Links to S3 Reviews

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I print large prints all the time. For example, yesterday I printed 8 100x150 prints and 8 100x70 prints for a client's exhibition. He was using a Ricoh GR3 for that size work and was very happy, so people clearly have different tastes and understanding at what constitutes an acceptable print. I think a preference for either the SL2 look or S look is taste driven more than overall quality driven. I also might not be surprised if clients preferred LeicaR10´s work on one system or the other because he works differently or feels subconsciously better using it or processing it. Or it could be that his clients indeed prefer the slightly lower contrast, smooth rendering of the S cameras with S lenses. The differences are real and demonstrable, so people will have an opinion either way. I agree with Jeff, however, that it is not an objective difference, but a subjective one.

[Milan_S]

I also prefer the output of the S system and lenses compared to the too clinical look of the SL(2) with SL primes

The larger sensor of the S really makes the files shine 

[Jon Warwick]

I do wonder if some of these differences in views are highly related to post processing, especially with regards to contrast and sharpening. After processing files from SL2 (and S006, S007 and X1D), I think the SL2 output is inherently quite high contrast and what I’ve seen of the SL primes only exacerbates that ....but it’s just a starting point, and one that I think can be tamed in post, especially being careful to tame the contrast and to tame the acuity (via de minimis sharpening in post).

I sometimes take this type of thing to the extreme, and pick the same scene on film from my 5x4 (which is about as cinematic / non-clinical as one can get ....) and try to get output from my M240 and SL2 to match that “look”. I found much of it also came down to taming contrast and lifting the deep blacks of the native digital files. 

 

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I agree with Jeff, however, that it is not an objective difference, but a subjective one.

That isn’t really my main point, which is more about user ability to control/change  output. Jon Warwick’s post above gets to it, as one possible PP approach.

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

Ok, then I misinterpreted. I agree that processing is extremely important, but I think there are certain inherent characteristics that are difficult to supersede. They mostly have to do with the inherent behaviors of the lenses, the depth of field renderings of the different formats, and the character of the individual pixels themselves, which can vary a bit between cameras.

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, Jeff S said:

That isn’t really my main point, which is more about user ability to control/change  output. Jon Warwick’s post above gets to it, as one possible PP approach.

You could spend a good amount of time getting the S look with an SL2 (or other full-frame 35mm), and maybe you would be successful in some cases. You could also make a single violin sound like a full orchestra, I suppose.

I'm not convinced that this makes the S any less of a useful tool, or that it is relevant to the S's target audience. I'm sure many of us went through the same thing in the film era: you can spend weeks in the dark, trying to make a 35mm shot look like something bigger. Or you can nail it in a sixtieth with a Yashicamat... I went through a phase where I did the opposite: making posed 6x7 colour negs look like 35mm snapshots. In a way, that series succeeded because it failed; the prints look like snaps at first, and then you notice that they aren't.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, BernardC said:

You could spend a good amount of time getting the S look with an SL2 (or other full-frame 35mm), and maybe you would be successful in some cases. You could also make a single violin sound like a full orchestra, I suppose.

I'm not convinced that this makes the S any less of a useful tool, or that it is relevant to the S's target audience. I'm sure many of us went through the same thing in the film era: you can spend weeks in the dark, trying to make a 35mm shot look like something bigger. Or you can nail it in a sixtieth with a Yashicamat... I went through a phase where I did the opposite: making posed 6x7 colour negs look like 35mm snapshots. In a way, that series succeeded because it failed; the prints look like snaps at first, and then you notice that they aren't.

With my own shooting and printing, I never try to make something look like something else; I try to make it look great, based on my own interpretation and assessment, using the tools at hand.

Jeff

[ropo54]

16 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

With my own shooting and printing, I never try to make something look like something else; I try to make it look great, based on my own interpretation and assessment, using the tools at hand.

Jeff

As you have frequently advised others, you might try renting the S and evaluating for yourself whether you are able to create more appealing images. Perhaps you'll  find no meaningful advantage, but that would provide you with an answer (for your own uses).

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, ropo54 said:

As you have frequently advised others, you might try renting the S and evaluating for yourself whether you are able to create more appealing images. Perhaps you'll  find no meaningful advantage, but that would provide you with an answer (for your own uses).

I did... had the S006 for 10 days. And more briefly demoed the S007.  My points here are general, not related to any issues I have with either the S or SL systems, both of which are superb, and fully capable of fitting into a workflow that results in superb (or mediocre) pictures and prints.  FWIW, I did the same with the X1D, GFX and others.  My issues, with systems at this quality level, generally have less to do with IQ, and more about lens options, ergonomics, control interfaces, viewing and focusing, reliability, etc.

Jeff

Edited May 19, 2020 by Jeff S

[ZHNL]

I can see the difference myself with WO open shooting or I think I can which is enough for me. but at f8 or f11, I will not survive blind test with similar resolution sensor and high qualify gears . I doubt anyone can.  

S's main attraction to me is a system with a similar rendering cross focal which is difficult to assembly before I guess, especially at the time that S was popular. Then, I agree with Jeff that there is more than just IQ, what about ergo, UI, viewing etc...That is main attraction keep me happy with S, and I am happy, I can make better images. 

At this level, there is no objectively better, only objectively difference which is justified by you as subjectively better. 

