S007=>S3 Upgrade: Worth $10K?

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Given the trade-in price of a boxed S007 at about $5K and the Leica upgrade program $4K, valid at least January 31, we get about a $10K differential for the new 64MP sensor in S3 vs 37.5 MP in 007.  There's also a supposedly better red array.  If it's the same as in M10-R, it is indeed a good sensor with a noticeable advantage over M10.  Otherwise, the upgrade is the most underwhelming one of all time, as has been discussed here -- literally nothing changed but the sensor.  No AF improvements, even UHS-II was not added to the SD card.

Looking at my S007 shots OOC, they are stunning.  I can hardly imagine how they could be improved.  There's nothing to justify the $10K differential unless you print on tall buildings, and I do not.  I've not seen any clear-cut 007vs S3 comparisons proving the upgrade is worth it.  Does anyone have any?

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by setuporg

[LeicaR10]

G'day Setuporg,   You know, I use the S3 and M10-R systems for my business.  You are correct in many regards about the S007 vs S3.  I found the long exposure capability, improved red channel, larger sensor worth the expense.  But if you don't need to print large or need the other aspects, it doesn't make sense for one to make the trade up.  The resolution with the S3 sensor and S lenses to be in many regards is stunning when making large prints.  I found the long exposure to be of great enhancement for night landscape and northern light photography.  It gets down to ones interest, need/want to print large and available balance on ones credit card.  For my clients needs, the S3 was worth opening my wallet for the black AMEX card...or one could make a wish and maybe Santa might put one under your tree.  Ho, Ho, Ho!  Merry Christmas!  r/ Mark

Edited December 15, 2020 by LeicaR10

[Advertisement]

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

[Sarnian]

setuporg,

If I were in your position with a WHOLE SET of S lenses I would sell off the ones that you don't/hardly use and buy an S3. You might as well get the very best out of your lenses if you can afford to. 

Mark

[Nick Guttridge]

I've just had to make this decision, although coming new to the Leica S system.

Leica offered me a generous discount which was almost the same as the trade in deal when upgrading from the 007. For trading in a medium format digital back. I have one which I don't use much any more because I upgraded it. It also uses Firewire 800 which means it's very old! So the medium format back I had wasn't worth much to me. Just sitting on a shelf. A very generous offer from Leica.

I was really tempted having tested the S3. The resolution is wonderful. Although I was then offered a brand new S 007 from a Leica dealer for less than half it's normal retail price. I won't give the figure, but they were just happy to sell it. It had been in their store for several years. Probably the last one available in the UK.

I was able to buy three CS lenses from a rental company I know well. They had really struggled to rent the lenses, professionals couldn't use the camera because it wasn't compatible with Capture One. The lenses were hardly used. We sent them to Leica to have new autofocus motors installed and to be checked. I bought them for the cost of one lens brand new.

Then on the day I received the lenses, Capture One announced it was supporting the S3, in the new year I believe the S 007 will be supported. This is a game changer. Suddenly this camera is now a professional tool when you have an art director breathing down your neck. 

I feel blessed that I have been able to buy into this system. I would have bought the S3 if it had a touch screen or better card slots. But to be honest I'm using it in the studio tethered anyway. I don't even touch it once I have set everything which I lock off. I'm not using it for video. The difference in resolution is impressive but not a deal breaker. It's about + 200mm on the longest edge when you print at 300dpi. I'm sure I can print 60x40 inch prints from the S 007 without much noticeable difference. What makes the difference more is whether I am in focus or not..

Perhaps the ability to crop, that's the main advantage of having extra resolution. But I can change lenses instead. I'm not shooting landscapes where to be able to crop is more important.

If you shoot portraits or like me contemporary dance in the studio, the difference in resolution isn't worth the extra money. 

I'm using the saving to buy the SL2 S for video, from what I can tell that camera is another game changer. Very competitively priced. We are so lucky to have these amazing cameras available compared to ten years ago. I only wish I could select to use the CS shutter when using S lenses on the SL system. Maybe that might be something Leica allow in future software developments. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[setuporg]

16 hours ago, Sarnian said:

If I were in your position with a WHOLE SET of S lenses I would sell off the ones that you don't/hardly use and buy an S3. You might as well get the very best out of your lenses if you can afford to.

