How many S owners have both the Soo? and a SL and what do you prefer to use

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today was a look through all my pictures day and I really wish I had not. Why may you ask. Well when I compare my S images to the SL images its like "peas and carrots" with the S files being the carrots. Maybe its my eyesight or just the subjects but I just fell like the S files look more natural, they look cleaner, more radiant, and defiantly more appealing.

 

I also looked through the S image thread that I originally started and there are so so many amazing pictures in there that were taken by S owners on her. There are also amazing pictures in the SL thread that thyslapper started but when compared to the S images again there like beef without your shire pudding................

 

When I get my Noctilux back from Wisner, its going in my mates shop along with the SL and M lenses......basically I going to downsize and concentrate on quality MF and LF photography and golf

 

Neil

[erlingmm]

Sold the SL, kept the S007 (and M10). Same reasoning, when I look through my images, 7 of the 10 best are always S.

[Advertisement]

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

[mgrayson3]

For 280mm, SL. Anything else, S006.

[C Lei Lux]

For 280mm, SL. Anything else, S006.

 

Luxusprobleme ?

[Deliberate1]

Neil, the fundamental question I ask when I buy into a new system is whether it would broaden my photographic reach and allow me to get a picture, or the kind of image, that I otherwise might miss. I remember shlepping my beloved Rollei 6008 kit to Israel and Egypt several years ago. I just adore those square images and, at the time, there was no digital alternative. And while the Pyramids were compliant and the Sphinx remained stoic as I went about my business, human subjects were not so sanguine. Simply put, when I lifted that beast to my eye, and leveled it at them, subjects literally scattered. As I was changing it film cartridges by the Kotel (Western Wall), a passing Israeli soldier looked over and quipped "nice bazooka." They is no doubt that I missed images, or the ones I wanted, because it was not the right tool for that job. Shooting 100 ASA film created other limitations.

Years later, I was walking the streets of Varanasi snapping away with my equally beloved M9. No film cartridges. No 100 ASA limitations. No bazooka. No scattering. No 15+ lb kit hanging off my shoulder in sweltering heat.I captured images with that camera that I would have been impossible to get with the Rollei - technically and practically. A photographic reach lengthened. But not fully extended. Frankly, even with that rangefinder,I was missing the quality and malleability of files that I had come to expect with the Rollei and my limited work with a LF Toyo. So when a certified S (006) crossed my path nearly two years ago, I pulled the trigger. And, save for the same low light limitations I experienced with the M9, I could not be happier.I get the quality of files I crave with a measure of shooting flexibility that would be impossible from my film rigs. And while the S is not as stealthy as the M9, no-one has ever run for cover when I raise it to my eye. Beyond the shooting experience which has been wonderful, the density and quality of files has given me a measure of creative license unavailable with the M9. With my trusty 24 " Epson 7800, I am able to produce very large images from S files that rival, equal or even exceed my film systems.

When I think what more I would want from this camera it would be a more capable low light capacity. Over the past couple years I have developed a passion for shooting horses (camera only), especially in their barns where the light can be magical. I find that anything over ASA 400 creates unacceptable noise in the shadows. Converting to b&w extends that reach but is a work around. I shoot a great deal on tripod, but that is problematic with moving subjects. So I did consider the SL which has a greater low light capacity and I could use my M and S lenses. But remembering the words of my dad, I fear it would be trading down. Any image is better than no image for sure. But I confess that I have great expectations which have been set in stone by my journey to the S.

Neil, this is a long-winded and meandering prequel which,I think, reaches the same place where you now find yourself. Only you have paid the price of admission. Mine is a purely vicarious and contemplative journey. I thank you for, to acertain extent, undertaking that experiment for me. In time I will get what I want. An S body that reaches deeper into the dark. And when it arrives I will be happy. For a while....

David

Edited August 27, 2017 by Deliberate1

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Neil, the fundamental question I ask when I buy into a new system is whether it would broaden my photographic reach and allow me to get a picture, or the kind of image, that I otherwise might miss. I remember shlepping my beloved Rollei 6008 kit to Israel and Egypt several years ago. I just adore those square images and, at the time, there was no digital alternative. And while the Pyramids were compliant and the Sphinx remained stoic as I went about my business, human subjects were not so sanguine. Simply put, when I lifted that beast to my eye, and leveled it at them, subjects literally scattered. As I was changing it film cartridges by the Kotel (Western Wall), a passing Israeli soldier looked over and quipped "nice bazooka." They is no doubt that I missed images, or the ones I wanted, because it was not the right tool for that job. Shooting 100 ASA film created other limitations.

