State of S

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"But marketingwise, people will still count megapixels as a prime measure of value...."

 

Clearly! I believe its very misguided as well.

 

It's easy to use this argument when comparing m4/3, 35mm and mobile phone format pixels because we have all seen this to be true - but when comparing quality medium format with quality medium format, **quality** megapixels is a measure of value because it does make a difference.

[Advertisement]

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

[349A]

Paul- how large do you print? I max out rather small at 16x20 (Epson 3880), getting back to my original point of not using it in a "pro way." In these sizes, I can not see any difference, besides rendering, between my 50mp Hasselblad and my 006 at 37mp. I would expect the 100mp Phase One or Hassy to have more resolution on very large prints. If one is printing so large, maybe the S is not for them/you. Being that Leica has said the sensor will stay 45x30 due to body contraints, I'm unsure how many "good" MP can fit.... 50? 60? And what does that do to the rendering and absolute need for a tripod and extremely careful focusing? I'm unsure, I would hate to see the S become a tripod only camera. Then I would stick with my Alpa as the S would have no advantage.

[ynp]

I think this also is a very good article, dating back to the original S2, but still valid points:

 

Leica S2 against megapixel arms race

Irakly Shanidze

 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3214761610/leica-s2-against-megapixel-arms-race

 

But marketingwise, people will still count megapixels as a prime measure of value....

I did a very similar test in 2012. I compared my Sinar 54H with the Leaf AFI-II 80 mp. (Rollei Hy6) and Leica S2. I decided then to keep my Sinarback, and buy the S2. I was very happy with the resolution and rotating option on the Leaf, but was dissatisfied with the artifacts and color.

 

A couple of months ago I found the DVDs with my test files and run them again through the current P1 program, and I saw a very serious improvement. I believe the P1 make a real difference compared to the Lightroom or old Leaf software. It improved the colors and shadows noise.

[Jon Warwick]

Up to a point, yes, of corse sensor design can trump. Not all MP are alike.

 

I see the difference in S v other 36-40MP systems, there is no denying how good it is. I certainly wouldn't be here and considering it otherwise.

 

But next to the existing 60-100MP medium format system, to argue the same would be crazy. No sales pitch will ever counter the sheer IQ, and resolution of these systems. Particularly when it comes to printing very large - interpolation is interpolation. It's a computer guessing, filling in gaps with maths, it's not the same as actual pixels and it's not adding any actual detail - just stretching what is there.

 

Use these systems for yourself and you will see the sales pitches from the facts.

Absolutely right on two fronts. I similarly see just how good the S is compared to other 40mp cameras, it might be because the S lenses are just so good, but as a system the S is really rocking it for that image quality AND its compact size / handling.

 

I will also admit I DO see a difference in samples I've seen from the Phase website for its higher megapixel 100mp back. That back is incredible.

 

In both instances, I'm comparing images to 50" wide at 300dpi.

 

All I'd add is that, as a purely unscientific gut feel, I find I respond to images at this size to be more similar between the 38mp S and 100mp Phase (with advantage to the 100mp) - compared to a much much wider difference between an M240 24mp and the 38mp S (massive advantage to the S).

[349A]

"I will also admit I DO see a difference in samples I've seen from the Phase website for its higher megapixel 100mp back. That back is incredible."

 

Not surprising. How much of that may be due to sensor size versus MP's...

[hoppyman]

Paul J I think that you maybe missed my point that a hypothetical S with something like that 100MP sensor would be astronomically expensive right now, just as is that announced but not quite in stock I think Hasselblad. Well maybe you are an oligarch or world leading fashion shooter ;-)
In my country I know exactly one successful internationally operating and recognised fashion shooter who might be able to justify that new Hasselblad...and he is already sponsored by them ;-)  He also uses as many Leica lenses as he can on his 24x36 cameras ;-)
Medium format is a tiny tiny market sector and USD 32000+ bodies would have to be a subset of that tiny market surely?

Personally as an amateur enthusiast about 20000 plus frames in so far from the S system, the current resolution as part of the whole system is everything that I could want or need. Wishlisting I would much rather see future developments like more focus points available for example and an off camera TTL flash system. I suppose that reflects on my thinking of the S (Typ 007) like a pro 35 mm camera on steroids with some unique extra characteristics?
I think I just described why an SL would be a great complement for me!
 