As David Farkas wrote, they are all great.  S3 will go down in price, lenses will remain.  The original question is really about the tangible difference one can see in S3 over S007, and surprisingly, I've not seen any photos to that effect.  No @Chaemono came forward, no Reid.  All Leica talk about S3 proceeds as if S007 never existed -- with exactly the same features except for the sensor.  The dynamic range is still 15 points.  The OOC photos are already so good with 007 that there's literally no smoking gun triggering the upgrade.  My question was less about the price differential but rather about the need for an upgrade  backed by such an upgrade cost.

Edited December 16, 2020 by setuporg

[Jeff S]

The S2 and S006 each launched at several thousand dollars more than the current price of the S3.  And while the S007 was initially priced lower at $16,900, it was marketed by Leica, as I recall, by separately offering the $3k+ Protection Plan, which formerly was included in the price of its predecessors.
 

So is the price of the S3 worth it?  The question could have equally applied to the prior S versions.  If one waits for five years or so, the S3 will also likely be available at current S007 prices (depending maybe on the fate of the S system). Just depends if one wants to be an early adopter.  

Jeff

[LeicaR10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Setuporg,   I sent you a PM.  Hope it helps.  r/ Mark

[setuporg]

@Jeff S, my question was specifically about the image quality jump from 007 to S3.  I've not seen any blog posts where the jump was described.  This is what's rather different here.  007 was a clear step forward over S2, and S3 has only the higher resolution, but not a demonstrated dramatic advantage worth $10K.

[tom0511]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb setuporg:

@Jeff S, my question was specifically about the image quality jump from 007 to S3.  I've not seen any blog posts where the jump was described.  This is what's rather different here.  007 was a clear step forward over S2, and S3 has only the higher resolution, but not a demonstrated dramatic advantage worth $10K.

You get C1 support for the S3

As far as I understand and from some beta testing with the S3 there is a certain slight color advantage, specially in the reds. I could not clearly check since I had no propper raw-profiles when I betatested the S3. For myself I decided to stay with the S007, also I use Hasselblad x1dII more often at the moment anyways.

If the S3 also had an improved AF I would have made a different decision. If it was my main system or if I had enough money I would upgrade. For me it is still the most beautiful rendering glass. I guess the biggest enemy of the S3 is the S007 since it is allready on a high level.

I dont do really long exposures, so thats not an important factor for my photography. 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by tom0511

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, setuporg said:

@Jeff S, my question was specifically about the image quality jump from 007 to S3.  I've not seen any blog posts where the jump was described.  This is what's rather different here.  007 was a clear step forward over S2, and S3 has only the higher resolution, but not a demonstrated dramatic advantage worth $10K.

You won’t see it on screen, where even an iPhone pic looks fine., One needs to make large prints or crop significantly to use the extra resolution. Whether skin tones/reds have improved also depends heavily on one’s personal workflow.  I thought that several here who have used both offered comments on their experiences, e.g., Jesse (djmay)? but I haven’t followed closely.

David Farkas did shoot with the camera and offered comments/pics on improved IQ, as well as indicating 1-2 stops ISO improvement, along with video features (but of course he’s a salesman). 
 

 

Jeff

[setuporg]

3 hours ago, tom0511 said:

For myself I decided to stay with the S007, also I use Hasselblad x1dII more often the moment anyways.

If the S3 also had an improved AF I would have made a different decision. If it was my main system or if I had enough money I would upgrade. For me it is still the most beautiful rendering glass. I guess the biggest enemy of the S3 is the S007 since it is already on a high level.

I don't do really long exposures, so thats not an important factor for my photography. 

 

Tom -- I'm in exactly the same boat.  Also using X1D I/II and 907x (I even got a 503cw and a buncg of CF lenses to use the OG OVF with it!:).  

