Low light comparison: Q vs 007

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Friends, I have been shooting an 006 for nearly three years and just could not be happier with it, mostly, I came to it from the M9 which, like its big CCD brother, has a pretty limited usable ISO ceiling, at least for color work. I do the work-around, underexpose and then push in PP, but that does not always work acceptably. That said, I have pushed images by three and four stops with remarkable results. 

For a recent trip to Thailand, I acquired a Q for low light situations. And to be sure, it is remarkable in that element. I got images that simply would not have been possible with the S (or M9). The camera is a gem - solid, fast, discreet, pretty much everything I could have hoped for. Except I just do not have an eye for 28mm. I worked up some images this evening. And while cropping to something less still gives a pretty robust file, it is just not the same as filling the viewfinder with what you are actually going to get. Beyond that, while the wysiwyg qualities of the Q with exposure adjustments in real time is remarkable, I also discovered that I really am an OVF guy. No doubt, part of the issue is the fact that I feel that the ergonomics of the S were custom designed for me. Looking through the OVF reminds me of the OVF view through my Rollie 6008i. I just love seeing that big ass window onto the word - not a tv screen.

So to my question, for those of you who have both the Q and the 007, could you kindly share how similar they are in low light situations. For me, an S with the night vision of the Q would be perfect. That said, I do realize that there is no S lens that is as fast as the Q. The closest, I suppose would be the Contax 80mm f2.

Much obliged.

David

[ropo54]

You might read David Farkas' article on Red Dot Forum, where he took the S 007 out for a night on Miami Beach:

(https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2018/01/night-shooting-leica-s-typ-007/)

 

His conclusion: he was quite surprised at how well it actually performed, but for low light situations the Q (or other fast lenses) would be the preferred way to go. His final thoughts, below:

 

"Overall, I’d call this little experiment a success. The S007 was up to a task it wasn’t really designed for, acting more like an M than an S. I was pleased with the results and had a good time playing around. I shot some images in challenging light and at night in NYC when I first tested the S007, giving me a basic idea of the camera’s capabilities. Specifically revisiting nighttime photography proved to be even more eye-opening than my first go-around. This is especially true given the sheer number of images I’ve logged on the S007 following that test. For just about every landscape outing since, the S has been my baby. It simply performs under all conditions and delivers maximum image quality in the great outdoors.

So, will I grab the S the next time I’m out wandering at night? Probably not. The M10 or SL or Q are a better fit for this kind of photography. Smaller, lighter, less conspicuous. But, what if I am already on assignment shooting with the S, and the chance for some night photography comes up? In the past, I would have just dismissed the idea and not even tried. Now, after seeing what the camera is capable of, I wouldn’t hesitate to jump right in and start shooting with the S. This test forced me to reconsider pigeonholing camera systems and appreciate just how flexible each one really is, often beyond its intended use. And that’s the case with the S007."

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

I shot a whole book of night photos on the 006...I have never had a camera that made cleaner photos with better colors at night, and that includes the Sony A7S and A7Rii. They both have very high iso settings, but fundamentally they are using a huge number of tricks to get that performance...color saturation and depth are lost, detail is lost, and there is a gradual deadening of the imagery as ISO increases. They do pull in more light than the S006 sensor, but if you give the S enough time, it often looks better. This is not to say high ISO is useless, only to say that if you want to shoot at night, a tripod is infinitely more useful than ISO unless you are doing street photography. You can see some of the ones I took here: 

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/jan/18/iceland-winter-in-pictures-stuart-richardson?CMP=share_btn_link (the images themselves might look better at my site...I think the Guardian's compression has introduced some artifacts). 

They are pretty much all taken at ISO 100. If you just want to walk around blasting off images at ISO 6400 handheld, the overall image quality is going to be poor, no matter how new and fancy your camera is. Trust me...I work as a printer and basically explain this to a generation of photographers who wonder why their images look poor in large prints, even though they are using the latest and greatest high ISO monster. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Stuart Richardson

[Deliberate1]

 This is not to say high ISO is useless, only to say that if you want to shoot at night, a tripod is infinitely more useful than ISO unless you are doing street photography. 