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Paul- how large do you print? I max out rather small at 16x20 (Epson 3880), getting back to my original point of not using it in a "pro way." In these sizes, I can not see any difference, besides rendering, between my 50mp Hasselblad and my 006 at 37mp. I would expect the 100mp Phase One or Hassy to have more resolution on very large prints. If one is printing so large, maybe the S is not for them/you. Being that Leica has said the sensor will stay 45x30 due to body contraints, I'm unsure how many "good" MP can fit.... 50? 60? And what does that do to the rendering and absolute need for a tripod and extremely careful focusing? I'm unsure, I would hate to see the S become a tripod only camera. Then I would stick with my Alpa as the S would have no advantage.

Currently, I use the M9 for things up to 16x20. From my testing, resizing an M and S (apart from colour/detail/tonality which the S is always better) you will see significant differences like the file breaking up, artefacts, sharpness and noise differences etc. at around 1m (depending on the lens of corse). These are things that extra megapixels improves.

 

I am now considering dropping the M and using the S for anything up to 2m (maybe less depending on testing). Currently, I use the Blad/P65 for things that I know are going to be bigger than 16x20, or if there is going to be cropping for layout purposes, or if I'm unsure of the output, or just need the medium format for a particular reason. I'm often printing 4m+ and would still use the Blad/Phase from 2m and up if I do replace my M with the current the S. However, much better to have one system, an S at 60MP, for many reasons - but the reason for this thread is because I'm unsure if 1) the likelihood this would ever happen 2) how long it will take 3) if it will continue to grow from there for future 4) if the S system won't go the way of the dinosaur with what is currently going on with the SL. Maybe the money would be better invested in a system that seems to be shifting and growing with time. But I've already explained this in further detail in above posts.

 

It's not just about printing large either - to give just a couple reasons - I have very demanding and well informed clients judging my work at 100% on their monitors (and comparing it with my competition) so image quality and level of detail up to 100% matters, regardless of output. Also, as an example I have shot a job (national cosmetics campaign), which the intial brief was head and shoulders but the client changed their direction post shoot and it needed to be cropped down to the lips and run as a large format poster and print campaign. 60MP made that possible. Try that with a 18-24MP camera, or even a 37MP one for that matter and it won't end so well. This is the reality of being a pro, these are the demands and extremes your work is put under that are very often entirely out of your control - but you can control it by being prepared.

 

Wanting more from the S and wanting it to step up with the rest of the game is not an unnecessary request. Wanting to put your money into a system that offers more in the future, and is more future proof is wise. To be frank I think it's necessary for the system to survive at this point. I think 60MP for the S would be perfect for now. As for tripod etc., this may only be a concern if Leica used the current camera design. 50MP in the Canon works well because it is a well designed shutter and mirror dampening. I suspect this is why it's taking Leica longer - because they want to do it right.

 

Which takes me to my last point - judging future upgrades on past technology and designs will sometimes seem not worthwhile and perhaps not even feasible. The laws of physics remain, but technology and better design closes the gap and creates new work arounds. If, on the other hand, you try to build a new sensor/camera based on the same technology, using the same manufacturing process, then the best you can hope for is incremental change or worse, a compromised one. But, when one of the underlying technologies changes, or you introduce some of the constantly exploding manufacturing techniques, such as 3D fabrication coming soon, you can have a big leap. For instance, Sony/Nikon's sudden leapfrog with Exmor, the big leap with the 5D2 CMOS (going from 12 to 21 megapixels and adding video/live view), as opposed to Canon's incremental changes with its endless incarnations of the 18MP crop sensor. With BSI, you suddenly suffer far less from a denser sensor. Then there are new technologies such as nano-scale surfaces: diffraction-based 'super-lens' technologies that can resolve detail beyond the usual diffraction and wavelength-imposed limits. Metamaterials with special optical properties (e.g. negative refractive index) that can bend light around an object. Lets not let our limitations of the past constrain out future.

[Paul J]

Paul J I think that you maybe missed my point that a hypothetical S with something like that 100MP sensor would be astronomically expensive right now, just as is that announced but not quite in stock I think Hasselblad. Well maybe you are an oligarch or world leading fashion shooter ;-)

In my country I know exactly one successful internationally operating and recognised fashion shooter who might be able to justify that new Hasselblad...and he is already sponsored by them ;-)  He also uses as many Leica lenses as he can on his 24x36 cameras ;-)

Medium format is a tiny tiny market sector and USD 32000+ bodies would have to be a subset of that tiny market surely?

