Can the new SL compete or even sostitute in some fields the S?

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, chrismuc said:

Low light at a circus performance respectively a ballet theatre, GF 110f2 lens at open aperture. Basically every single shot is tack sharp (and with that immense resolution you can crop in like crazy).

Now I am confused. The example you provide is something where I would expect the S to nail focus 100 times in a row without breaking a sweat. I have the S-006, which is two generations behind, and it still would have no problem.

Is this a type of image that has caused focus problems with your S in the past?

As a side note, for this shooting scenario I wouldn't bother with AF. I won't convince anyone to change their shooting style, but manually focusing allows me to react much faster to changes in the action. Let's say I wanted one of the side characters to be sharp instead, without changing the framing. I can nudge the focus manually in a fraction of a second. With AF, I need to either reframe, refocus, and go back to my initial frame, or try to convince the camera to stop looking at the pretty lady in the middle... It's a thankless task, arguing with a machine, and it is not something that I like to repeat hundreds of times over the course of a day (and same again the next weekend). Usually in my case it's not a Star Wars tribute extravaganza, but rather picking between the bride's eyes, the rings, the flowers, the officiant, the groom, etc, all of which are in the frame, and any of which could be the primary point of interest at a given time. You can play with focus points (for cameras like the SL that have more than one), or you can just focus and shoot. To me, playing with focus points is like taking your eyes off the road; you will miss something that you needed to see.

[otto.f]

Luckily there are no fatal accidents in AI photography as in Tesla’s on auto pilot. But maybe I’m too soon with that statement, Murphy’s law can of course occur with drones in an eager mood to zoom in. Accidents with drones are quite frequent these days is my impression.

Edited November 12, 2019 by otto.f

[tom0511]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb BernardC:

Now I am confused. The example you provide is something where I would expect the S to nail focus 100 times in a row without breaking a sweat. I have the S-006, which is two generations behind, and it still would have no problem.

Is this a type of image that has caused focus problems with your S in the past?

As a side note, for this shooting scenario I wouldn't bother with AF. I won't convince anyone to change their shooting style, but manually focusing allows me to react much faster to changes in the action. Let's say I wanted one of the side characters to be sharp instead, without changing the framing. I can nudge the focus manually in a fraction of a second. With AF, I need to either reframe, refocus, and go back to my initial frame, or try to convince the camera to stop looking at the pretty lady in the middle... It's a thankless task, arguing with a machine, and it is not something that I like to repeat hundreds of times over the course of a day (and same again the next weekend). Usually in my case it's not a Star Wars tribute extravaganza, but rather picking between the bride's eyes, the rings, the flowers, the officiant, the groom, etc, all of which are in the frame, and any of which could be the primary point of interest at a given time. You can play with focus points (for cameras like the SL that have more than one), or you can just focus and shoot. To me, playing with focus points is like taking your eyes off the road; you will miss something that you needed to see.

I tried it several times but manual focus with the S for me often was very slightly unaccurate compared AF (if AF found the right point). My eyes are not bad.

 

[BernardC]

26 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

I tried it several times but manual focus with the S for me often was very slightly unaccurate compared AF (if AF found the right point). My eyes are not bad.

 

That's odd. It could be that the system is slightly out of adjustment. The first thing to try is re-seating the focusing screen. You should also double-check that the diopter is focused on the screen itself (which has a slight texture), and not on the crosshair. They aren't exactly on the same plane.

[tom0511]

I shall check again with my current body.

[ZHNL]

9 hours ago, BernardC said:

Now I am confused. The example you provide is something where I would expect the S to nail focus 100 times in a row without breaking a sweat. I have the S-006, which is two generations behind, and it still would have no problem.

Is this a type of image that has caused focus problems with your S in the past?

As a side note, for this shooting scenario I wouldn't bother with AF. I won't convince anyone to change their shooting style, but manually focusing allows me to react much faster to changes in the action. Let's say I wanted one of the side characters to be sharp instead, without changing the framing. I can nudge the focus manually in a fraction of a second. With AF, I need to either reframe, refocus, and go back to my initial frame, or try to convince the camera to stop looking at the pretty lady in the middle... It's a thankless task, arguing with a machine, and it is not something that I like to repeat hundreds of times over the course of a day (and same again the next weekend). Usually in my case it's not a Star Wars tribute extravaganza, but rather picking between the bride's eyes, the rings, the flowers, the officiant, the groom, etc, all of which are in the frame, and any of which could be the primary point of interest at a given time. You can play with focus points (for cameras like the SL that have more than one), or you can just focus and shoot. To me, playing with focus points is like taking your eyes off the road; you will miss something that you needed to see.

