2016 = Medium Format

[tthorne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is my first venture into medium format and I am really excited. I purchased the S 007 with 24mm and 70mm, a few extra batteries, and a micro prism focussing screen. I am an architectural photographer by trade, so one might think that a tech camera and digital back might be the way to go, but I wanted something more versatile that might help inspire me to use it outside of work for creative passion projects and other various duties. 

 

Although 24mm is a bit wide, I think the extra width will come in handy for perspective correction since we don't have a wide tilt/shift yet. For architectural work, the S will likely travel with my A7R2 which I will hold onto for those times I absolutely need the Canon 24mm or 17mm TS-E lenses. For everything else, it will compliment my digital and film M cameras. 

 

I was curious how many others out there might have started out their digital medium format adventure with a Leica S, what their experiences have been, and what, if any, suggestions they might have. One thing I was curious about was if you tried to emulate your previous focal lengths in a smaller format. For instance, with the M's, I pretty much only shoot 35mm and 50mm, so the 70mm should be very natural. Naturally, thinking in this manner, I have my eye on the 45mm as well. 

 

Also, for once since a time I can't remember, I am actually thinking about shooting some moderate tele with either the 100mm or 120mm. I have come up a little short, however, trying to find comparisons online. Anyone?

 

Anyhow, really looking forward to using this camera and sharing some of the work I do with it. I hope you all had a great holiday season, and Happy New Year EVERYONE!

 

 

P.S. Leica, please, please, please make a 30mm Tilt/Shift. Please...

 

 

 

Please...

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

[Jon Warwick]

P.S. Leica, please, please, please make a 30mm Tilt/Shift. Please...

 

Please...

 

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

I fully agree with you. A wide T/S lens would increase the flexibility of the S massively, creating a one system wonder that would finally drag in architecture in a seamless way. It would potentially negate the need for many photographers of having both DSLRs + tech cameras in their bag. Pure simplicity!

[Advertisement]

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

[tthorne]

I fully agree with you. A wide T/S lens would increase the flexibility of the S massively, creating a one system wonder that would finally drag in architecture in a seamless way. It would potentially negate the need for many photographers of having both DSLRs + tech cameras in their bag. Pure simplicity!

 

 

Absolutely. In fact, the addition of a wide T/S lens would definitely cause me to sell off the A7R2 with Canon T/S lenses and go for a second S body. To be honest, Leica has spoiled me. I don't necessarily have to connect with everything they make, but the fact remains that they do make the gear I connect with when it comes to the M, S, SL, and others. It has gotten to the point that I don't even like having anything else in my bag. It will be a pleasure for me the day I can do that, and we are simply one lens away from that euphoria.

[darylgo]

Also, for once since a time I can't remember, I am actually thinking about shooting some moderate tele with either the 100mm or 120mm. I have come up a little short, however, trying to find comparisons online. Anyone?

Congratulations on your purchase, really enjoyed your post.  

 

The 100mm is more a portrait lens with slight soft corners, the 120mm is more technically perfect.  This is really splitting hairs and for most intents and purposes they can be used interchangeably given the size, speed, and other spec differences.  

[dritz]

Ok. The 120 and the 100. I have both. My 120 is at Leica for a failed autofocus motor. Just putting that up front. I bought it new in 2012.  The 100 I acquired in 2015. Why? Because I wanted the magic of the 80 Summilux-R (which I still use on an M246). I also appreciated the lighter weight, the smaller focus throw, the faster autofocus, the extra stop of light, and a focus mechanism that doesn't change in length.

 

But for still life work, of which I consider architecture a kind of still life, the 120 is for perfect capture.  At this link I took pictures at a neighborhood auto show.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31285291@N08/

 

Nearly all are the 120 with an S2. Perfect overcast skies. Lots of chrome. The flexibility of the 120 for close focus, the APO correction (only a nudge to 3 or 4 for fringe correction needed to deal with the some of the chrome edges), the perfect field, and the ability to use the ELPRO-R (designed for the 100 APO-Macro-Emarit-R, and used on the 120S with an adapter) for 1:1 reproduction (for my still life work) means that the 100 is not a substitute for the 120. The physical inconvenience of the 120 disappears on a tripod.

 

For handheld portraiture I grab the 100. For still life I grab the 120.  If I had to choose only 1 I would choose the 120 because the 120 does a much better job covering for the 100 that the other way around.

 

That's my take.

Dean

[tthorne]

Congratulations on your purchase, really enjoyed your post.  

 

The 100mm is more a portrait lens with slight soft corners, the 120mm is more technically perfect.  This is really splitting hairs and for most intents and purposes they can be used interchangeably given the size, speed, and other spec differences.  

 

 

Good point. I figured we may be splitting hairs in the image quality department as I am aware of the shear awesomeness of the S lenses. Not to mention I am so used to the M lenses and their quality. 

[tthorne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok. The 120 and the 100. I have both. My 120 is at Leica for a failed autofocus motor. Just putting that up front. I bought it new in 2012.  The 100 I acquired in 2015. Why? Because I wanted the magic of the 80 Summilux-R (which I still use on an M246). I also appreciated the lighter weight, the smaller focus throw, the faster autofocus, the extra stop of light, and a focus mechanism that doesn't change in length.