 

Personally as an amateur enthusiast about 20000 plus frames in so far from the S system, the current resolution as part of the whole system is everything that I could want or need. Wishlisting I would much rather see future developments like more focus points available for example and an off camera TTL flash system. I suppose that reflects on my thinking of the S (Typ 007) like a pro 35 mm camera on steroids with some unique extra characteristics?

I think I just described why an SL would be a great complement for me!

It would be expensive but they could continue selling the 007, too, as the SE. The MF market is small, but Leica was already in it with a very good camera - the question is are they still in it? If they want renewed interest in it, and not just servicing existing user base (some of which will move on with no upgrade in resolution) they are going to need to grow it, which is what this thread is about. For this market, personally speaking I would put resolution at the top of the list, way ahead of TTL flash, extra focus points, and even more dynamic range than is already there, these things are better prioritised on the SL I think. The S has not had a resolution upgrade since it's introduction, it's af is already better than other MF cameras, ttl flash is not really that needed so much (it's more profoto, briese, bron etc). I do shoot fashion and work internationally, it's what I need, but just because I'm in the minority doesn't diminish things - This system is Leica's heavy lifter and it needs to be equipped for it. The rest of the camera industry, medium or 135 formats, is moving on, and up, fast. 40MP for medium format is low, and even by 35mm standards, soon it will be considered on the low side.

[Paul J]

Absolutely right on two fronts. I similarly see just how good the S is compared to other 40mp cameras, it might be because the S lenses are just so good, but as a system the S is really rocking it for that image quality AND its compact size / handling.

 

I will also admit I DO see a difference in samples I've seen from the Phase website for its higher megapixel 100mp back. That back is incredible.

 

In both instances, I'm comparing images to 50" wide at 300dpi.

 

All I'd add is that, as a purely unscientific gut feel, I find I respond to images at this size to be more similar between the 38mp S and 100mp Phase (with advantage to the 100mp) - compared to a much much wider difference between an M240 24mp and the 38mp S (massive advantage to the S).

Interpolate and Print at 2m and you will see that same big difference between S and XF100.

[Jeff S]

Up to a point, yes, of corse sensor design can trump. Not all MP are alike.

 

I see the difference in S v other 36-40MP systems, there is no denying how good it is. I certainly wouldn't be here and considering it otherwise.

 

But next to the existing 60-100MP medium format system, to argue the same would be crazy. No sales pitch will ever counter the sheer IQ, and resolution of these systems. Particularly when it comes to printing very large - interpolation is interpolation. It's a computer guessing, filling in gaps with maths, it's not the same as actual pixels and it's not adding any actual detail - just stretching what is there.

 

Use these systems for yourself and you will see the sales pitches from the facts.

 

David Farkas, when he wrote the article in November 2014, clearly wasn't comparing to 60-100MP cameras.  Rather, his comments were in the context of the S at 37.5 vs other systems at up to 50MP.  He further stated that meaningful differences would be more likely to happen in the 60-70MP area.  His closing remarks cited the S advantages compared to printing 'two inches bigger', not at 70 MP and wall size prints.  

 

The interesting part of the article, I thought, related to specific sensor 'innovations'....he mentions three... (1) new fabrication structures that result in less area for electronics and more for light gathering; (2) the extremely thin sensor, with benefits from shallower pixels, and (3) a unique micro-lens structure.  That's why I asked if you viewed these as substantive distinctions apart from mere MP count, or mere sales pitch.  For me, it seems mostly the former, although I have no scientific credentials to judge.  

 

David was clearly not saying that there isn't a point where significantly higher pixels (or significantly bigger sensors) would translate to bigger print quality....in fact he admitted that, but wrote that the overall IQ (due in part to the sensor...but also the lenses, etc) , as well as the other S advantages, greatly offset MP concerns expressed by others.

 

So, while you seemingly dismissed the entire article (saying you disagreed with it as mostly sales pitch), I found it to be more reasonable and informed, albeit with an enthusiastic and positive spin, as David is prone to do as a Leica store owner.

 

Jeff

[Paul J]

David Farkas, when he wrote the article in November 2014, clearly wasn't comparing to 60-100MP cameras.  Rather, his comments were in the context of the S at 37.5 vs other systems at up to 50MP.  He further stated that meaningful differences would be more likely to happen in the 60-70MP area.  His closing remarks cited the S advantages compared to printing 'two inches bigger', not at 70 MP and wall size prints.  