I used S 90% manual focus. I dare not to post that was not the cases to show off AF capability. However, understanding not everyone have the same experience, same eyesight and same manual focus skill, I didn't post. 

One minor issue with EVF based camera to capture action (include Sony I  had and Z7 and S1 I have) always is the shutter delay and LV feed delay. (As far as I know, A9 is the only one work well in this regard, almost zero capture delay(black out free) but still have EVF lag in tens of mS range)  The delay looks not significant by number but still noticeable and annoy me. It is fine for most cases that involve non-moving or slow moving subjects. Under good day light, Whenever I switch to bright OVF, it feel like open a bright window for me. It is a trade off like many things in life. I prefer to pick up S whenever it is possible.  

[chrismuc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I tried the S at the Photokina a few years ago when the 100 mm lens was released. Very unreliable AF result, even for a static object. Also the Leica sales rep tried and did not achieve better AF precision results. Later I rent an S from a dealer, that AF experience also did not convince me. I think, if Leica would add AF micro adjustment that would at least help in case of consistent back or front focus issues. 

[mmx_2]

5 hours ago, ZHNL said:

I used S 90% manual focus. I dare not to post that was not the cases to show off AF capability. However, understanding not everyone have the same experience, same eyesight and same manual focus skill, I didn't post. 

One minor issue with EVF based camera to capture action (include Sony I  had and Z7 and S1 I have) always is the shutter delay and LV feed delay. (As far as I know, A9 is the only one work well in this regard, almost zero capture delay(black out free) but still have EVF lag in tens of mS range)  The delay looks not significant by number but still noticeable and annoy me. It is fine for most cases that involve non-moving or slow moving subjects. Under good day light, Whenever I switch to bright OVF, it feel like open a bright window for me. It is a trade off like many things in life. I prefer to pick up S whenever it is possible.  

In this sense, Leica M is still  the only camera offering true “live view”😉. I have not tried A9 but your points above are the very exact reasons keeping me out of mirrorless. For certain things, the EVF works really well, but for me I don’t like to have a flickering screen that close to my eye and the black out is really annoying. The M is still a fantastic system and the OVF in the S just as fantastic!

[ZHNL]

2 hours ago, chrismuc said:

I tried the S at the Photokina a few years ago when the 100 mm lens was released. Very unreliable AF result, even for a static object. Also the Leica sales rep tried and did not achieve better AF precision results. Later I rent an S from a dealer, that AF experience also did not convince me. I think, if Leica would add AF micro adjustment that would at least help in case of consistent back or front focus issues. 

I actually agree with you about 100mm cron AF performance. I handled total 5 body 3 s007 and one S006 one S2. Until my very recent service of my brand new S007, it begin to AF reasonable well, still not 100% under all cases just you would expected from any SLR camera but at least no longer consistent front focus. 

this is one of the reason I don’t rely on S AF. Slow is another. However, I have to say other f2.5 lens seems works better. 

however, for manual focus Using with OVF, S system is to die for.  That is one reason why no other alternative for me. Of course lens rendering is another. 
 

after all these years with love or hate relationship, I finally get it that this is the system I truly love. I know I will regret if I change it. But that is me. 

[ZHNL]

2 hours ago, mmx_2 said:

In this sense, Leica M is still  the only camera offering true “live view”😉. I have not tried A9 but your points above are the very exact reasons keeping me out of mirrorless. For certain things, the EVF works really well, but for me I don’t like to have a flickering screen that close to my eye and the black out is really annoying. The M is still a fantastic system and the OVF in the S just as fantastic!

They are better and better with each generation but none of them there yet. I will not deny the benefit EVF based cameras bring but for shooting experience, S is still top, M Too. 

[xiaubauu2009]

Too many variable in SLR design, mirror seating, prism tolerance, relation of the sensor to the mirror to the AF module... anything off, it will be slight variation. And then the biggest problem is the AF module. As far I know, AF module is rated accurate to f2.8 (at least by those Canon/Nik Sports camera 1Dx/D5 type camera). So, f/2 is kind of pushing it. even f2.8 lens is not fool proof as the shallow depth of field of MF will suffer.

EVF's practically eliminate all those variables and as for delay in ms to the viewing time, I can understand, but you just adapt your shooting style to it, might not sound nice, but you just chimp, hahaha, Electronic shutter and away you go! Whereas inaccuracy to the AF of an SLR, the work around is just not as fool proof as with the EVF system. EVF is getting pretty close to perfect now and the benefit it brings is pretty significant particularly you are talking about high accuracy high resolution that MF can provide, and give confident each time as you can trust the system to work... 