I am not the one shooting for living myself but I would imagine as an artist, I don't need my clients to tell what is better! and I am sure I trust myself more than clients or internet experts :)   

There is really no definite answer and I do think some gear do help to achieve the goal for certain type of photography, S may or may not be the one though. 

[dritz]

On 5/18/2020 at 5:52 PM, Jeff S said:

So 3 systems, 3 renderings. Good to know. My viewers and customers have no idea what gear I use; no correlation between gear used and picture/print preferences.  David and Josh sell gear. That requires specific distinctions.  At the end of the S discussion, David chuckled and noted that it was hard parsing the small differences at the level all this gear obtains. And that's without even getting into critical user related factors, which was my point.  As I like to repeat, the most important tools remain between the ears. But that doesn't sell gear.

Jeff

When I shot slides, my wife instantly knew which lenses were APO, ASPH, or classical.  She knows nothing about cameras, btw. She sees the difference.\

Of course, Leica projector and lenses helpful!

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, dritz said:

When I shot slides, my wife instantly knew which lenses were APO, ASPH, or classical.  She knows nothing about cameras, btw. She sees the difference.\

Of course, Leica projector and lenses helpful!

That’s one reason I prefer making my own prints.

Jeff

Edited May 22, 2020 by Jeff S

[Guest BlackBarn]

On 5/18/2020 at 12:24 PM, LeicaR10 said:

Every photographer has their own needs and wants.

I don’t own a S  or SL2 (SL owner) however intuitively the photos from the S forum speak more to me even though  they are in or around the same subject matter and sometimes by the same photographer found on other forums. 

When taking your ‘client hat ‘ off  and simply taking pictures for yourself, is there a situation where your preference would be the SL2 over the S?

[LeicaR10]

BlackBarn,  First, to answer your question in your above post to me, my answer is; No.  For me personally, I liked the SL over the SL2 for rendering.  The S is a different class unto itself. Only the size and weight of the S system isn't easy on my aging body and often have my two college assistants helping me when I am out doing adverse terrain and remote client driven landscape work, i.e., pack mules..LOL.  IMO, the S is the best system for very large print landscape photography.  I have been a multi-decade user of Leica cameras and lenses.  Before that, Nikon, Canon, Contax 645 with Phase One P45 back.  I moved to the Leica R and then M, S and later SL.  Never went back to other brands be they film or digital.  Each camera system has pros and cons.  My clients needs and wants require the S system. I tried the SL and then SL2 but as you know, found my clients rejected the photographs because they don't like the "perfect" or too "real" rendering.  My clients prefer a cinematic and character afforded by the S sensor and S lenses.  Personally, I like the M10-P and M10-M best.  Before that, the M240 and M246.  For me, these M cameras, M lenses and Q render in a way that appeals to me.  The SL system both SL and SL2 are superb and SL lens technologically state of the art.  But for me, the light weight, intuitive M cameras and lenses work for me when I am out and about doing my personal photography.  I also don't need more MPs for my personal photographs; 24 MPs and current M lenses more than do the job and lets me tell stories through the content of my photographs. Last, long answer I know, but thank you for asking my preferences.  r/ Mark

Edited May 23, 2020 by LeicaR10

[Guest BlackBarn]

2 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

long answer

Hi  Mark,

Thank you for taking the time to answer and I appreciate the weight of your response......finding it valuable.

pete 

[John Smith]

On 5/19/2020 at 3:46 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I print large prints all the time. For example, yesterday I printed 8 100x150 prints and 8 100x70 prints for a client's exhibition. He was using a Ricoh GR3 for that size work and was very happy, so people clearly have different tastes and understanding at what constitutes an acceptable print. I think a preference for either the SL2 look or S look is taste driven more than overall quality driven. I also might not be surprised if clients preferred LeicaR10´s work on one system or the other because he works differently or feels subconsciously better using it or processing it. Or it could be that his clients indeed prefer the slightly lower contrast, smooth rendering of the S cameras with S lenses. The differences are real and demonstrable, so people will have an opinion either way. I agree with Jeff, however, that it is not an objective difference, but a subjective one.

Well put.

[tom0511]

This thread indicates my impression: There are (still) quite some people who appreciate the rendering of the S lenses/ S sensor an think that it is special.

I include myself. Trying out all kinds of other stuff the S is still my choice in this regard (what some describe as "cinematic" rendering, whatever it means).

 

I hope we will see more experience reports from S3 users as well.

[LeicaR10]

Tom0511,  My experience with the S3 so far is very similar to the S007.  I like how the sensor handles dark clothing much better, long exposure time, better color for flesh tones and improvement in reds.  The higher ISO and lower noise helps me with low light landscape photographs.  For me, the camera improvements are worth the expense.  Other people who own other S camera will certainly be satisfied with their current holdings.  Also, the S lenses and sensor render differently in a manner that is smooth and pleasing to view.  This is based on my clients feedback and my own.  Hope this helps.  r/ Mark

[Jeff S]

55 minutes ago, LeicaR10 said:

I like how the sensor handles dark clothing much better..,

How so? I didn’t know there was an issue with the S007.

Heff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LeicaR10]

Jeff S,  The new S3 handles moire better with dark clothing that has repetitive patterns.  The S007 doesn't handle moire as well.  Nothing wrong with the S007over all, just the S3 improvements handle the reduction of moire better.  Fashion and portrait photographers might find this useful to their genre of photography.  r/ Mark