 

Stuart, obliged for yours. Of course, I should have clarified that I got the Q specifically for low light, dynamic street work or for interiors, like temples, where a tripod was impractical or forbidden. The S always tops the tripod whenever possible, no matter the time of day or lighting conditions. 

Your Iceland night work is very interesting. I visited many years ago when a high school exchange student we hosted was married. The terrain is extraordinary  - like the surface of the moon. I will return some day to shoot horses (camera only), which is a great passion of mine.

Cheers.

David

[albertknappmd]

You should trade in your 006 for an 007.

The usable ISO will jump to 1600 - 3200

Albert

[Deliberate1]

You might read David Farkas' article on Red Dot Forum, where he took the S 007 out for a night on Miami Beach:

(https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2018/01/night-shooting-leica-s-typ-007/)

 

Rob, thanks for the link. I recall reading David's review when it came out and marveled at the fidelity of the images at 6400. They do remind me very much of the look I get from the Q at that same ISO. While the Q files are not as malleable as the S, to be sure, they are very robust, even when cropped. Fortunately, even at night, the white balance and color accuracy are so faithful, needed tweaking is minimal. Even at 6400, which is the max I set the brain to, detail in the shadows is something that I could not hope to get with my 006.

I was (and remain) totally smitten by my M9 which introduced me to the world of range finders and Leica. I feel even more so about the S 006 which truly has made me a better photographer by its perfect blend of manual control with computer assist when I want or need it. It feels in my hand like a mechanical film camera, and I treat it as such. While I accept that images are essentially "free," I still shoot as if there is film to be bought and processed. There is no shame in taking the time to get it right. You have to work with the S to get the image you want and deserve. It does not give it to you. That paves the road to artistic progress. While my time with the Q has been short, the electronic wizardry in that jewel box makes it almost too easy, if you let it. I mean that as no criticism. The camera is a tool. You decide how to use it. But it is seductive, when the box says, "no worries, let me do that for you." So give me the form factor of the S, with the color of the CCD with a dynamic range and night vision of the Q and I will stop whining about the embarrassment of riches that we have in our hands, no matter the letter.

David.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Deliberate1

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rob, thanks for the link. I recall reading David's review when it came out and marveled at the fidelity of the images at 6400. They do remind me very much of the look I get from the Q at that same ISO. While the Q files are not as malleable as the S, to be sure, they are very robust, even when cropped. Fortunately, even at night, the white balance and color accuracy are so faithful, needed tweaking is minimal. Even at 6400, which is the max I set the brain to, detail in the shadows is something that I could not hope to get with my 006.

I was (and remain) totally smitten by my M9 which introduced me to the world of range finders and Leica. I feel even more so about the S 006 which truly has made me a better photographer by its perfect blend of manual control with computer assist when I want or need it. It feels in my hand like a mechanical film camera, and I treat it as such. While I accept that images are essentially "free," I still shoot as if there is film to be bought and processed. There is no shame in taking the time to get it right. You have to work with the S to get the image you want and deserve. It does not give it to you. That paves the road to artistic progress. While my time with the Q has been short, the electronic wizardry in that jewel box makes it almost too easy, if you let it. I mean that as no criticism. The camera is a tool. You decide how to use it. But it is seductive, when the box says, "no worries, let me do that for you." So give me the form factor of the S, with the color of the CCD with a dynamic range and night vision of the Q and I will stop whining about the embarrassment of riches that we have in our hands, no matter the letter.

David.

 

So very poetic, David!

 

In my limited time with the S 006, I certainly agree with your assessment.  I am thinking/hoping that the 007 may even take me another step closer to your ideal  (bolded) to which Albert has alluded. 

 

Rob

[ropo54]

You should trade in your 006 for an 007.

The usable ISO will jump to 1600 - 3200

Albert

Thanks, Albert, I am working on it!

S 006 demand is fairly weak at the moment so the 006 is just an incredible deal. I've thought about just keeping it, as well. (Mine has the replaced sensor installed so even better).

 

Rob 

[Deliberate1]

Thanks, Albert, I am working on it!