[helged]

6 hours ago, xiaubauu2009 said:

Too many variable in SLR design, mirror seating, prism tolerance, relation of the sensor to the mirror to the AF module... anything off, it will be slight variation. And then the biggest problem is the AF module. As far I know, AF module is rated accurate to f2.8 (at least by those Canon/Nik Sports camera 1Dx/D5 type camera). So, f/2 is kind of pushing it. even f2.8 lens is not fool proof as the shallow depth of field of MF will suffer.

EVF's practically eliminate all those variables and as for delay in ms to the viewing time, I can understand, but you just adapt your shooting style to it, might not sound nice, but you just chimp, hahaha, Electronic shutter and away you go! Whereas inaccuracy to the AF of an SLR, the work around is just not as fool proof as with the EVF system. EVF is getting pretty close to perfect now and the benefit it brings is pretty significant particularly you are talking about high accuracy high resolution that MF can provide, and give confident each time as you can trust the system to work... 

Agree. But for static subjects, focus accuracy can be checked in live view, on the rear screen, on S007 and S3. I would like to have access to an add-on EVF a la those available for the M240/M10 bodies. On the S, even a little cable from the hdmi-port would be fine for many shooting situations. But Leica seems to think/argue otherwise... 

[xiaubauu2009]

4 minutes ago, helged said:

Agree. But for static subjects, focus accuracy can be checked in live view, on the rear screen, on S007 and S3. I would like to have access to an add-on EVF a la those available for the M240/M10 bodies. On the S, even a little cable from the hdmi-port would be fine for many shooting situations. But Leica seems to think/argue otherwise... 

I think anything added on to anything is like a bandaid... an after thought.... it actually make the product much worse than it is.... They could easily just fix this by dong a S mount mirror less that has the same flange mount (a bit stupid, but Sigma SD Quattro do the same thing), and gain the accuracy needed for MF...

I have recently starting to dive back into Film MF... (Fujifilm GF670 etc) and find that even with rangefinder, critical focus is hard without focus aid on a MF...

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!

Forbidden City, Beijing

Voigtlander Bessa III 667W (same as GF670W from fujifilm) Kodak Ektar 100, I think exposed to about 3mins

Edited November 14, 2019 by xiaubauu2009

[ZHNL]

7 hours ago, xiaubauu2009 said:

Too many variable in SLR design, mirror seating, prism tolerance, relation of the sensor to the mirror to the AF module... anything off, it will be slight variation. And then the biggest problem is the AF module. As far I know, AF module is rated accurate to f2.8 (at least by those Canon/Nik Sports camera 1Dx/D5 type camera). So, f/2 is kind of pushing it. even f2.8 lens is not fool proof as the shallow depth of field of MF will suffer.

EVF's practically eliminate all those variables and as for delay in ms to the viewing time, I can understand, but you just adapt your shooting style to it, might not sound nice, but you just chimp, hahaha, Electronic shutter and away you go! Whereas inaccuracy to the AF of an SLR, the work around is just not as fool proof as with the EVF system. EVF is getting pretty close to perfect now and the benefit it brings is pretty significant particularly you are talking about high accuracy high resolution that MF can provide, and give confident each time as you can trust the system to work... 

For landscape shooting, any camera will work. S007 have LV sensor based CDAF. you get perfect sharp images if you take the time. Actually, with all 3 S007 I handled, I could just use LCD shooting 100cron at f2 and put my focus point anywhere in frame and get sharp results if you forget all about shooting experience such as delay, black out etc... 

For real landscape shooting, under good to decent light as above images, I think any camera will work in term of focus, you agree? For S, I simple pick a hyper focus point, determine DOF requirement to set aperture, focus WO use OVF and shoot, there is zero chance you miss focused with a decent in spec camera. (no need for even perfect in spec camera like 100cron WO required.)

For studio, product etc, just lift the mirror, use it as EVF camera, you done. 

Not to say which way is better but obviously you see there are still people prefer one way or the others. For dynamic portrait shooting, I just don't see any MF is better than S IMHO.  

Edited November 14, 2019 by ZHNL

[xiaubauu2009]

2 hours ago, ZHNL said:

For landscape shooting, any camera will work. S007 have LV sensor based CDAF. you get perfect sharp images if you take the time. Actually, with all 3 S007 I handled, I could just use LCD shooting 100cron at f2 and put my focus point anywhere in frame and get sharp results if you forget all about shooting experience such as delay, black out etc... 

