bilbrown Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share #41 Posted October 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The original post seemed to boil down to selecting the S in lieu of the Pentax 645Z, which you already own along with M and SL systems. You've tried the 006, and could easily try the 007. If so, you could make an easy list of pros/cons and weigh them against your needs and preferences, which may well be different than those of others. This needn't be an abstract discussion. Try and see. Jeff Yeah, it's getting the shops here in LA to actually rent them... Plus I kind of know, it's just resolving in my mind the value of each system to me. The Live View and faster AF, other things of course is preferable in some ways for a professional camera system in 2016 (with 2013-2014 technology). I currently use the Pentax 645Z very very simply, I don't use many of it's functions, but have a few adapters for Pentax 6x7 and Hassy lenses. Another reason for the move would be to wholly simplify. One manufacture, one system per function. I can of course use FF in professional circumstances, as we all can, but medium format does take you to a different level (and different clients). But do these clients see anything but a Hassy or Phase One anyway - which I wouldn't get either, or the mirrorless Fuji or Hassy XD1, just ugh??? I don't know. It's like all of the event photography clients asking to have a 5D... people know what they know. I guess in it all boils down to what results we get with what we use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 Hi bilbrown, Take a look here Very torn, should I get a S type 006, S type 007 or just use my SL???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dfarkas Posted October 5, 2016 Share #42 Posted October 5, 2016 David, that is very good information to have. Would it apply across the board to all lenses, no matter the focal length or f-stop range of a lens? BTW, bought my M9, then certified S 006/C adapter from you folks (Josh). I have enjoyed doing business with you. David Awesome. Glad we could help you out. Diffraction is related to the pixel pitch of the sensor, so it would apply to all lenses. The M9, for instance, has a 6.8 micron pixel size. Here, you can get away with f/13 or f/16. With the pixel shrink to 6 microns, f/11 is the observable limit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 6, 2016 Share #43 Posted October 6, 2016 I guess in it all boils down to what results we get with what we use. Bingo. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbrown Posted October 6, 2016 Author Share #44 Posted October 6, 2016 Awesome. Glad we could help you out. Diffraction is related to the pixel pitch of the sensor, so it would apply to all lenses. The M9, for instance, has a 6.8 micron pixel size. Here, you can get away with f/13 or f/16. With the pixel shrink to 6 microns, f/11 is the observable limit. So wait, so at f13 or f16 that is basically the full range of he lens. So you are essentially saying to decrease diffraction we should shoot with a CCD. In that case wouldn't the S006 be the better option as a mount for that crazy good Leica glass? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted October 6, 2016 Share #45 Posted October 6, 2016 So wait, so at f13 or f16 that is basically the full range of he lens. So you are essentially saying to decrease diffraction we should shoot with a CCD. In that case wouldn't the S006 be the better option as a mount for that crazy good Leica glass? No. The M9 has a lower pixel count than the type 240. So the pixel pitch is slightly larger on the M9. The type of sensor has nothing to do with it. I gave up worrying about *when* diffraction cuts in. If I need f16 that's what I shoot. I just bump the detail slider a bit. Totally fake but it works often. Like anything else. getting too obsessed about technical details means I'm putting more attention into the technical rather than the aesthetic. I've got plenty of technically perfect, boring as batshit photos on my hard drive. But not once has anyone ever said to me, "if only you'd shot that at f11 instead of f16." Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted October 6, 2016 Share #46 Posted October 6, 2016 I received my new (to me) 30-90 S lens today. It performs exactly like most of the reviews I've read, which is, stunning in the centre 60% always. Great on the edges from a stop down but never good in the extreme corners beyond 60mm. In fact the Pentax FA45-85 is significantly better in the corners and that's 1/8th the price and 20 years old. If you like zooms then keep the Pentax. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted October 6, 2016 Share #47 Posted October 6, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) So wait, so at f13 or f16 that is basically the full range of he lens. So you are essentially saying to decrease diffraction we should shoot with a CCD. In that case wouldn't the S006 be the better option as a mount for that crazy good Leica glass? Just to reiterate, diffraction would affect CCD or CMOS sensors the same, given the same pixel pitch. Having said that, I did find that I could shoot at f/13 on the S006 while f/11 on the S007 looked sharper. I think this is because of slightly better per-pixel acuity on the S007. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbrown Posted October 6, 2016 Author Share #48 Posted October 6, 2016 Just to reiterate, diffraction would affect CCD or CMOS sensors the same, given the same pixel pitch. Having said that, I did find that I could shoot at f/13 on the S006 while f/11 on the S007 looked sharper. I think this is because of slightly better per-pixel acuity on the S007. Good to know. i just tested what you meant. on the SL f11 and f16 with TTL metering and an SF40, 24-90 lens... no visible difference at 90mm Same with the M240, 90mm Summicron I think the diffraction may be more acute for something other than portraits, or doesn't matter at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