S 006 demand is fairly weak at the moment so the 006 is just an incredible deal. I've thought about just keeping it, as well. (Mine has the replaced sensor installed so even better).

 

Rob 

 

Rob,

Your camera is a great deal. I am touting it to a pal of mine....

David

[Deliberate1]

So very poetic, David!

 

In my limited time with the S 006, I certainly agree with your assessment.  I am thinking/hoping that the 007 may even take me another step closer to your ideal  (bolded) to which Albert has alluded. 

 

Rob

 

Thanks, mate. Not to get all waxing, but I have come to wonder if a new camera is truly "one step closer," or just one step.

[Stuart Richardson]

One thing that I found interesting was when I compared the Leica S at 1600 to the Sony A7Rii at 1600, and I was kind of shocked to see that the Leica had a similar level of grain and better color. And this was at 1600! The Leica S stops there, and the A7Rii goes to 102,400. It spoke volumes to me about Sony and Leica's different philosophies of image quality. Leica tends to cut it off right when things start to go south, whereas Sony will just keep giving you data even if it is nearly unusable. Again, I am not saying the S is better at high ISO's, it is not, but it is actually quite good all the way to the limit, where the Sony's tend to be bordering on unusable at least 2 or 3 stops before they cut off. 

[ropo54]

Thanks, mate. Not to get all waxing, but I have come to wonder if a new camera is truly "one step closer," or just one step.

 

Both! The goal line always keep moving.  A constant flux of evolution along with improvement. 

 

I suppose that the better ISO range of the 007 makes it a tad more versatile. 

 

(Yes, thanks, my camera is a wonderful deal for someone).

 

Rob

Edited July 5, 2018 by ropo54

[Deliberate1]

You should trade in your 006 for an 007.

The usable ISO will jump to 1600 - 3200

Albert

Albert, that remains an option on my dance card. But under what circumstances. I bought my M9 as a Leica "certified" box for around $6200, few bucks less than a new one. And it was indistinguishable from new. Four years later, I bought my S 006, similarly designated, for about the same money. That was about 25% of the original cost, for essentially a new camera with full warranty. As Rob points out, the market for the S 006 is soft, for reasons that remain a mystery to me at that price point. An S 006 for around $4500 is a remarkable buy. B&H sells a new S 007 for $20k. Used S 007's trade in the $12,500 range, nearly twice what a Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX 50 cost new.  While those of us who "invest" in the Leica system may hope that our gear exists in a universe separate and distinct from all others, the market always finds its own level, and that includes Leica. Well, at least the digital bodies. The manual lenses exist in a different universe because they are mechanical and there are so many different boxes they can connect to, modern and historic, and that is not likely to ever change. It would not at all surprise me if the four horsemen of the apocalypse had M mount cameras slung from their shoulders. With the S 008 gestating, it will be very interesting to see what happens to the S 007 market as it gets closer to release, and thereafter. If history repeats, we could be seeing that generation priced in the same range as the 006 when I bought mine under identical circumstances. There is nothing so shiny as a new camera model, that is, until its presumed obsolescence with the hatching of its progeny.

David

[ropo54]

Albert, that remains an option on my dance card. But under what circumstances. I bought my M9 as a Leica "certified" box for around $6200, few bucks less than a new one. And it was indistinguishable from new. Four years later, I bought my S 006, similarly designated, for about the same money. That was about 25% of the original cost, for essentially a new camera with full warranty. As Rob points out, the market for the S 006 is soft, for reasons that remain a mystery to me at that price point. An S 006 for around $4500 is a remarkable buy. B&H sells a new S 007 for $20k. Used S 007's trade in the $12,500 range, nearly twice what a Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX 50 cost new.  While those of us who "invest" in the Leica system may hope that our gear exists in a universe separate and distinct from all others, the market always finds its own level, and that includes Leica. Well, at least the digital bodies. The manual lenses exist in a different universe because they are mechanical and there are so many different boxes they can connect to, modern and historic, and that is not likely to ever change. It would not at all surprise me if the four horsemen of the apocalypse had M mount cameras slung from their shoulders. With the S 008 gestating, it will be very interesting to see what happens to the S 007 market as it gets closer to release, and thereafter. If history repeats, we could be seeing that generation priced in the same range as the 006 when I bought mine under identical circumstances. There is nothing so shiny as a new camera model, that is, until its presumed obsolescence with the hatching of its progeny.