 

The interesting part of the article, I thought, related to specific sensor 'innovations'....he mentions three... (1) new fabrication structures that result in less area for electronics and more for light gathering; (2) the extremely thin sensor, with benefits from shallower pixels, and (3) a unique micro-lens structure.  That's why I asked if you viewed these as substantive distinctions apart from mere MP count, or mere sales pitch.  For me, it seems mostly the former, although I have no scientific credentials to judge.  

 

David was clearly not saying that there isn't a point where significantly higher pixels (or significantly bigger sensors) would translate to bigger print quality....in fact he admitted that, but wrote that the overall IQ (due in part to the sensor...but also the lenses, etc) , as well as the other S advantages, greatly offset MP concerns expressed by others.

 

So, while you seemingly dismissed the entire article (saying you disagreed with it as mostly sales pitch), I found it to be more reasonable and informed, albeit with an enthusiastic and positive spin, as David is prone to do as a Leica store owner.

 

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

 

I've read that article several times since it was published, it's the first thing people bring out like it's gospel when this argument arises. I am genuinely sorry if I seem dismissive but given it is justifying why Leica hasn't upgraded resolution, and telling me why I don't need extra pixels, my stance on it remains - it's a sales pitch and one I question. I'm not denying the value of some information in there, like I said, I am considering the camera because I see how good the sensor/camera/lens combination is, and believe it stands above other cameras of equal or slightingly more resolution, but it is getting too low in resolution to be competitive now and the upgrade in resolution is, I believe, overdue and much needed.

 

It is a sales pitch, telling me why I Stephan thinks I don't need pixels - something I know not to be true.

[349A]

Paul,

 

I understand your arguments for and against. I suppose what I was trying to say about not for you/them was that the S system may be too closed for your needs. Its a in between sized system- not quite MF as it related to film days. It will never be the leader in pixel count nor in as tight of a competition as Phase is now with Hasselblad. These two will undoubtly go at it over the coming years forcing each other to outdo the other (with Sony in the drivers seat). Leica is not a true competitor to these systems (in my mind) nor can one simply trade in the back for a newer one. Based on Leica's history (M8, M9, M240 all rather similar), I'm doubtful they will do a major body change anytime soon. More likely they will make a tweaking of the design. I do think they will have higher MP count in the next gen, mostly because many demand this. In my mind, the S system is a bridge system meaning they want M users and R users to step into S like myself and I'm sure many others and they want pros. I think the S hits more of the pro "artist" market rather than the advertising/commercial market. I'm just guessing here based on zero facts, thats just my feeling. If the S was more like the HD6, I wouldn't even consider it nor would many. I view the Phase and Hassy systems as studio only systems. I know some do carry these around, Pentax as well. 

 

The major difference between Leica and Hassy/Phase/Pentax is the sensor tech. These three all share the same Sony sensor. The 100mp backs are significantly larger sensors, the smaller sensor pretty much points to Leica always having less, always seemingly a few generations behind in specs. The article Jeff points out is of course salesmanship but very honest and informative salesmanship. Nothing wrong with making your pitch if its honest and true. 

 

Hasselblad has a nice trade in program running now, I believe you could trade your Phase/Blad combo and step right into the new 100mp HD6 with a significant savings. Its an expensive proposition even with the trade but pixel peeping clients seem to demand this. I'm guessing this type of system will pay for itself rather quickly with your client base. Since this is not just a hobby for you, clearly your work demands a modular system that can keep you on the curting edge and ahead of your competition. Leica isn't ever going to be that.

 

Replacing the M with the S makes sense to me. It will greatly improve your 16x20's in look for sure. I'm unsure how how invested in M glass you are, maybe you could trade your M gear and walk away with a S and a lens or two for near even money. 

 

in summary, the sense I get is you want the S on some level (because of the rendering) but in reality you want the S to come to you rather than you going to the S. The S is what it is, I wouldn't count on major changes anytime soon. If this is how you make your living, make the S your M and trade up your current Phase/Blad system for a HD6.

[ynp]

Paul,

 

If I were a pro, I'd upgrade your Hasselblad to the H6-100 to be competitive. Your HC lenses can be used on the future high megapixels S, you know that.