For real landscape shooting, under good to decent light as above images, I think any camera will work in term of focus, you agree? For S, I simple pick a hyper focus point, determine DOF requirement to set aperture, focus WO use OVF and shoot, there is zero chance you miss focused with a decent in spec camera. (no need for even perfect in spec camera like 100cron WO required.)

For studio, product etc, just lift the mirror, use it as EVF camera, you done. 

Not to say which way is better but obviously you see there are still people prefer one way or the others. For dynamic portrait shooting, I just don't see any MF is better than S IMHO.  

agree.

[bilbrown]

I was really considering this topic. Considering getting rid of my S body and three lenses for the SL2 - as I am also an SL owner and have invested in the L Mount system also across Lumix and Sigma (as of Sunday I also have the Sigma fp). So I have a great deal more L mount lenses and adapters than I do most anything else.

I also have a Pentax 645Z as a medium format backup to my S, and that is larger or the same resolution as the SL2 at 50MP.

 

Here is what I think...

 

If you want a fast mirrorless camera with high resolution up to 3200 ISO (more on this later), you want to use a WIDE variety of lenses including RF lenses that are "almost" as good as on an M, and you want to print large or do some streaming video at 4-5K with IBIS handheld but with an external monitor (no flippy screen), then the SL2 is your camera. Not the equally high MP S1R, not the original SL, not the FP, not the S1H - the SL2. It's "good enough" for all of that, if not best in class... for what it is.

 

But that ISN'T what the S system is.

 

Leica made the S as a competitor to Hasselblad when Dr. Kaufman couldn't buy it more or less. It was, like many things in Leica's history, a first of its kind - a sort of hybrid DSLR and Medium Format product that had the same crop factor as 35MM film and a larger sensor. The S STILL remains UNIQUE on the landscape of Medium Format digital cameras for a few reasons. Its philosophy is rather different than the Sony, Fuji, and yes now even Leica 2019 market.

 

Up until very recently, Leica unlike all of its competitors, was exceptionally conservative with its technology choices - preferring to optimize quality over "features" and made very unique offerings that were "luxury-like", but still very reliable to the small group of people that would use them. Think of Apple before essentially beat the shit out of Microsoft, those of us in design and photography still used them, but you wouldn't see the Apple logo on every single table of every single coffeehouse in every single town across the world. We knew that we were paying for the logo, but what that meant was we were also paying for the "better" experience - which was proven later when everyone wanted one. When Apple decided to make a successful line of laptops for pros and everyone and then the iPhone and iPad. Leica, for better or for worse, is on that path with its L mount line. The S... well it's a "Mac Pro". You pay a premium, the device has a shelf life, isnt really modular (neither is the Fuji GX series) and well, you get a solid camera that you can use for years that performs what its CORE value is in the way it was designed.

 

The S isnt a system for everyone. It's not meant to be.

 

Now, from what I have heard on who this system is aimed at - the pro or hobbyist with deep pockets that could afford a say Hassy or a Phase One system - that market is not exactly suffering. The IQ of the current S when put up against higher MP backs of its same generation like the Phase IQ 50 or the Sony designed 50MP because of the lenses if not market competitive, on the IQ front is equal if not better. How do I know? Because the folks in my group of working pros and I have shot the same things with their systems and I get a very unique look with my S - Both the CCD and CMOS varieties. The lenses, as has been said here, are not the technically *perfect* L mount Leica variety - but they are absolutely UNIQUE on the market. No there isnt OIS, but there is a leaf style shutter, no there isn't APOCHROMATIC perfection - but do you ALWAYS want a perfect clean image, every single time (?), no the AF isn't the fastest - but with that optical VF you can hit your focus unless you just can't see. It's handling is great. its menu system is FAST. Is it as fast as a mirrorless? No. Is it as fast as a DSLR? No. Does it matter to most of its customers? No, not at all.

 

We who want an S know what we are getting into with the S. I'm a photographer, I'm not personally competing with some engineers at some camera company. I'm making images. Thats all I want to *focus* on.

