Is the release of the S3 imminent?

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here are a couple of articles on the S3 which makes me wonder if its release is imminent.  One of the articles frets that 64 MP may not be enough for a medium format camera. 

Leica has its reasons for not getting sucked in to the medium format megapixel arms race and I would guess that they are well thought out.  100+ MP seems to be the holy grail for some who fetishize megapixel count, but is 100 MP even practical for most applications?

How many people are even making prints these days, let alone house sized prints?

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/its-aliiiiiiive-the-64mp-leica-s3-medium-format-camera-resurfaces

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/hands-on-review-leica-s3

Edited January 28, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

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

[mgrayson3]

I like 37.5 MP. Going to 50 MP wasn't too different. 100MP is too much. What do you do when the dust speck is actually a sharply defined airplane? It forces me to think what detail I want in the image, and not just include every possible feature. It's similar to 5 stop shadow lifting. Sometimes shadows should be dark. In fact, they should always be dark. But give someone a sensor with 15 stops of DR and suddenly there is visible detail everywhere.

Well, we'll see. I still have all my S gear... 

[hoppyman]

That first article just looks like reposting for the rumour site, with nothing new. I personally think it’s a bit arrogant of that site to be claiming ownership of the images (they lifted from somewhere) by superimposing their name on them.

[thighslapper]

1 hour ago, mgrayson3 said:

I like 37.5 MP. Going to 50 MP wasn't too different. 100MP is too much. What do you do when the dust speck is actually a sharply defined airplane? It forces me to think what detail I want in the image, and not just include every possible feature. It's similar to 5 stop shadow lifting. Sometimes shadows should be dark. In fact, they should always be dark. But give someone a sensor with 15 stops of DR and suddenly there is visible detail everywhere.

Well, we'll see. I still have all my S gear... 

yes....... achieving 15 stops of DR with ever shrinking pixels sizes will run into the buffers sometime soon as the number of photons available to capture just gets fewer and fewer ... so random 'shot' noise starts to mar performance. You can achieve more with higher dynamic range than you can with increased resolution. Unfortunately the number of pixels figure sells more cameras than dynamic range one.  

[Stuart Richardson]

Lots of people are making prints these days, and if anything, they are bigger. The difference is amateurs and the general public are not making prints. But in terms of sale of art, prints are still all over the place and if anything, bigger and bigger due to the higher quality of digital cameras and and wide format inkjet printing. Also advances in printing on other substrates, such as canvas, washi, aluminium and aluminium composites, wood, glass etc. Some photographic art has certainly embraced digital projection or moved into video, but slide projection and cinema work are not new either. I have noticed in my own clients as a printer for the last ten years that print sizes have increased with camera quality. It is not everyone or every job, but it is certainly being driven partially by the fact that the cameras are able to make bigger and better prints than they could even five years ago. This is more noticeable on the consumer and prosumer end than it is on the high end....

[davidmknoble]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Lots of people are making prints these days, and if anything, they are bigger. The difference is amateurs and the general public are not making prints. But in terms of sale of art, prints are still all over the place and if anything, bigger and bigger due to the higher quality of digital cameras and and wide format inkjet printing. Also advances in printing on other substrates, such as canvas, washi, aluminium and aluminium composites, wood, glass etc. Some photographic art has certainly embraced digital projection or moved into video, but slide projection and cinema work are not new either. I have noticed in my own clients as a printer for the last ten years that print sizes have increased with camera quality. It is not everyone or every job, but it is certainly being driven partially by the fact that the cameras are able to make bigger and better prints than they could even five years ago. This is more noticeable on the consumer and prosumer end than it is on the high end....

I agree @Stuart Richardson   Mys,elf, I have gone from 13 x 19 to 17 x 22 and larger sized books.  But I also agree that too many pixels causes tonal problems.  I like the s007 sensor size and dynamic range. Will be interesting to see where the S3 really lands 

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, thighslapper said:

yes....... achieving 15 stops of DR with ever shrinking pixels sizes will run into the buffers sometime soon as the number of photons available to capture just gets fewer and fewer ... so random 'shot' noise starts to mar performance. You can achieve more with higher dynamic range than you can with increased resolution. Unfortunately the number of pixels figure sells more cameras than dynamic range one.  

That's what I'm thinking.  There has to be a balance between pixel size and dynamic range capability.

Leica seems to understand that, even though a lot of consumers and marketing departments apparently do not.  Frantically throwing more megapixels at consumers in the interest of capturing a larger slice of the market share pie is not conducive to enhanced image quality, which is counterproductive in the long run.

