S007=>S3 Upgrade: Worth $10K?

[mgrayson3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Want to achieve a low dynamic range look? Boost contrast and lower saturation (or boost L contrast in Lab space). It makes skin look more realistic,, too. Not prettier, but more realistic.

[Stuart Richardson]

On 12/24/2020 at 2:07 PM, glenerrolrd said:

Are you sure you have this right ?    The S006 has a narrow dynamic range (like slide film ) and handles highlights well but watch out for muddy,noisy underexposed shadows (like slide film ) . Get the exposure just right and its a terrific rendering (like slide film ) .   The S3 has a fuller dynamic range (like print film ) and you can pull back shadows easily (like print film ) .  It produces with most presets a very nice linear contrast file ..which can be worked to many different renderings (like print film ) .  

To my eye in LR the S3 is closer to the S 006 in color and aesthetic than the S 007 .  Both the S 007 and S3 are more forgiving due to better dynamic range .....but you may have difficulty getting that slide film look .  

 

For me, it is right. I have found that the S006 has lower dynamic range in capture, and the colors and contrast are closer to slide film, but the files are extremely flexible, and can be pushed around a lot with only grain as a consequence. An underexposed S006 file can be pushed several stops with only grain. On the other hand, the S3 has a wider initial dynamic range and can pull a bunch of information out of the shadows. Unfortunately, along with that information comes uncorrectable banding. I also think the colors do not look right out of camera (more in Lightroom than C1), so like negative film, you need to spend a lot of time getting them correct. So that is why I say that the S006 looks like slide film but shoots like negative film, and the S3 looks like negative film and shoots like slide film. It is not a simple matter of adding contrast to the S3 because it is flat. That is not the issue. It is also why I said that everyone I have talked to thinks I am wrong, except for some colleagues who see what I see when I show them. But I think for the vast majority of users, this is not an issue, and they will gladly trade the deepest shadows for higher ISO, more resolution, live view, etc etc.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[helged]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

For me, it is right. I have found that the S006 has lower dynamic range in capture, and the colors and contrast are closer to slide film, but the files are extremely flexible, and can be pushed around a lot with only grain as a consequence. An underexposed S006 file can be pushed several stops with only grain. On the other hand, the S3 has a wider initial dynamic range and can pull a bunch of information out of the shadows. Unfortunately, along with that information comes uncorrectable banding. I also think the colors do not look right out of camera (more in Lightroom than C1), so like negative film, you need to spend a lot of time getting them correct. So that is why I say that the S006 looks like slide film but shoots like negative film, and the S3 looks like negative film and shoots like slide film. It is not a simple matter of adding contrast to the S3 because it is flat. That is not the issue. It is also why I said that everyone I have talked to thinks I am wrong, except for some colleagues who see what I see when I show them. But I think for the vast majority of users, this is not an issue, and they will gladly trade the deepest shadows for higher ISO, more resolution, live view, etc etc.

Agree, banding is an issue with most (all?) modern Leicas, including SL2-S. An exception for the L-alliance is Panasonic S5, producing amazingly homogenous shadows, even when the shadows are heavily lifted in post.

[mgrayson3]

I get no banding at ISO 3200 with the S(007), with up to 5 stops boost. Is the S3 worse? I wish someone had a published ISO series, but I'm not aware of one.

 

[glenerrolrd]

To follow the discussion about noise ,banding differences between the S 006 and the S3 (or S 007).........don t we need to know your capture ISO .   

The CCD sensor is great at base ISO and excellent up to ISO 800 ...beyond that it requires post processing magic .  If you underexpose shadows by more than 2 stops its near impossible to work thru in post .   Highlights can burn thru with only a single stop of over exposure .   You can see this in every sensor test from the original S2 .   Above ISO800 ...it doesn t meet my standards for image quality (you experience may differ ) and of course depending how you expose the capture ....your ISO 1600 could be my ISO800 .   I always try to expose for the highlights with the S 006 .  I do agree that to date I have seen no system produce better color or tone separation right out of the camera .  (particularly in the highlights). 

Thats SLIDE film as I remember K64 .  Expose for the highlights and let the shadows go black .  

The CMOS sensor has much greater forgiveness .   Dynamic range is about as good as it gets (Leica claims 15 EV) (I never tried to measure it .)  The tone curve is much flatter and without a decent preset ...not all that great out of the camera .  ISO up thru 1600 can easily be utilized .   If you are shoting at base ISO thru ISO 400 ...its really hard to mess up the exposure .   Dynamic range of course decreases quickly as ISO rises ...so if you are shooting at say ISO 1600 you might not have nearly the latitude you had base ISO . 