 

Now, that said. I think its absolutely essential that you know what you want out of your camera system (s). I personally want a M to be like the M10, but don't hate the M240/M246. I don't know if I want more than 24 MP on a Full Frame sensor. I like having high ISO options instead of fast glass. I like to get my focus fast. I like the "just right" MP of a 24MP sensor on a FF camera. I like the SL typ 601 because it has that style of sensor and I can use more than just the L mount lenses and feel like I have an optimized sensor. I think that the 47 MP sensor may even be BETTER for M lenses, for some applications, but I like going the ISO 6400 and beyond with the "smaller cameras". But do I need or want high resolution on a FF when I have a larger sensor camera or cameras for that? Maybe if the SL were my ONLY precision SLR, I may want the higher MP. maybe if I needed or wanted some of its features. I also don't rely or even like autofocus that much, on ANY camera... so the SL is a different tool for me. I want to use my existing lenses. I have what I need. I am interested but not quite ready to upgrade (but I may do it anyway, we will see). The M is the perfect FF camera for the type of work I like to do with an M, and the SL has always been used as the Swiss-German Army Knife for everything else with a fast shutter when I needed that. Owning a Leica has meant that you don't HAVE to update your body when a new one comes out, only if you WANT to. How many original SL's will stay in use? How many S2/S typ 006 are still being used? What you have is the best of its class at the time and onward. Hell, I even still shoot the M8, M9, original Monochrom if the look requires it. We will update when we update, get what we need when it seems like we need it. Its an illusion that we need anything else to make what we make in 2019. That said...

 

The S... well, the S is my *money shot*. I have gotten images out of the S I could NEVER get with any other system. That was worth the price of admission, and also worth the depreciation, which has been incredibly fast. Because 37MP has been good since 2009, and will be good until I decide to upgrade to 64/100/whatever, its fine for MOST things, and my lenses will still be some of the best in the business until we move entirely to computational photography (and when that happens, I am happy to have my *legacy* Leica tech). We had issues with AF in the S lenses for some time, I think mostly that has been addressed since like 2017. The S3 update looks to be a good one, and although there are "technical" details being perfected in Wetzlar, I don't mind waiting. Hell, I may not even update for some time.

 

And if I get the SL2, well I might go ahead and get that S adapter L too, because I like my S lenses that much. I used it on the SL 2 and the AF was excellent. it will crop in but maybe that's ok.

 

Last thought: Do we always need the latest tech to get the best images? I don't think so, I just think we need the best for what it is and for how we want to shoot. You can choose to keep up with it, or you can just make the best images you can with the best equipment you have.

[Jan1985]

You are totally right. It's a bit of a weird viewpoint on digital cameras nowadays. If I want to shoot Tri-X 400 I just with Tri-X 400. And the same analogy stands for the S. I want an "S-Film" I use the S... Nothing more than that. 

And I can tell you... Recently I made a lot of big prints from my portrait works... And when I look at them I don't miss anything to have a Phase One or GFX or something... I appreciate this look and I will would appreciate in 5 years in terms of quality and look. If I will like the certain photograph in 5 years is another story.

[bilbrown]

Oh and on the ISO issue I mentioned above...

 

I am not highly impressed with the ISO of these 47MP sensors on FF. I don't like to "pixel peep" but honestly there is something to be said for the 24MP sensor optimization over 47MP right now. Its like going back to the M240s sensor, and that is really odd. Now Leica did something *cool* with their rendition of the same type of sensor as say the Lumix S1R, taking off a layer of glass and making the sensor a little bigger than the Lumix. It renders pretty well in the limited tests I have seen and did myself with the SL2 at the Leica Store LA, but around ISO 1600.. it starts to not defocus, but render unusable details if you zoom in at 100%. Even the SL1 and Q do better, even the M240 and especially the M10 do better in low light situations. Its weird...

Corner to corner however, the SL2 sensor seems to be 100% better with even vintage glass or non optimized M glass. I tried it with the Noctilux at f0.95 and the detail was incredible, of you stayed between ISO 100-ISO 640, and in that its like film or the S CCD sensor - but with cinematic video added. I like the cine profiles of the SL2, they are rock solid and I think likely based on the ASC M10P profiles, because they do indeed look cinematic. The AF looks almost exactly like the Lumix S series AF, and I have an S1 and well, I'd rather focus manually... its OK in a pinch, but not anything to write home about. Its better than the SL1, maybe, but then I never used continuous AF on the SL1 and I had zero problems with AF L mount lenses.

 

The SL2 is a solid camera, no doubt. For those that want all of the things it adds to the Leica ecosystem its the camera to get. For me, again, maybe - maybe not. I don't mind knowing the quirks of my cameras to get the best results for me, and in that the S is just fine.