Balanced performance is the key. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[frame-it]

15 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

even though a lot of consumers and marketing departments apparently do not. 

they do understand...a bit too well ...more MP leads to more new computers, (indirectly) newer GPUs/CPUs, new faster disks, high capacity SSDs, development of faster SD/CF cards, therefore more purchases, money keeps rolling...the marketing is gift wrapped nicely for the average consumer to lap up and thus spend a money

[albireo_double]

These debates about how many pixels are too much and that they are only useful when you print large have been with us since the beginning of digital photography and bring nothing new (are there new generations of photographers that take over making these arguments every 5 years or so, or is it still the same people as 15 years ago?). I am OK with the 37.5MP of the S007 but I often crop to 4:3 or even 5:4 nowadays and, when I do that, I already loose quite a lot of those MP. Add to it a bit of cropping and suddenly, my ability to print large is not as impressive as it sounded before. Even then, I can print 60x80cm without issues, so no big deal. Having said that, from experience shooting with a 100MP digital back, my view about "too much resolution" is that (a) high resolution, on full frame MFD sensor, is great if I can shoot on a tripod or with strobes... I love 100MP in a Phase One camera in the context of an organised shoot, with lighting equipment, tethering to a computer etc., (properly focused and exposed images from that system are jaw-dropping on the screen, and there are no "tonal problems" anywhere in sight), (b) even 40-50MP from an FF system (read SL2) is often too much when I shoot handheld, e.g. holiday snaps, pictures of my kids, anywhere with poor lighting etc. (24MP being the sweet spot for those situations). The S system falls between these two extreme usage scenarios - can serve well in a studio but also handheld outside (can even take great pictures of kids, dogs and cats as we are often reminded on this forum). In fact, I think the S is the best MFD system to use outdoors, for adventure style travel, climbing, canoeing, taking the super-jeep up some glacier in Iceland etc. So 64MP looks like a good solution...but should at the very least employ a correspondingly bigger buffer, even if they don't upgrade the processor (I still remember the S2 days when I had to tell my model to stop posing because my Eur20k camera can't write the images fast enough).  But of course, all this extra resolution will only impose more demand on technique...so, at this point I am probably not going to buy the S3, because, even if I ignore the likely high cost, I am not sure I want significantly higher resolution in a camera that I love using handheld. The people looking to use the S in the studio or mostly on a tripod may see things differently.

[Flu]

I don’t often print due to not having anything truly worth printing. That said, when I do finally get something worthy, I will only choose to print 60X40 as the smallest size. And at the 60X40 size with the current S 007’s 37.5 megapixels, I can already stand as close as my human eyes can focus (about 1 foot away) and still see incredible detail and amazing print quality! So IMO tho a small bump in MP is nice, it is not more pixels we need in the S3, it’s everything else.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Flu

[Stuart Richardson]

I think there are a number of things here that I think are a little misleading. 

1. "More pixels means worse tonality." In fact, it is the opposite. The more pixels you have, the more individual tonal variations are possible to represent. The exception to this is if noise is not properly controlled, in which case noise can interfere. But in modern full sized cameras at reasonable ISOs, more megapixels correlates to better tonality. It was the same in film...645 had better tonality than 35mm. 6x7 had better than 645, 4x5 better than 6x7 and 8x10 better than 4x5...

2. "Higher megapixels means you need better technique". Only if you want to extract more information...if you were ok with the resolution you got from a lower res sensor at a certain shutter speed, it will be the same on a higher megapixel camera, only that you will see deeper into the photo to notice the blur. But that does not stop you from using it as you used the old camera and printing it the same size. In other words you don't lose any ability to handheld, you just gain the potential for more resolution in better conditions. If you just want to shoot it like your old camera, just downsample it to the original size. Or better yet, don't buy it at all.

The S system as been at 37.5 megapixels for 11-12 years. Bumping it up to 64mp is not going to kill anyone. If you do not need it, stick with the 007, as it seems to be nearly the same camera with a lower resolution sensor. You will save thousands and thousands of dollars if you do not need or want the extra resolution. Personally, I cannot wait, primarily because I do print very large and these days I am often shooting to a 4x5 aspect ratio. Phase One or Fuji might make sense for me on paper, but I am very happy with the S in terms of handling and image quality, so rather than cash out of the system (and take a large loss on phenomenal glass), I am excited that Leica is finally increasing the resolution to a quite conservative level for current medium format cameras. If you need a camera with all the latest bells and whistles, then Fuji, Sony, Panasonic or the SL2 is a better choice. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[Milan_S]

I am sure the S3 will be a wonderful camera keeping the OVF, great battery life and wonderful lenses. Leica is going their own road with their Medium Format System and not looking at competitors who all dived into the EVF MF systems. Having ditched my HB X1D again for the S system, I feel a wonderful robust system without the quirks of the X1D with great battery life and gorgeous files and rendering. I feel the S is a classic camera, but I am affraid the S3 will not attract new buyers I think mostly the die hard S users (as myself) will upgrade to the newer S3 and the S3 might be the last S as we know it...