 

Yevgeny

[Paul J]

Paul,

 

I understand your arguments for and against. I suppose what I was trying to say about not for you/them was that the S system may be too closed for your needs. Its a in between sized system- not quite MF as it related to film days. It will never be the leader in pixel count nor in as tight of a competition as Phase is now with Hasselblad. These two will undoubtly go at it over the coming years forcing each other to outdo the other (with Sony in the drivers seat). Leica is not a true competitor to these systems (in my mind) nor can one simply trade in the back for a newer one. Based on Leica's history (M8, M9, M240 all rather similar), I'm doubtful they will do a major body change anytime soon. More likely they will make a tweaking of the design. I do think they will have higher MP count in the next gen, mostly because many demand this. In my mind, the S system is a bridge system meaning they want M users and R users to step into S like myself and I'm sure many others and they want pros. I think the S hits more of the pro "artist" market rather than the advertising/commercial market. I'm just guessing here based on zero facts, thats just my feeling. If the S was more like the HD6, I wouldn't even consider it nor would many. I view the Phase and Hassy systems as studio only systems. I know some do carry these around, Pentax as well. 

 

The major difference between Leica and Hassy/Phase/Pentax is the sensor tech. These three all share the same Sony sensor. The 100mp backs are significantly larger sensors, the smaller sensor pretty much points to Leica always having less, always seemingly a few generations behind in specs. The article Jeff points out is of course salesmanship but very honest and informative salesmanship. Nothing wrong with making your pitch if its honest and true. 

 

Hasselblad has a nice trade in program running now, I believe you could trade your Phase/Blad combo and step right into the new 100mp HD6 with a significant savings. Its an expensive proposition even with the trade but pixel peeping clients seem to demand this. I'm guessing this type of system will pay for itself rather quickly with your client base. Since this is not just a hobby for you, clearly your work demands a modular system that can keep you on the curting edge and ahead of your competition. Leica isn't ever going to be that.

 

Replacing the M with the S makes sense to me. It will greatly improve your 16x20's in look for sure. I'm unsure how how invested in M glass you are, maybe you could trade your M gear and walk away with a S and a lens or two for near even money. 

 

in summary, the sense I get is you want the S on some level (because of the rendering) but in reality you want the S to come to you rather than you going to the S. The S is what it is, I wouldn't count on major changes anytime soon. If this is how you make your living, make the S your M and trade up your current Phase/Blad system for a HD6.

Thanks, just the perspective I was looking for I guess and mostly echoes my thoughts and feelings too.

 

The reason I want to use the S is in large part for it's aesthetic, something that is similar to the M and something that is a part of my work. I use the Hasselblad because I need to, but I find the lens rendering, bokeh and aesthetic characteristics a bit wanting, at times a bit ugly, although it's sharpness colour and contrast is exceptional. The Phase One lenses are not that much different in my experience. Leica does have magic in their lenses that is, I believe, unmatched by others and this is why I continue to use the M - When I discovered the Leica M I instantly fell in love with it's look from Noctilux and Summilux, but I just need more in resolution. The S bridges that and retains much of what I love but seems to have stagnated. also enticing is it's form and ergonomics are better than the Hasselblad.

 

I realise I am effectively wanting my cake and eating it too. I would be happy with a 60MP S and I hope that would be achievable for Leica.

[349A]

No problem, I get myself into these "loops" often. Take care of what pays your bills first, September may bring some surprises (Hasselblad in particular, this is exciting but only if they make a S adapter). As you said in a previous post, I don't think we'll see a resolution improved S until 2018's show or at least not delivered until 2018. Leica invested a lot in this new CMOS sensor tech for the relatively new 007. Could or would they so quickly change to another sensor... Maybe if 007 sales are dead, which they might be.

 

I'm sure they are actively working on a 60mp version that combined with is sensor tech, might be unbeatable (for awhile). The news that Leica feels "no real improvement is had until 50 or 60mp" tells me they have working prototypes. 

[Paul J]

No problem, I get myself into these "loops" often. Take care of what pays your bills first, September may bring some surprises (Hasselblad in particular, this is exciting but only if they make a S adapter). As you said in a previous post, I don't think we'll see a resolution improved S until 2018's show or at least not delivered until 2018. Leica invested a lot in this new CMOS sensor tech for the relatively new 007. Could or would they so quickly change to another sensor... Maybe if 007 sales are dead, which they might be.

 

I'm sure they are actively working on a 60mp version that combined with is sensor tech, might be unbeatable (for awhile). The news that Leica feels "no real improvement is had until 50 or 60mp" tells me they have working prototypes.