[bilbrown]

5 minutes ago, Jan1985 said:

You are totally right. It's a bit of a weird viewpoint on digital cameras nowadays. If I want to shoot Tri-X 400 I just with Tri-X 400. And the same analogy stands for the S. I want an "S-Film" I use the S... Nothing more than that. 

And I can tell you... Recently I made a lot of big prints from my portrait works... And when I look at them I don't miss anything to have a Phase One or GFX or something... I appreciate this look and I will would appreciate in 5 years in terms of quality and look. If I will like the certain photograph in 5 years is another story.

 

 

Right, can we just be like the old days and *know* our systems to the point to where we accept their very minimal imperfections and MAYBE even utilize them?

For someone choosing over an SL2 and a S typ 007, I would say - rent or borrow BOTH and shoot them BOTH and see which one has the IMAGE QUALITY you want. You can evidently pick up an S on the used market for about what you would spend on a SL2 and 24-90 L, maybe even less. Get the 70 (50 equivalent) and you have a system that isnt THAT heavy and you have medium format quality in a Leica.

 

 

All this said, if full frame is fine for what you do, you are totally imbedded in the Leica ecosystem of lenses (or even M mount) then the SL2 is a no brainer. But if you want to have something you won't mid keep using as a primary camera for a decade... the S is one of those cameras.

 

I support Leica going forward, but I also know that we got something badass for what it was at the time. The best of the tech at the price point.

 

Oh, and as for the VIDEO on the S typ 007, I know a lot of people *scoffed* at the specs at first. I will refute that. I shot some close up scenes with it AS IS, hand held in 4K. Some of the best footage I had. I also used TWO SL1s on that same shoot. This was a year or so ago. I just took the unused footage and made a little montage story and I have to say, it holds up. Contrasty, and maybe not what a video editor wants all the time, but its a *look* and in that it is A-OK. I more look forward to what the S3 can do with full frame video with its LARGE sensor and lenses than the FF SL2, with 100MPS and all of the current bevy of functions. Not that I wouldn't be happy with it. If people really want that fully functioning professional cinematic video they likely won't choose an SL2, they will go for the S1H if they want to stick with L mount glass. I don't like the Lumix S1H color science, although for professional settings it is the only Mirrorless that is spec at Netflix. It might be a better option for people that want that. For a cinematographer that wants a directors viewfinder and on set camera, I think the SL2 is a fine hybrid video camera! I just wish it did RAW so it could be usable in a number of settings - even DNG RAW, 12bit like the Sigma fp.. but, hey there are firmware updates, no? I never liked L log, but I *DO* LOVE the color science of Leica...

 

Speaking of that color science, the S is STILL the best IMHO.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stuart Richardson]

I think you are right that we are nearing (or already at) a plateau. Digital camera technology with pro cameras has been "good enough" for the vast majority of normal uses for a number of years now. There have been more improvements in camera usage (better EVFs, video, high iso, connectivity etc), but in general, a Nikon D800, Leica S006 or Sony A7R will satisfy the image quality needs of most users printing up to 100cm wide. So in that case, I would completely agree that it is better to stick with something you like. I have been using the S006 for six years now because nothing came along that beat it for me. At the moment, however, I think my sensor is showing its age (and/or it needs calibration)...I get more noise than I remember when lifting the shadows, and sometimes I get subtle color shifts between the two sides of the centerfold of the chips. Additionally, in my studio work I would really like live view, and in my exhibition work I could really appreciate more resolution (I have done some work from the S at 170x140cm in a 4x5 crop, and that pushes it to the limit....I know for most it does not matter, but I would love that extra resolution, especially as I usually crop to 4x5). 

I do agree about color science...I have yet to see a digital camera that has better color, though I have to admit that the Panasonic S1 has impressed me. It is the only other digital camera I have used that is not a Leica, where the color looks right to me. I am using the Camera Natural profile, which I found to be very pleasing. 

In any case, we have somewhat of an embarrassment of riches at the moment. The S is one of the best cameras ever made if you take it as a package. The integration of the system is second to none, the VF superb, the lenses are great, battery life is superb, weather sealing, image quality, selectable focal plane or leaf shutters...the color science, image quality...it is hard to achieve these things, even with technology which is a decade or more newer. Outside of the S, the rest of the industry has come a very long way with their lens quality and system quality as well, so whether you want to shoot an SL, Fuji G system or Sony/Canon/Nikon etc, it is more than likely that you will be able to find a body and lens combination that will give spectacular results. Better to just try to evaluate it on the basis of your use and your needs, rather than try to justify to the world why it is the best and only choice.