Years later, I was walking the streets of Varanasi snapping away with my equally beloved M9. No film cartridges. No 100 ASA limitations. No bazooka. No scattering. No 15+ lb kit hanging off my shoulder in sweltering heat.I captured images with that camera that I would have been impossible to get with the Rollei - technically and practically. A photographic reach lengthened. But not fully extended. Frankly, even with that rangefinder,I was missing the quality and malleability of files that I had come to expect with the Rollei and my limited work with a LF Toyo. So when a certified S (006) crossed my path nearly two years ago, I pulled the trigger. And, save for the same low light limitations I experienced with the M9, I could not be happier.I get the quality of files I crave with a measure of shooting flexibility that would be impossible from my film rigs. And while the S is not as stealthy as the M9, no-one has ever run for cover when I raise it to my eye. Beyond the shooting experience which has been wonderful, the density and quality of files has given me a measure of creative license unavailable end with the M9. With my trusty 24 " Epson 7800, I am able to produce very large images from S files that rival, equal or even exceed my film systems.

When I think of what more I would want from this camera it would be a more capable low light capacity. Over the past couple years I have developed a passion for shooting horses (camera only), especially in their barns where the light can be magical. I find that anything over ASA 400 creates unacceptable noise in the shadows. Converting to b&w extends that reach but is a work around. I shoot a great deal on tripod, but that is problematic with moving subjects. So I did consider the SL which has a greater low light capacity and I could use my M and S lenses. But remembering the words of my dad, I fear it would be trading down. Any image is better than no image for sure. But I confess that I have great expectations which have been set in stone by my journey to the S.

Neil, this is a long-winded and meandering prequel which,I think, reaches the same place where you now find yourself. Only you have paid the price of admission. Mine is a purely vicarious and contemplative journey. I thank you for, to acertain extent, undertaking that experiment for me. In time I will get what I want. An S body that reaches deeper into the dark. And when it arrives I will be happy. For a while....

David

WOW David. I was looking for a book make so I could get the end of the story later

My SL has only ever been exposed to M lenses and once one of my mates S100 lenses, but it's still a big camera, so if it's stellar your after then the SL is really not the right tool, so you might as well use the S with AF and get the better quality files. Now I used to have a Q........ man I loved that Q but just hatted the 28mm DOF........ but size wise it was perfect.

Now then the M is obviously the best choice for stelf but with the RF and my eyes plus MF it's not for me.

David I did try the Hasselblad X1D but it was sloooooow.

My first S was the Soo6 and you are correct anything over 400 ASA was crap. My Soo7 is good at 800 and maybe usable at 1600 but with noise.

As I go into retirement I'm going to stick with my S007 and iPhone 8, and upgrade the iPhone as and when they take over from phography as we k ow it......... I will still dabble in LF as I really enjoy that stuff but everything else is going to get flogged off

 

Neil

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My SL will remain my workhorse. It's far more nimble and I just prefer mirrorless cameras to the cumbersome OVF in my S bodies.

 

There's no doubt that there are some IQ differences in the bigger sensor. I'm sure some can't see a difference but I can. Not just in the S but my X1D and 645Z as well. (the 645Z kit is going soon).

 

The other factor is the lenses. The S lenses are the best lenses I've used. Put one on the SL and you immediately see how good they are, even on a smaller sensor. The SL 50 'lux is as good but I have yet to see *anything* else that draws like an S lens. Certainly not any M lens I own. That's not saying M lenses are worse, just different, with a different design and reaction to a different format.

 

The SL IQ is as good as it gets, within it's class, which is a 24MP 35mm sensor. The M10 may just be slightly better at higher ISO's. But neither draw like the S with S lenses. I keep my 007 despite it being a DSLR. If Leica would just make me a SL type S body I would not have needed to buy the X1D.