David

 

In another thread, it is being reported that the new S 008 will retail for $28K.  That may keep the S 007 resale market a bit stronger for a bit longer. 

Rob

[Deliberate1]

One thing that I found interesting was when I compared the Leica S at 1600 to the Sony A7Rii at 1600, and I was kind of shocked to see that the Leica had a similar level of grain and better color. And this was at 1600! The Leica S stops there, and the A7Rii goes to 102,400. It spoke volumes to me about Sony and Leica's different philosophies of image quality. Leica tends to cut it off right when things start to go south, whereas Sony will just keep giving you data even if it is nearly unusable. Again, I am not saying the S is better at high ISO's, it is not, but it is actually quite good all the way to the limit, where the Sony's tend to be bordering on unusable at least 2 or 3 stops before they cut off. 

S007, I presume?

Last evening I processed some night time shots of China Town in Bangkok, taken with the Q, hand held and at 6400. Minor noise was easily dispatched in LR without any material loss of detail. Even the shadows came out clean. Quite remarkable. I would have no hesitation printing these images to 13x19 or even bigger.

David

Edited July 5, 2018 by Deliberate1

[Deliberate1]

In another thread, it is being reported that the new S 008 will retail for $28K.  That may keep the S 007 resale market a bit stronger for a bit longer. 

Rob

$28K? Gay gesundheit (Yiddish: go in good health). 

So that is  4x more than the X1D and Fuji with what is likely to be a similar sensor spec. It is also within 15-20% of the Hasselblad H6D - 100C, which sports a 100mp sensor, well beyond the Leica spec, I would hazard to say. Since mp virility sells, one might assume that Fuji will eventually release a similar gun at a significantly lower price point than the Blad, and Leica. So it makes me wonder who is Leica's market for a $28k S 008 with 50-60mp +/- given the very different market dynamics since the release of the 007. Surely, there are many in our ranks who will pony up the cost of admission for the latest and greatest. But what of others not yet part of the kinship? It would be interesting to know how many on this board bought the S as their first Leica. I suspect relatively few. So if Leica is predominantly selling to its base, how many units at $28k can it reasonable expect to sell, especially if, by the time the S 008 is released, Hasselblad, or Fuji, release a camera with a sensor that makes the 100mp old news.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Deliberate1

[AlanD]

One thing that I found interesting was when I compared the Leica S at 1600 to the Sony A7Rii at 1600, and I was kind of shocked to see that the Leica had a similar level of grain and better color. And this was at 1600! The Leica S stops there, and the A7Rii goes to 102,400. It spoke volumes to me about Sony and Leica's different philosophies of image quality. Leica tends to cut it off right when things start to go south, whereas Sony will just keep giving you data even if it is nearly unusable. Again, I am not saying the S is better at high ISO's, it is not, but it is actually quite good all the way to the limit, where the Sony's tend to be bordering on unusable at least 2 or 3 stops before they cut off.

This is part of the strength of the old Kodak sensor. There is very little manipulation of the RAW data which allows modern RAW processors to do a wonderful job.

 

The best way to describe this is to think of the old yellow and red Kodak cardboard film boxes.

 

With the M9 at ISO 1250 (vs Fuji XH1 at 3200) or the S006 at 1600 vs the A7R2 at 3200...

 

The M9 and 006 will look like the true yellow and red box that you then threw some sand on it. There is grain but the color is accurate. The new CMOS sensors will look like UV faded yellows and reds with the absence of noise.

 

By DXO style measurements, the CMOS sensors are less noisy but better. But to my eye, preservation of the color is more important.

 

I saw in a previous post that you were looking at the GFX. That is a remarkable camera with superb lenses, however at least one person on the GetDPI boards insists that his 006 is better in terms of look when he can control lighting. He uses GFX for his paid work when “getting the shot” pays the bills and the flexibility of images in post, but uses the 006 for his personal work due to the increase in image quality...