My point is, we get the amazing MF look with S007.  It stands out by itself.  You have to go to details to justify S3.  It doesn't jump at you.  It's not in your face.

[tom0511]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb setuporg:

Tom -- I'm in exactly the same boat.  Also using X1D I/II and 907x (I even got a 503cw and a buncg of CF lenses to use the OG OVF with it!:).  

My point is, we get the amazing MF look with S007.  It stands out by itself.  You have to go to details to justify S3.  It doesn't jump at you.  It's not in your face.

It would be interesting to see big prints side by side. 

[Stuart Richardson]

The difference in resolution between 37mp and 64mp is noticeable in large prints. It also has less moire.

[ZHNL]

Based on sensor measured here 

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Both High or LOW ISO improvement is nonexistent.  Keep in mind, this is normalized results means it has already take into account of downsize advantage of S3. 

Color improvement need direct comparison or direct personal experience. If Leica Let me demo it  I'd be happy to give my 2c opinion and will pay upgrade if it turn out to be real. 

Otherwise, resolution seems is the only incentive for now.  I always enjoy S magazine reading but to my surprise, till now, there is zero S3 images in field even in that magazine.

[Sarnian]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

Also using X1D I/II and 907x (I even got a 503cw and a buncg of CF lenses to use the OG OVF with it!:).  

You seem to have an inexhaustible supply of money so why don't you buy an S3 and report back to us. 💡 👍

[Stuart Richardson]

I get the sense that it is similar to the M10-R, but I do not have that camera. I did not own the 007, so I can only compare it to the S006. The detail is higher than the S006, but it is quite a different camera. It has quite a different rendering. The detail is more like CMOS camera detail rendering...when you really dial in to 100%, it has less "bite" than the CCD, though the resolved detail is significantly higher. The color is also different. Adobe has given the S3 a "look", in that they are doing more than just adjusting the colors. They seem to also have tweaked the saturation in the shadows and the tonal curve. You can see the difference when you switch from their profile to a custom profile, or when you open up the files in C1.

I only borrowed the S007 from a friend just to compare, and the cameras looked different. The S007 seemed to trend more towards yellow and warmer tones, the S3 was a bit more magenta, but in general they felt like a different baseline. In Capture One the camera looks better to me. I feel like Adobe really dropped the ball with the S3, but that is just my take on it. I know from talking to other users that everyone is happy with it except me. I think they are dropping the ball a lot these days anyway, so that they did it on the S3 is no surprise either. C1 also has much better handling of long exposure noise and noise in general on the S3, so if you plan to get one, make sure you have a look at C1. The biggest advantage of the S3 over the older cameras is that it absolutely blows away the S006 in terms of noise at higher ISOs and does so while providing higher resolution. My own personal issue with it is that the files show more uneven banding in deep shadows than the S006 files did when the files are really pushed around. I shoot 95% of my work at ISO 100, so this behavior is more important to me than being able to shoot at a higher ISO with less noise.  I also prefer the color of the S006, but that is very subjective and can be adjusted.

I think the S3 does have a fundamentally different sensor than the S007, so I think it does not make sense to consider an S007 with more resolution.

As to whether it is worth the cost? I think that is harder to answer. I think if you are happy with the resolution of the S007 and everything else about it, probably not. If you find yourself pushing the shadows of your files +100 and exposure one or two stops, then I would test it and make sure it suits your workflow.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[setuporg]

2 hours ago, Sarnian said:

You seem to have an inexhaustible supply of money so why don't you buy an S3 and report back to us. 💡 👍

Alas everything comes to an end, and it's also important to understand what value you are getting.  A Hasselblad 503cw + CFV II 50C opens a whole new world -- classic gear from 50 years ago with the new digital life!  They even have a focusing screen with the frame lines for the new sensor!  It's a whole new set of ideas, central shutters, huge mirror, film and digital, etc.  For $10K you can learn so much.  But with the S3 upgrade, the question of value is much harder.