 

Gordon

[hoppyman]

Neil, I think as always, it depends on what you want to shoot and what you want to do with the images. The SL does some things better obviously. For MY purposes, comparing the files in identical conditions at pixel peeping level, The S files are very noticeably superior. Exactly as you would expect. If i could wish my SL and 24-90 into an hypothetical S zoom in a range that suited me, I wouldn't hesitate. 
In flash/studio environment which is nearly everything I shoot, hands down I prefer to use the S (Typ 007)
 

Edited August 27, 2017 by hoppyman

[rsmphoto]

S006 is my workhorse and has been for some years, but always on a tripod tethered. The SL is for all handheld/telephoto work and serves as an excellent second/backup camera since it also tethers, and quite well. 

 

 

[stephan_w]

I cannot go without both SL and S. (S once it is back from service). The files are clearly nicer, the opticts too. On the other hand, the SL has it's own charm and I will keep it with some R lenses and the zoom. Also the SL made me some remarkable videos. I don't consider my M anymore, but will keep the 246 for some reason i don't know myself. What I will do though is probably reduce some lenses. We will see once my S007 will work correctly (I don't get any reliable AF with it actually).

[tom0511]

I also own both and asked myself the same question before. Yes, S files shine. But I believe one reason besides the large sensor is also the fact that one uses primes a lot with the S.

While the 24-90 on the SL is a good lens, if you put a prime like the 50 SL on it it leads to a different look.

Still, specially color, midtones, transitions of the S are very appealing, no doubt.

 

There is one other side: I shoot many images of my kids. Here I had several occasions where moving the focus point around and the speed of the AF of the SL are massive advantage. I had several occasions where many of the S images were slightly out of focus but I could nail it with the SL.

For my part I have used the SL more than S lately. If I want to get the shot the SL is more reliable for me. But I couldnt let go the S, just so amazing IQ.

[Jon Warwick]

How much do people think the perceived benefit of the S 007 is mainly due to its higher megapixels?

 

I ask, given the latest and greatest prime lenses for Leica's 35mm FF (like the SL 50mm Lux ....and one hopes the upcoming SL Summicrons .....or M 50mm APO) seem to narrow the gap in "lens" IQ that had previously been obviously in favour of S lenses.

 

As such, if the 24 megapixels of the SL or M aren't stretched absurdly so (in prints up to say 30-40" wide), don't you think the gap between the SL / M and the S is now much narrower than it used to be (given the new and amazing SL or M lenses that I've discussed)?

 

For huge prints, I absolutely see the S has the clear advantage, and I typically also think the S007 files I've tried look veeeery smooth and scanned-film-like compared to my M files. I don't know why that's the case, but I just see that beauty of the S files ....

 

But for smaller prints these days with the latest M and SL glass designed from scratch for digital sensor, is this benefit as apparent as it was? Is the benefit of the S really now more owing to higher megapixels (and sensor size)?

Edited September 1, 2017 by Jon Warwick

[Jeff S]

How much do people think the perceived benefit of the S 007 is mainly due to its higher megapixels?

 

Nothing competes with sensor size....and lenses that take advantage of that.

 

Lots of other factors, but these are the foundation.

 

Jeff

Edited September 1, 2017 by Jeff S

[hoppyman]

How much do people think the perceived benefit of the S 007 is mainly due to its higher megapixels?

 

I ask, given the latest and greatest prime lenses for Leica's 35mm FF (like the SL 50mm Lux ....and one hopes the upcoming SL Summicrons .....or M 50mm APO) seem to narrow the gap in "lens" IQ that had previously been obviously in favour of S lenses.

 

As such, if the 24 megapixels of the SL or M aren't stretched absurdly so (in prints up to say 30-40" wide), don't you think the gap between the SL / M and the S is now much narrower than it used to be (given the new and amazing SL or M lenses that I've discussed)?

 

For huge prints, I absolutely see the S has the clear advantage, and I typically also think the S007 files I've tried look veeeery smooth and scanned-film-like compared to my M files. I don't know why that's the case, but I just see that beauty of the S files ....

 

But for smaller prints these days with the latest M and SL glass designed from scratch for digital sensor, is this benefit as apparent as it was? Is the benefit of the S really now more owing to higher megapixels (and sensor size)?

Jon, I cant say that I have noticed any deficiency in the results with the 24-90. I don't tend to use it at the wider end and I haven't done any formal comparisons. I haven't even seen any of the SL primes myself.

I think that the superiority of the S files in equal circumstances comes from the extra megapixels of same/similar? size, and the higher dynamic range (at least 3 stops I believe)

Whether or not the differences are important or even visible I think depends on how you are viewing the results as you indicated, Maybe some of it comes from the basic premise to want the best possible equipment/outcome whether or not you actually take advantage of that?