[Deliberate1]

Alan,

A very interesting read. Once cannot reference CCD and CMOS sensors in the same sentence without debating the perceived color characteristics of each. Many, with eyes accustomed to that palate, express a preference to the CCD generation. I am among them. In my early days with the M9/Lux 50, I was just astounded by the depth and color saturation on my screen, when compared to the Nikon D70 that preceded it. I get that same marvelous cohesion of color with the S, at least, when I get it right. My only CMOS camera is the Q, and I have not lived with it long enough to make sensible comparisons, other than the fact that I get images with it that are beyond the reach of the CCD sensor.

To be clear, I am not considering the Fuji as an alternative and never have. No disrespect intended. I am just happy where I am - except when I point my S and M9 in the direction of dark.

David

Edited July 5, 2018 by Deliberate1

[AlanD]

The Fuji comment was for Stuart.

 

CCD vs CMOS is complicated because so much of it is also Bayer filter and microlenses. If you look at David Farkas’s comaprison between the M9 and m240 you can see that the M9 is able to saturate reds without saturating other colors....

 

CCD has

A) Kodak color filter array. The priority was daylight color as opposed to low light performance (“weak” Bayer filters) or broad lighting conditions (I.e. Canon CMOS under stadium lighting). You can see this under the DXOMark color sensitivity. Not the SMI but the relative matrix.

 

Kodak offset microlenses, particularly S006 and M9. These microlenses were also smaller, like GFX, allowing for increased sharpness

 

C) Truesense transparent gates. Not fully BSI but it improved fill.

 

D) Isolation. CMOS has better well isolation but all of the deep trench isolation is what is needed with CCDs anyway.

 

E) Minimal on chip or on ADC processing

You have a lot more noise but can filter it out. We are biased in that M9 and 006 images processed with today’s software is better than the older software.

 

But, alas, none of this matters if you have an exposure error or you misfocus. Thus, CMOS allowing more recoverability and on chip PDAF or fast CDAF actually means you will get “more” shots. Since the quality of a photo is the emotional content, you are always better off with CMOS.

 

But if you hit focus and hit exposure, it is hard to beat the original CCD cameras (in daylight)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Deliberate1]

The Fuji comment was for Stuart.

 

CCD vs CMOS is complicated because so much of it is also Bayer filter and microlenses. If you look at David Farkas’s comaprison between the M9 and m240 you can see that the M9 is able to saturate reds without saturating other colors....

 

CCD has

A) Kodak color filter array. The priority was daylight color as opposed to low light performance (“weak” Bayer filters) or broad lighting conditions (I.e. Canon CMOS under stadium lighting). You can see this under the DXOMark color sensitivity. Not the SMI but the relative matrix.

 

Kodak offset microlenses, particularly S006 and M9. These microlenses were also smaller, like GFX, allowing for increased sharpness

 

C) Truesense transparent gates. Not fully BSI but it improved fill.

 

D) Isolation. CMOS has better well isolation but all of the deep trench isolation is what is needed with CCDs anyway.

 

E) Minimal on chip or on ADC processing

You have a lot more noise but can filter it out. We are biased in that M9 and 006 images processed with today’s software is better than the older software.

 

But, alas, none of this matters if you have an exposure error or you misfocus. Thus, CMOS allowing more recoverability and on chip PDAF or fast CDAF actually means you will get “more” shots. Since the quality of a photo is the emotional content, you are always better off with CMOS.

 

But if you hit focus and hit exposure, it is hard to beat the original CCD cameras (in daylight)

 

Alan,

Obliged for that analysis. I understood 43.14% of it but will work on the remainder.

I quite agree that an image well captured CCD image is a beautiful thing. As I have often said, the M9 and S 006 are the perfect cameras for perfect conditions.

I was intrigued by your statement: "CMOS allowing more recoverability and on chip PDAF or fast CDAF actually means you will get “more” shots. Since the quality of a photo is the emotional content, you are always better off with CMOS." Would you kindly translate that for a humanities major.

Cheers

David

Edited July 5, 2018 by Deliberate1