I am a fashion and art photographer and I am commissioned for commercial projects - unfortunately some of what contributes to 'paying the bills' is based on aesthetic. For me there is an ongoing juggle between creating a look that resonates with my work/that my clients have booked me for, and delivering a result that is usable for them. So it is part of the loop i'm in! But in saying that, I don't think this is unique to what I do - aesthetic is a big part of any artistic work, and finding the right tools, that work visually, ergonomically etc. etc. has always been particularly significant for any artistic endeavour. Aesthetic is a language after all, and one part of the message of our work.

 

Yes, I agree Photokina this year is going to be very interesting and will hopefully make such decisions easier.

[MarkP]

It would be very interesting to know how MF digital camera sales are now split between Hasselblad, Phase One, Leica and Pentax (am I missing any here).  I've searched but couldn't find any information.

 

I hope Fuji does come into this market as the rumours suggest.  They have innovative products and fine lenses, and would probably enter at a very competitive price point.

[ZHNL]

If pixels count doesn't matter, f2.5 lens speed is fine, then the very first question I would ask why not Nikon D810 or Canon 5DSR or A7Rii which has about the same or more pixels, more reliable, faster focusing, faster glass(wider aperture), more lens selection like T/S, zoom, cheaper, lighter, smaller. With even better technical sensor. (Nikon&Sony)?

 

I can answer that question myself subjectively given I have used these fine pieces and my preferring a few thing Leica shining such as color and lens rendering, what about general public who is in the market for it. Why they want pay more for less(at least on paper).

 

Sorry, guys, I simply think this won't work.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

If pixels count doesn't matter, f2.5 lens speed is fine, then the very first question I would ask why not Nikon D810 or Canon 5DSR or A7Rii which has about the same or more pixels, more reliable, faster focusing, faster glass(wider aperture), more lens selection like T/S, zoom, cheaper, lighter, smaller. With even better technical sensor. (Nikon&Sony)?

 

I can answer that question myself subjectively given I have used these fine pieces and my preferring a few thing Leica shining such as color and lens rendering, what about general public who is in the market for it. Why they want pay more for less(at least on paper).

 

Sorry, guys, I simply think this won't work.

 

You forgot sensor size....and that extra light gathering real estate has always mattered...digital or film (negative size).

 

That aside, a few of the variables you mention (primarily cost, lens selection/size and reliability) are reasons why the 5DSR currently has appeal for me relative to the S.  But MF is a different animal from 35mm.

 

Jeff

[Paul J]

If pixels count doesn't matter, f2.5 lens speed is fine, then the very first question I would ask why not Nikon D810 or Canon 5DSR or A7Rii which has about the same or more pixels, more reliable, faster focusing, faster glass(wider aperture), more lens selection like T/S, zoom, cheaper, lighter, smaller. With even better technical sensor. (Nikon&Sony)?

 

I can answer that question myself subjectively given I have used these fine pieces and my preferring a few thing Leica shining such as color and lens rendering, what about general public who is in the market for it. Why they want pay more for less(at least on paper).

 

Sorry, guys, I simply think this won't work.

This is actually a very real issue and what I was trying to touch on with the SL potentially killing off the S.

 

With rumours of an 80MP Sony at Photokina, perhaps Nikon following using sony sensors - we're in for an interesting ride and I am hearing more and more people, colleagues at the very top, downing the MF systems for high res 35mm Nikon & Canon a lot of the time.

 

I have been doing this for some time with this the M9 for those jobs I can get away with it and I have been pleading for a high res M for sometime now - the only reason I'm seriously considering moving on is because I don't have one and I'm not holding my breath with Leica.

 

I have used the Canon 5DS R quite a lot, it does compete with the IQ from my Phase One, it is very, very good but the Phase is still better and in some ways much better but the gap has closed considerably - I have mixed feelings; you gain and loose but what you gain makes it very tempting and it's still a viable option and one of the main reasons I am hesitant to make a decision. It's a pretty bright future for 135 formats and particularly so at the price of Nikon & Canon.

 

But then I look at those files from the S - it's the tonality and the smoothness, the super rich colour and the detail within detail that really is knock out and I don't see that in Nikon or Canon and in some ways, not even in the Phase One. Which is why I ask - if the S continues to grow and upgrade I think I might just use it, but i'm not waiting long for it to happen, and I certainly am not investing in it just in case they do.