faranstudio Posted October 8, 2016 Share #49 Posted October 8, 2016 If budget, weight and slow focus is not an issue I highly recommend S007 for achieving higher quality result + with CS lenses you can gain higher strobe/flash sync speed which is very critical in studio environment. For lighter setup, faster auto focus I would go with SL or similar platforms. SL files take longer for me to color grade and post process. S006 is a great and pretty affordable system but ISO is limiting and live view is absent which is very helpful for landscape photography. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbrown Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share #50 Posted October 8, 2016 If budget, weight and slow focus is not an issue I highly recommend S007 for achieving higher quality result + with CS lenses you can gain higher strobe/flash sync speed which is very critical in studio environment. For lighter setup, faster auto focus I would go with SL or similar platforms. SL files take longer for me to color grade and post process. S006 is a great and pretty affordable system but ISO is limiting and live view is absent which is very helpful for landscape photography. Good luck! The "smaller" format of FF over that of my 645Z is pretty considerable. However, I can zoom in on the files pretty deeply it just doesn't have a lot of the details (like maybe that isn't even needed, I don't know. I was wanting to look at a MF-like camera because of a little more deep detail and just a different look. Budget isn't entirely a concern, but resale value is. I get that the S006 had to come down to compete with the "cheaper" H5 system (and none of them really compete with the Phase One, not really. Thus the cheaper price tag of the S007, from the S006 original price tag of 22k... but going down to 4K on the used market is unnerving. After 10 years, My M8 us STILL around 2K. You can tell the value of a camera, or any product, by how much it is worth after it's product cycle is over. The S in this regard seems to be a failure. Thoughts? If that's the case, I may just wait to see if Leica comes up with a Mirrorless MF option that uses S lenses. Or pick up a S006 to start to build my kit, and use the lenses on my SL with an adapter. The S007 doesn't have that much to offer me if I already have 4K with the SL, no? And I am already used to no Live View. Why do you even need it with AF lenses? I typically just use it on the M240 when I have a 75, 90 or 135 attached (or a R lens). And on the SL, it's basically a Live View camera all the time so I don't really have an option. Seems the OVF of the S is pretty damn good anyway. And remember, I am shooting fashion mostly, with strobes. I won't go much lower than ISO800 most of the time anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted October 8, 2016 Share #51 Posted October 8, 2016 Personally with the X1D and the GFX 50S being released next year (at a price below $10K) there is no way on earth that I would spend $17K on a 37MP Leica S007... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 8, 2016 Share #52 Posted October 8, 2016 Personally with the X1D and the GFX 50S being released next year (at a price below $10K) there is no way on earth that I would spend $17K on a 37MP Leica S007... Assuming there's a next generation (S008) at some point, I suspect a new S007 will then sell for under $10k as well, much like the S006 did (reduced from initial $22k to $6500 for a short while....with 3 year Protection Plan... when Leica was trying to clear inventory as the 007 was about to be released). Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted October 9, 2016 Share #53 Posted October 9, 2016 "I'd say the biggest image quality difference between the SL and the S007 is the dynamic range. The S007 has 15.3 stops, which is the most of any still camera on the market from any manufacturer. Moving from the S006 to the S007 allowed me to change my approach to high contrast landscape scenes. Now, I just expose for the highlights and let the shadows go dark. I'm easily able to pull the shadows up 3 stops noise free and end up with images that still look normal, not HDR-ish. I've been able to rely less on GND filters and just shoot. The tonal range of the S is just spectacular." David, I think my 007 manual says it has 13 stops. BH Photo also lists it as 13. Can you clarify this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 9, 2016 Share #54 Posted October 9, 2016 I think my 007 manual says it has 13 stops. BH Photo also lists it as 13. Can you clarify this? No, the manual says 15 stops, at least the one linked online from the Leica site (end section specs). That's 2 stops better than the 006, one of the clear marketing features of the new iteration. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted October 9, 2016 Share #55 Posted October 9, 2016 B&H and Adorama say 13 stops whereas Leica Store Miami says 15 stops... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted October 9, 2016 Share #56 Posted October 9, 2016 No, the manual says 15 stops, at least the one linked online from the Leica site (end section specs). That's 2 stops better than the 006, one of the clear marketing features of the new iteration. Jeff Okay, I pulled out my manual. It says, "Dynamic range 13 aperture stops." I also downloaded the user manual from the Leica site and it says 15 stops. So, which is it? I know that David spoke to the Leica guys directly and they told him 15 stops. I'd just like some clarification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 9, 2016 Share #57 Posted October 9, 2016 but resale value is. I get that the S006 had to come down to compete with the "cheaper" H5 system (and none of them really compete with the Phase One, not really. Thus the cheaper price tag of the S007, from the S006 original price tag of 22k... but going down to 4K on the used market is unnerving. After 10 years, My M8 us STILL around 2K. You can tell the value of a camera, or any product, by how much it is worth after it's product cycle is over. The S in this regard seems to be a failure. Thoughts? Aint no different to buying a car..............most new things go down in price after you buy them...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted October 9, 2016 Share #58 Posted October 9, 2016 To David's earlier point about depth of files of the S vs SL, I love both cameras and see them as having very different applications, but here is an example of the same shot, handheld, with both cameras. Post-processing only moving highlight, white and black sliders. OK, maybe a little punch on the clarity and vibrance, but not much! Image on left is with SL, on right with S. Histogram on top photo is SL, on bottom is S At hand held I could not see much difference in sharpness between S with Summicron 100 vs SL with 24-90 at 80. It's almost a sin to use the S without a tripod when looking at such scenery. 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/265163-very-torn-should-i-get-a-s-type-006-s-type-007-or-just-use-my-sl/?do=findComment&comment=3125688'>More sharing options...
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted October 9, 2016 Share #59 Posted October 9, 2016 To David's earlier point about depth of files of the S vs SL, I love both cameras and see them as having very different applications, but here is an example of the same shot, handheld, with both cameras. Post-processing only moving highlight, white and black sliders. OK, maybe a little punch on the clarity and vibrance, but not much! Image on left is with SL, on right with S. Histogram on top photo is SL, on bottom is S At hand held I could not see much difference in sharpness between S with Summicron 100 vs SL with 24-90 at 80. It's almost a sin to use the S without a tripod when looking at such scenery. I'm sure it would have looked different through a S007........... I certainly SEE a difference in the DOF with my S007 over my old S006. Unfortunately I don't have the same files to show a comparison like you did with your SL and S006.............Maybe David can help out there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbrown Posted October 9, 2016 Author Share #60 Posted October 9, 2016 To David's earlier point about depth of files of the S vs SL, I love both cameras and see them as having very different applications, but here is an example of the same shot, handheld, with both cameras. Post-processing only moving highlight, white and black sliders. OK, maybe a little punch on the clarity and vibrance, but not much! Image on left is with SL, on right with S. Histogram on top photo is SL, on bottom is S At hand held I could not see much difference in sharpness between S with Summicron 100 vs SL with 24-90 at 80. It's almost a sin to use the S without a tripod when looking at such scenery. Fantastic for landscapes, but since I shoot portraits and fashion and even Leica promotes the S as a studio camera - I am looking more to it for that reason. Not just studio, however. But people, specifically men and women (models) and fashion type images. The size of it also makes me want to use it for more concentrated street and location fashion shoots. But then, the SL seems to be holding up against my other fashion-type shooting on the 645Z. In fact I may like the images better! Not sure if I need that much DR for fashion. I am also not sure I need MF for these types of images anyway. In the film days people would use MF a great deal, nowadays it seems dominated by FF 35mm. I know some photographers that primarily use their M for fashion shoots. I did, just picked up the SL so I could shoot faster. However, the buffering after a certain number of shots makes me able to shoot faster with my M240! Which is kind of nuts... The S seems to shoot and write to the cards rather swiftly too... So again, just thinking out loud... For my type of shooting, maybe the S could work, but might be overkill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.