[LocalHero1953]

I'm hoping the launch of the S3 will bring a flood of used S007s to the market at prices I can justify to my finance manager. For what I want it for (portraits) I don't need exceptional low light performance or more pixels.

[Jeff S]

 

15 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

1. "More pixels means worse tonality." In fact, it is the opposite. The more pixels you have, the more individual tonal variations are possible to represent.....

.....

It was the same in film...645 had better tonality than 35mm. 6x7 had better than 645, 4x5 better than 6x7 and 8x10 better than 4x5...

 

But you’re mixing issues.  Bigger sensors (negatives) typically yield better tonality, among other things.  More MP (film crystals) most notably yield higher resolution.  While there is often a correlation between larger formats and more pixels, the size (and other characteristics) of those light gathering pixels also matters.

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

It does. And I agree that all else being equal (or similar), the larger sensors with the same megapixels as smaller sensors will also have better tonality. I just think that in the case of the S, going from 37.5mp to 64mp is highly unlikely to result in a loss of tonality, and is, quite the opposite, most likely going to increase the tonality. In the same way that going to a 400 speed film to a 100 speed film will give you better tonality. The sensitivity may go down slightly, but the resolution and tonality goes up. This is basically the same thing here, only the new sensor is of a newer generation and with better specs, so it is unlikely that you will lose anything. The top ISO in the S3 is 50,000 vs 6400 in the 007, and assuming that Leica is being as conservative as they usually are with these things, it stands to reason that the S3 has a better high ISO performance than the S007 despite the higher resolution sensor. One can hope that it will have both better resolution and better tonality. The S3 has 4.59 micron pixels, compared to for example 3.73 microns in the Sony A7RIV and 3.76 microns in the Fuji GFX 100. They are not really pushing the boundaries of sensor technology in that sense...it is a reasonably conservative pixel pitch. Keep in mind as well that the sensor in the 007 was developed in 2013 or so, as the camera was launched in 2014. The one in the S3 is probably 4 years newer, which is rather long in sensor design years.

On a more fundamental level, more megapixels gives you a higher sample rate and allows for more accurate representation of color and tone. The more pixels, the more accurately the Bayer filter will work, the lower the incidence of moire or false color and simply the higher number of samples per given area of the image. 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[davidmknoble]

So, in general here we are talking about very small differences between S007 and S3.  They exist, but are much smaller than in the past due to technology≥. However, I do not think we can compare digital technology to silver halide and chemistry.  I still shoot Kodak Tri X 400 at 200 and 800.  The tonality is a function of light and chemicals and at 200 I get more tones than at 800 - a function of the light.  in a sensor it is based on buckets that capture the light and spill over into other buckets.  

I have been shooting the M10M for about 3 days now and used both the M9M and M246.  What I am noticing is that the images at higher ISO look much better than previous models, but that is because the pixels are smaller.  I.e., they look better on my 27” screen than the M246 on my 27” screen.  So, for the same size image, it “appears” to be less noise and banding is less noticable until the ISO gets higher.

But, the best dynamic range is still at base ISO, just like the S007. The shadows on the M10M also appear to be more pliable and I can pull more out of the shadows than the M246, just like the M246 did with the M9.  But, as I look at the image, its the same noise concept.  The original M9M had more noise in the shadows, hence less ability to bring them up.  But it was an 18mp sensor, then 24 and now 40.  At the same viewing sizes, the noise is just less noticable.

So, even with newer technology, we reach a point where pixel size and perception of noise will reach a maximum.  The great news is that we are talking about very small differences and all the images look great.  I will probably keep the S007 for now because it does such a great job at my print sizes (17x22) so I have plenty of room left cropped or otherwise.  I like the idea that I’ll also be able to take the M10M with me, but I still have to get used to processing those files.

Edited January 31, 2020 by davidmknoble

[Sarnian]

https://www.leicastoremanchester.com/leica-s3.html

You can put down a £2,000 deposit, but: "Deposits are non refundable". Ouch! 🤯

 

[Deliberate1]

15 minutes ago, Sarnian said:

https://www.leicastoremanchester.com/leica-s3.html

You can put down a £2,000 deposit, but: "Deposits are non refundable". Ouch! 🤯

 

The word chutzpah comes to mind when contemplating a store that asks for a non-refundable deposit on a camera that has not been released at a price that has yet to be disclosed.

And noodnick is the word that comes to mind to describe someone who would do it.

David

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Deliberate1 said:

And noodnick is the word that comes to mind to describe someone who would do it.

 

More shnook (foolish) than nudnik (irritating),  I think.

I would not build a relationship with a dealer that used this practice.

Jeff

[Sarnian]

When I think of a deposit I usually think in terms of 10%. If that's what Leica is also thinking then the S3 could be listed at £20,000.