This is exactly how NEGATIVE film responds .  Expose for the shadows and or mid tones and most of the time ..the highlights will hold .  

The aspect that I never seem to grasp ...is why with a camera purpose built for high image quality ...would you ever be using ISO higher than 1600 or messing with pulling back shadows so much that you get banding .  You lost the image quality way before it started to band .  

To be fair ...I have all three S bodies...S 006 ,S 007 and the S3 and have not used the S3 enough to really know how differs from the S 007 .  With the S cameras I shoot primarily landscape, seascape and some portraits .  I use graduated filters and POL to control my capture exposures .  These are always on a heavy tripod .  Thats my context and its quite different from my work with the M bodies on the street .  

I bought the S3 because I am vested in the S system with all the primes and I really like how the system handles particularly in the RAIN .  I will never sell the S 006 because for portraits (and skin tones ) I have seen nothing better .  

Its worth it ...IF ....I plan to use it enough .  Worse thing about my landscape kit is I am lucky if I can get in 4 decent trips a year ....so that's maybe 30 days of usage .  So your usage context is quite important in this hypothetical value analysis .  

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

My usage case is that I shoot a lot in contrasty light. Lots of mountains casting deep shadows and little control over the light. Half the year is very dark. So in general, I like a camera that I can exposure for the highlights and then lift the shadows. I shoot nearly everything at or near base ISO, either handheld, or when I can't shoot handheld anymore, I use a tripod. I learned photography on slide film, so I am drawn to cameras that look like that...natural color with medium to high saturation, deep contrast, but still containing information.

I should be clear that my problem with shadow banding was not primarily with high ISO, it was with ISO 100. My opinion was that with the state of sensor design in 2020, and a camera that goes to ISO 50000, we should be able to push the files dramatically in post. You can in some ways, but not in others. I am sure part of this is expectations. After having the SL2 and S006, I was extremely excited to get the S3, as I held off for six years on a new S camera, but when I got it, I was frustrated by the results as well as some handling issues, and after a lot of back and forth with Leica they came to the conclusion that the camera was fine and I was pushing it too hard. I think that experience has soured me on the entire camera, which is why I will soon sell it. Not because it is an inherently bad camera, it is not at all. But because I do not like the direction it was taken. I am extremely lucky that I like the SL2 as much as I do, because I can be happy with it. Part of this is the signal processing, but part is the sensor itself. As to the importance of signal processing, I am attaching an image of Lightroom vs Capture One for the same S3 photo, both processed with lifted shadow detail from a long exposure.

 

P.S. I see here after posting that you need to click through to see the main difference between these two photos. A lot of the noise disappears in the small jpg.

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!

Edited December 27, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, helged said:

Agree, banding is an issue with most (all?) modern Leicas, including SL2-S. An exception for the L-alliance is Panasonic S5, producing amazingly homogenous shadows, even when the shadows are heavily lifted in post.

Early days, but I haven't seen banding in the SL2-S

[Stuart Richardson]

I have not seen it on the SL2 either...certainly on the M10. It is on the S006, but not in the low ISOs, only at the high end.

[John McMaster]

13 hours ago, glenerrolrd said:

The aspect that I never seem to grasp ...is why with a camera purpose built for high image quality ...would you ever be using ISO higher than 1600 or messing with pulling back shadows so much that you get banding .  You lost the image quality way before it started to band . 

Mostly because it is better than my other cameras (M9, M(240)) in those conditions 😉

john

[mgrayson3]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

My usage case is that I shoot a lot in contrasty light. Lots of mountains casting deep shadows and little control over the light. Half the year is very dark. So in general, I like a camera that I can exposure for the highlights and then lift the shadows. I shoot nearly everything at or near base ISO, either handheld, or when I can't shoot handheld anymore, I use a tripod. I learned photography on slide film, so I am drawn to cameras that look like that...natural color with medium to high saturation, deep contrast, but still containing information.

