importantly I literally feel like I can walk into the print given its 3D rendering. I haven't responded to prints in this way since I was shooting large sheets of film. So it's beyond resolution. 37mp on an S is enough for me, given the pixels are such high quality. I'm guessing it's the 16 bits providing smoother tonal rendering (and superb B&W conversions), and also that the large 70mm Summarit S (ie, able to let in loads of light) is even more flawless than the best M lenses. If I sell the M240 to buy an S-E, I'll still have an M7 for my rangefinder needs, so I would be abandoning the M fray completely! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted November 23, 2015 Share #11 Posted November 23, 2015 There is nothing like a 21mm Summilux, 35mm pre-asph Summilux, 50mm f1.0 Noctilux, 75mm Summilux, 90mm pre-Asph etc, they all have images to give... If that is with the 70mm S, try the 24mm, 45mm, 100mm (I have no experience with), 120mm macro or 180mm...... john Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted November 24, 2015 Share #12 Posted November 24, 2015 Yes, and it's the ability to print large - and at the image quality I've seen so far -- that is moving me away from the M and towards the S. If I was doing small prints or web use, I'd be MORE than content with the M (or even less). It's not all about megapixels either. I have enlarged both S and M files in a print size that acknowledges their respective megapixel differences to attempt to look at the prints on a "like for like" resolution basis. Every time, the S has won. Pixel level acuity (especially on the S 007 where I think Leica has knocked the ball out the park) looks noticeably higher than my M, but more importantly I literally feel like I can walk into the print given its 3D rendering. I haven't responded to prints in this way since I was shooting large sheets of film. So it's beyond resolution. 37mp on an S is enough for me, given the pixels are such high quality. I'm guessing it's the 16 bits providing smoother tonal rendering (and superb B&W conversions), and also that the large 70mm Summarit S (ie, able to let in loads of light) is even more flawless than the best M lenses. If I sell the M240 to buy an S-E, I'll still have an M7 for my rangefinder needs, so I would be abandoning the M fray completely! If you don't sell the M240, you'll find yourself wondering why you're using it when you have an S in your bag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted November 24, 2015 Share #13 Posted November 24, 2015 If I sell the M240 to buy an S-E, I'll still have an M7 for my rangefinder needs, so I would be abandoning the M fray completely! They are complementary cameras, the M feels like a pocket camera after using the S and it's small size is endearing. I couldn't bring myself to sell the M240, my finances have suffered greatly......and well worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manolo Laguillo Posted November 24, 2015 Share #14 Posted November 24, 2015 I had the M240 and the MM, and bought the S006. The M240 became redundant, because I began using for color the S006. To buy the MM246 I sold the MM (fear of the sensor corrosion). Recently I sold the M240... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share #15 Posted November 24, 2015 If you don't sell the M240, you'll find yourself wondering why you're using it when you have an S in your bag. You are probably right! In film days, I first had a 35mm M7. Then I got into medium format cameras (Hassie then Mamiya 7). I carried both 35mm and MF around the world ...... the MF was 99% used all the time, the 35mm was just a lightweight back-up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.