 

But for still life work, of which I consider architecture a kind of still life, the 120 is for perfect capture.  At this link I took pictures at a neighborhood auto show.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31285291@N08/

 

Nearly all are the 120 with an S2. Perfect overcast skies. Lots of chrome. The flexibility of the 120 for close focus, the APO correction (only a nudge to 3 or 4 for fringe correction needed to deal with the some of the chrome edges), the perfect field, and the ability to use the ELPRO-R (designed for the 100 APO-Macro-Emarit-R, and used on the 120S with an adapter) for 1:1 reproduction (for my still life work) means that the 100 is not a substitute for the 120. The physical inconvenience of the 120 disappears on a tripod.

 

For handheld portraiture I grab the 100. For still life I grab the 120.  If I had to choose only 1 I would choose the 120 because the 120 does a much better job covering for the 100 that the other way around.

 

That's my take.

Dean

 

That is a very simple and clear comparison. Thank you. I really want to take a look at the photos in the link, but for some reason it isn't working for me. I just get a message that photos are not public yet. 

 

I agree with both the physical aspects of the lenses as you mention, but also with the overall versatility of the 120 and it's ability to cover both. I am going to have to borrow them from the LA store and play around a bit. Thank you, and let me know about that link if you have a moment. Would love to see those. 

[dritz]

That is a very simple and clear comparison. Thank you. I really want to take a look at the photos in the link, but for some reason it isn't working for me. I just get a message that photos are not public yet. 

 

I agree with both the physical aspects of the lenses as you mention, but also with the overall versatility of the 120 and it's ability to cover both. I am going to have to borrow them from the LA store and play around a bit. Thank you, and let me know about that link if you have a moment. Would love to see those. 

My bad.  Try again.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31285291@N08/

[Winedemonium]

I'm at the end of a vacation in New Zealand. I brought with me the SL and the S-E 006. Despite the SL being more flexible, more convenient, and having very good IQ, I have found myself wanting to use the S more and more. The files are addictive and I have found myself exporting DNGs to JPEG output with little or no adjustment in LR.

 

I have the 24, 45, 70, 100, and 180, but for some reason opted to being the 70 and 100. The rendering of the 100 is lovely. Great for people shots. The 70 is the lightest, most compact choice (the 45 being great, but significantly longer and heavier), and I have ended up using it the most. Ironic that the 70 was the last S lens I bought - just two weeks ago.

 

Have fun.

[RVB]

This is my first venture into medium format and I am really excited. I purchased the S 007 with 24mm and 70mm, a few extra batteries, and a micro prism focussing screen. I am an architectural photographer by trade, so one might think that a tech camera and digital back might be the way to go, but I wanted something more versatile that might help inspire me to use it outside of work for creative passion projects and other various duties. 

 

Although 24mm is a bit wide, I think the extra width will come in handy for perspective correction since we don't have a wide tilt/shift yet. For architectural work, the S will likely travel with my A7R2 which I will hold onto for those times I absolutely need the Canon 24mm or 17mm TS-E lenses. For everything else, it will compliment my digital and film M cameras. 

 

I was curious how many others out there might have started out their digital medium format adventure with a Leica S, what their experiences have been, and what, if any, suggestions they might have. One thing I was curious about was if you tried to emulate your previous focal lengths in a smaller format. For instance, with the M's, I pretty much only shoot 35mm and 50mm, so the 70mm should be very natural. Naturally, thinking in this manner, I have my eye on the 45mm as well. 

 

Also, for once since a time I can't remember, I am actually thinking about shooting some moderate tele with either the 100mm or 120mm. I have come up a little short, however, trying to find comparisons online. Anyone?

 

Anyhow, really looking forward to using this camera and sharing some of the work I do with it. I hope you all had a great holiday season, and Happy New Year EVERYONE!

 

 

P.S. Leica, please, please, please make a 30mm Tilt/Shift. Please...

 

 

 

Please...

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

 

I think they have most of the design ready for a wide TS,I did post this before but here it is again.. on the far right!

 

Maybe if enough of us mail Leica to ask for this Lens they'll bring it to the market!!

 

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by RVB

[darylgo]

I think they have most of the design ready for a wide TS,I did post this before but here it is again.. on the far right!

 

Maybe if enough of us mail Leica to ask for this Lens they'll bring it to the market!!

 

 

Sure, I'll mention this to the nice folks at Leica Store LA, in addition it would be great to replace my Mamiya 300mm apo with the Leica 350mm.  As much as I enjoy adapting lenses with the superb S adapters the native lenses integrate best and image quality leaves nothing to be desired.

 

Does anyone know why a system that's a mature 7+ years (iirc) hasn't avalibility of all lenses on the roadmap at launch?  Technically challenging, business, or capacity?

[tthorne]

My bad.  Try again.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31285291@N08/

 

 

Thank you! Yes, there are some challenging elements there with so much chrome. The S handled it superbly. The 120mm as well as all of the others that I have seen are consistently impressive. 

