different between S2 and S

[nies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is the main different between the leicaS2 and the leica S.

I have an chanse to buy one.

Greetings,

Nies

[BernardC]

The S-006 is a bit more sensitive (max ISO 1600 imstead of 1250) and somewhat faster (buffer clearing time). The S-006 also has some additional features, like GPS.

You won't see much of a practical difference if you shoot slowly at low ISO, but the difference is noticeable in other circumstances.

[Advertisement]

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

[albertknappmd]

and the 007 is even better in low light situations. 

We are still waiting to see what the S3 has brought to the table.

It sounds exciting and should cause 006 and 007 prices to fall.

I would advise you to go for these used bodies..

 

Albert

😃😆😎

[Stuart Richardson]

While I agree that the S006 is the better camera, I will also defend the S2. Most of the advancements in the S006 are in the interface, rear screen, and things in the "nice to have" category...like the GPS. Personally I found no difference in the image quality when I did testing, if anything, my S2 was slightly better, but that seems to have been that the CCD in it was particularly well tuned (my S006 has a slightly higher noise floor). Given the difference in price these days, if you have a good battery and a lens or two to use on it, the S2 is an incredible deal. They sell for much less than the 006 and 007, but the image quality is the same as the 006 and arguably better at base ISO than the 007 if you prefer the CCD color with a lot of S shooters seem to, even those who have the 007. The build quality and lenses are excellent, and the OVF is one of the best ever. If you are the kind of photographer who is primarily interested in the quality of the results and in the shooting experience, then the S2 is still first rate despite its age. If you like to chimp the rear screen and zoom in to 100% a lot, however, I would recommend you get the 006, as the S2's worst ergonomic feature is the strange zooming interface which they needed to use since they did not have a multidirectional joystick button. 

The other caveat I would give you is to check that the battery is still good. Mine has finally given up after about 8 years of use. 

[RVB]

On 10/12/2018 at 1:53 PM, BernardC said:

The S-006 is a bit more sensitive (max ISO 1600 imstead of 1250) and somewhat faster (buffer clearing time). The S-006 also has some additional features, like GPS.

You won't see much of a practical difference if you shoot slowly at low ISO, but the difference is noticeable in other circumstances.

Isn't base ISO also different, 100 for the S 006 and 160 for the S2 (unless firmware changed it?).

[nies]

Thanks for the advice!

[Dr No]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wouldn't it be better to go for Nikon D850 rather than S2?

[John McMaster]

1 hour ago, Dr No said:

Wouldn't it be better to go for Nikon D850 rather than S2?

Are you just going by pixel quantity?  Depends on what you shoot, but I would expect to take better looking images with an S2 - 16bit colour, better lenses and a larger sensor.

john

[Dr No]

1 minute ago, John McMaster said:

Are you just going by pixel quantity?  Depends on what you shoot, but I would expect to take better looking images with an S2 - 16bit colour, better lenses and a larger sensor.

john

Hallo and thank you. This sounds interesting and I am interested to see these differences do you know of some kind of comparison review?

[John McMaster]

Not between these two, I had an 800E with Zeiss lenses (for a month) at the same time as my M9.  I tested my 18MP M9 with 35mm Summilux FLE against the 36MP 800E with Zeiss ZF2 35/2.  On paper the Nikon is better, for real world results the M9 was far superior (this was pixel peeping) unless very large prints are involved - I returned the 800E.  The Nikon D850 only has 8MP more, not much in real world.........

john