[Jeff S]

55 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I get the sense that it is similar to the M10-R, but I do not have that camera. I did not own the 007, so I can only compare it to the S006. The detail is higher than the S006, but it is quite a different camera. It has quite a different rendering. The detail is more like CMOS camera detail rendering...when you really dial in to 100%, it has less "bite" than the CCD, though the resolved detail is significantly higher. The color is also different. Adobe has given the S3 a "look", in that they are doing more than just adjusting the colors. They seem to also have tweaked the saturation in the shadows and the tonal curve. You can see the difference when you switch from their profile to a custom profile, or when you open up the files in C1.

I only borrowed the S007 from a friend just to compare, and the cameras looked different. The S007 seemed to trend more towards yellow and warmer tones, the S3 was a bit more magenta, but in general they felt like a different baseline. In Capture One the camera looks better to me. I feel like Adobe really dropped the ball with the S3, but that is just my take on it. I know from talking to other users that everyone is happy with it except me. I think they are dropping the ball a lot these days anyway, so that they did it on the S3 is no surprise either. C1 also has much better handling of long exposure noise and noise in general on the S3, so if you plan to get one, make sure you have a look at C1. The biggest advantage of the S3 over the older cameras is that it absolutely blows away the S006 in terms of noise at higher ISOs and does so while providing higher resolution. My own personal issue with it is that the files show more uneven banding in deep shadows than the S006 files did when the files are really pushed around. I shoot 95% of my work at ISO 100, so this behavior is more important to me than being able to shoot at a higher ISO with less noise.  I also prefer the color of the S006, but that is very subjective and can be adjusted.

I think the S3 does have a fundamentally different sensor than the S007, so I think it does not make sense to consider an S007 with more resolution.

As to whether it is worth the cost? I think that is harder to answer. I think if you are happy with the resolution of the S007 and everything else about it, probably not. If you find yourself pushing the shadows of your files +100 and exposure one or two stops, then I would test it and make sure it suits your workflow.

A corollary to your shooting at extremely low ISO is tripod-based vs handheld shooting.  I suspect that you shoot mostly if not exclusively on a tripod. I prefer handheld shooting when feasible, and when I tested the S006 for a week a few years ago, I was extremely impressed with the files, but found it very limited for handheld work in all but good daylight.  (Shooting at the time primarily with the slow S zoom exacerbated the situation.)  I’ve occasionally been tempted to pick up a used S006 and S70mm, but that would be gear overkill for me at this point.

A benefit for those shooting with the S007, and I presume even more with the S3, is the flexibility it can provide for handheld work at somewhat higher but not extreme ISOs.

In any case, I always recommend custom color profiles with any camera for serious shooting and printing.  And while I use Adobe (mostly LR), I find that ImagePrint greatly improves my print workflow and results, although I never print large enough to benefit from the extra resolution that an S3 would provide.  For me, the SL2 has become a good solution for my joint requirements of handheld flexibility (IBIS), great optics and image quality.  The S remains a terrific system, with fabulous lenses and viewing, but we each must make choices.  Only personal use can ultimately provide the best solution(s). 
 

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

Not always at all. I shoot handheld a lot in daylight, but generally when it comes time to move off of ISO 100, I get a tripod. This is also a bit of a function of Iceland. It is all light in the summer, so a tripod is not as needed, and all dark in the winter so you cannot really do without. In general, in digital I like really smooth/grain free files but dislike noise reduction, so base ISO looks best to me nearly always. That said, the S3 has less banding at 400 than it does at 100, but at 100 is has greater DR and lower luminance noise. It is not just "grain", I just find that the changes to color and tonality seem to make higher ISO files look worse to me than lower ISO in nearly all cases. I am not entirely dogmatic about it though...if high ISO is required, I will use it, but in general it is not needed for what I do. I am also used to film, where I never go over 400, so I am accustomed to it!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stuart Richardson]

Maybe this is too flippant, but I kind of get the feeling that the S006 looks like slide film and shoots like negative film, and the S3 shoots like slide film and looks like negative film.

But I also want to stress that everyone I talked to about this thinks I am wrong, except for a few colleagues who do not have the camera.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Stuart Richardson