At the most critical level, I just see at 100% on a high end calibrated monitor the S images are just smoother by far while sharper for what I shoot.

Does it matter for web images or anything other than really large prints? probably not.

I have an M/L adapter and some M lenses remaining, but to me it isnt optimal to use them with an SL when I could just use them on the M. For manual focus the RF is just more precise for me. I also very briefly tried an S lens on an SL body (in quite low light) but the focus travel was just too slow for me to want to invest in that adapter. I have a much devalued (got it third hand) S2 anyway to address the backup need

 

Against the SL for me

Its not effectively smaller/lighter or even as comfortable to use for extended periods than an S. The add on vertical grip seems great but then it's even bigger/heavier

I'm never sure whether the IS is helping or not for me

I seem to have a higher hit rate for really critical sharpness with the S, but that's somewhat an apples and oranges comparison I guess. 

The body price here dropped by such a large amount (about 25/30% here). I hope that means they sell some more but the collateral damage is annoying everyone who paid the higher price for it!

Does that price drop mean a new version is coming?????

 

Other side of the ledger for me is the more refined and capable controls and menu system and info displays and above all that movable AF point

 

Who knows what is coming in both S and SL systems in the future? Ultimately put the SL advantages into a hypothetical S008 and I would have to sell my children for medical experiments to try to fund it. Unlikely that anyone would want to pay anything remotely acceptable for what I have though.

 

[tom0511]

Reading this I thing I have to use my S more often again. FOr some reason I have "drifted" to use a lot the SL and TL2.

If I use the 24-90 on the SL it is just a set which allows me to get very safely every shot. Flexible focal length, enough room to get some shallow DOF at the long end, fast enough for low light (as long as it dark). The lens it self is big, but it allows to bring less lenses. (would be at 2-3 S primes to cover that range).

But I admit I havent had much of this "blow me away" shots with the SL which I sometimes get with the S.

Which system surprizes me sometimes is the TL systems, specially with the 35/1.4 or the 60. I sometimes think if the lenses are right there is not that much difference in IQ between dx and ff.

[tom0511]

went out in the garden, just for fun and shot some images S007, SL and TL2 all with the native "normal" lens - and what should I say...I shall use the S more often again. Most obvious is a special smoothness in tonal transitions, specially highlight roll off while containing great midtones.

It all gives the images a very gentle and natural look. 

Second thing I realized is how much alike the three cameras render color (if you custom WB)...which is great because I think it is a big advantage for people who use them side by side. Even though I sometimes feel the SL to have a very slight "brownish" cast.

Now when smaller primes appear for the SL it might changes things that it does at least have a real size advantage over the S.

One thing I wish was that the S had more than one focus point.

[hoppyman]

Tom I am with you on nearly all of that.
The Summilux M 50 ASPH with adapter seems kind of unbalanced on the SL to me. Certainly does work although I prefer RF. Going the other way, don't laugh but I just now put the 24-90 on my T so actually simulates my personal dream 35-135 zoom for the studio. This actually could work, although there is no means of supporting the lens rather than body on a tripod. What does amaze me is that the focus in low light seems perfectly seamless and fast in contrast to my brief experience with the Summicron S adapted to the SL.
I may actually try a TL with this if I can borrow one.
I am not seeing any signs that smaller form (slower?) lenses might appear for S or SL systems? Someone suggested the the hypothetical S008 my be smaller?

[tom0511]

...

I am not seeing any signs that smaller form (slower?) lenses might appear for S or SL systems? Someone suggested the the hypothetical S008 my be smaller?

 

at least the 35/5/90mm Summicrons for the SL will be smaller lenses.

[Jon Warwick]

at least the 35/5/90mm Summicrons for the SL will be smaller lenses.

Agreed. I am hoping they will be a very nice weight and balance on the SL.

 

It's a shame, from my personal perspective, that they didn't come out initially with a state-of-the-art 50mm SL Summicron instead of the bulkier SL 50mm 1.4 Summilux.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Agreed. I am hoping they will be a very nice weight and balance on the SL.

 

It's a shame, from my personal perspective, that they didn't come out initially with a state-of-the-art 50mm SL Summicron instead of the bulkier SL 50mm 1.4 Summilux.

 

I am 100% with you.