[tthorne]

I'm at the end of a vacation in New Zealand. I brought with me the SL and the S-E 006. Despite the SL being more flexible, more convenient, and having very good IQ, I have found myself wanting to use the S more and more. The files are addictive and I have found myself exporting DNGs to JPEG output with little or no adjustment in LR.

 

I have the 24, 45, 70, 100, and 180, but for some reason opted to being the 70 and 100. The rendering of the 100 is lovely. Great for people shots. The 70 is the lightest, most compact choice (the 45 being great, but significantly longer and heavier), and I have ended up using it the most. Ironic that the 70 was the last S lens I bought - just two weeks ago.

 

Have fun.

 

New Zealand is a place I have always wanted to visit. Landscapes I have seen from there have been quite breathtaking. If you don't mind, I would love to see some of the photos from out there. I literally just turned to my wife and told her we need to go. 

 

How often do you use the 24mm? I know I need to use it for architecture in order to have wiggle room to straighten some verticals, but otherwise that is very wide for me. I really like the idea of picking up the 45mm as 35mm is my favorite on the M. I know that is a larger/heavier lens, but I would likely use it a lot when I wasn't shooting architecture for work. In fact, the only reason I am not getting the 30mm is because I am hoping to cover that with the imaginary 30mm tilt/shift.

 

Great lens set by the way!

[rickgrainger]

I would like to very humbly ask a question. I don't do architectural photography so I'm at a loss. The perspective correction in Lightroom and Photoshop is pretty good as far as I know. Would a 30mm T/S still be necessary with the software option available to correct out distortions? Again, I am not an architectural photographer and I don't know what I don't know. Therefore, I ask this question very humbly hoping to learn from some of experiences here.

Sincerely,

Rick

[mgrayson3]

With the shift less you can see the picture, its borders, and its composition before capture. This is an enormous difference. Many times I correct perspective in post only to find that a rectangular crop will now remove an important part of the subject or include blank regions outside that require fill. One can shoot even wider, but then resolution takes a hit.

 

Best,

 

Matt

[EoinC]

I would like to very humbly ask a question. I don't do architectural photography so I'm at a loss. The perspective correction in Lightroom and Photoshop is pretty good as far as I know. Would a 30mm T/S still be necessary with the software option available to correct out distortions? Again, I am not an architectural photographer and I don't know what I don't know. Therefore, I ask this question very humbly hoping to learn from some of experiences here.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rick

I can only speak for my 35mm format, Rick. Using my Canon TS-E 24mm MkII creates much better images than anything I have managed to achieve using the warp perspective in PS. I would imagine the same to be true with the S and the kind of quality we might expect from Leica in a 30mm T/S lens.

[tthorne]

I think they have most of the design ready for a wide TS,I did post this before but here it is again.. on the far right!

 

Maybe if enough of us mail Leica to ask for this Lens they'll bring it to the market!!

 

 

 

I have seen you post this before. I have the image saved on my computer because it gives me hope. I encourage you to contact Dr. Kaufmann on Facebook. He is really very pleasant, and to be honest, I think we really need to remain a squeaky wheel on this.

[tthorne]

I would like to very humbly ask a question. I don't do architectural photography so I'm at a loss. The perspective correction in Lightroom and Photoshop is pretty good as far as I know. Would a 30mm T/S still be necessary with the software option available to correct out distortions? Again, I am not an architectural photographer and I don't know what I don't know. Therefore, I ask this question very humbly hoping to learn from some of experiences here.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rick

 

 

With the shift less you can see the picture, its borders, and its composition before capture. This is an enormous difference. Many times I correct perspective in post only to find that a rectangular crop will now remove an important part of the subject or include blank regions outside that require fill. One can shoot even wider, but then resolution takes a hit.

 

Best,

 

Matt

 

 

I can only speak for my 35mm format, Rick. Using my Canon TS-E 24mm MkII creates much better images than anything I have managed to achieve using the warp perspective in PS. I would imagine the same to be true with the S and the kind of quality we might expect from Leica in a 30mm T/S lens.

 

 

Hi Rick, these guys covered all the bases with their responses. Relying on corrections in post, you are essentially composing the image based on a best guess. One can get very good at using this method, but errors can range from compromising to disastrous. Also, the more extreme a correction, the more a hit to your resolution. 

[rickgrainger]

Guys,

Thank you very much for your responses; and especially for being patient with me and my stupid questions. Been a wedding and portrait photographer for 26 years, but I definitely know that I don't know everything and try to keep a willing student's mind. Always learning, always learning.

Sincerely,

Rick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tthorne]

Guys,

 

Thank you very much for your responses; and especially for being patient with me and my stupid questions. Been a wedding and portrait photographer for 26 years, but I definitely know that I don't know everything and try to keep a willing student's mind. Always learning, always learning.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rick

 

 

Any time Rick. To be honest with you, that was not a stupid question at all. I would say it would have been more unwise to not ask it. Learning is life. Once we stop doing one, we start to fail the other.