I should be clear that my problem with shadow banding was not primarily with high ISO, it was with ISO 100. My opinion was that with the state of sensor design in 2020, and a camera that goes to ISO 50000, we should be able to push the files dramatically in post. You can in some ways, but not in others. I am sure part of this is expectations. After having the SL2 and S006, I was extremely excited to get the S3, as I held off for six years on a new S camera, but when I got it, I was frustrated by the results as well as some handling issues, and after a lot of back and forth with Leica they came to the conclusion that the camera was fine and I was pushing it too hard. I think that experience has soured me on the entire camera, which is why I will soon sell it. Not because it is an inherently bad camera, it is not at all. But because I do not like the direction it was taken. I am extremely lucky that I like the SL2 as much as I do, because I can be happy with it. Part of this is the signal processing, but part is the sensor itself. As to the importance of signal processing, I am attaching an image of Lightroom vs Capture One for the same S3 photo, both processed with lifted shadow detail from a long exposure.

 

P.S. I see here after posting that you need to click through to see the main difference between these two photos. A lot of the noise disappears in the small jpg.

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!

Stuart,

Thank you for the example, but I'm not sure what I'm looking at.  Is this the same file processed in LR and C1? It's almost impossible to compare two RAW converters side by side as they have radically different defaults. Even the same converter with different cameras will have different defaults. Abodbe, in particular, improves its processing of "new" cameras over time, usually without telling anyone. C1 is usually good out of the box. 

Best,

Matt

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi Matt,

They are both the same image as processed to the abilities of the raw converter. They were edited to be as similar as possible in terms of exposure and shadow boost and so on. If I recall correctly, luminance and color noise reduction were low or off. In C1, single pixel noise reduction was on. This is not an option with Adobe, so it is an unfair advantage to C1, but frankly, nothing is stopping Adobe from adding it. The difference mainly shows how much more efficient C1 is at removing single pixel noise, such as the kind that I have noticed is quite prevalent with the S3 at long exposure. It also seems to have cleaner, more neutral shadows than Adobe tends to provide. It was not meant as a definitive example of anything in particular, only in the importance of signal processing.  That said, the signal can only be processed so much, so the final image is always going to be a blend of the inherent characteristics of the sensor and the quality of the RAW processor's signal processing.

[Leicalifer]

It sounds like this is an optional purchase and not a mandatory acquisition where your livelihood is dependent on this decision.  You are fortunate.

If you are in the position to contemplate the purchase, then why not? If it doesn’t work out you can sell it at a later date and recoup some of your initial expenditure.

Be thankful you are not into exotic cars, racing vintage WWII aircraft or the like. The only thing more expensive than those pursuits are divorces.

In the end, value is in the eye of he beholder. Good luck with your decision.

Cheers!

Edited December 29, 2020 by Leicalifer

[mgrayson3]

I just looked on Leica's website and there is no mention of "trade-in value" beyond the fixed $2K or $4K for the old body. Yet many dealers are advertising $4K + trade-in. Is this Leica policy, or are dealers trying to sweeten the deal for customers. I suppose it doesn't matter, but it's a bit unusual.

Matt

[Jeff S]

According to Red Dot Forum (David Farkas, Leica Miami), it’s a Leica authorized program, as follows:

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/10/leica-extends-s3-trade-in-promo/

Edit... 

It’s at least a Leica USA program:

https://leicacamerausa.com/pages/leica-S3-trade-up-program.html

Jeff

Edited December 29, 2020 by Jeff S

[davidmknoble]

On 12/16/2020 at 5:58 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

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.

Stuart, interesting comparison.  I went from an S2P to an S007 and I feel like the S007 paints better than any sensor I’ve used, including the M9, M10 and SL.  I like the Sl2 a lot for some of the features, but the S007 beats it in dynamic range and in the extreme yellows (IMHO).  I would like the extra resolution for larger prints at 300dpi, but I haven’t seen enough to compare the S3 to the S007 at base ISO.  For landscape work with extreme sun colors, I want to hold the highlights and keep the shadows.  I was lucky enough to spend about 2 weeks in Iceland and would love to get back, and the S007 was perfect. I just can’t tell if I get more with the increase in pixels other than the pixels.

[mgrayson3]

On 12/29/2020 at 5:30 PM, mgrayson3 said:

I just looked on Leica's website and there is no mention of "trade-in value" beyond the fixed $2K or $4K for the old body. Yet many dealers are advertising $4K + trade-in. Is this Leica policy, or are dealers trying to sweeten the deal for customers. I suppose it doesn't matter, but it's a bit unusual.

Matt

To answer my own question (I asked a dealer), dealers get the $4K just for sending the serial number of your S(007) to Leica. What you do with the camera after that is up to you and the dealer. You can sell it to them for trade-in value, keep it, sell it privately ... whatever you want. I, er, *may* have entered into such a transaction. 😇

[mgrayson3]

Only spent an hour or two with the S3, but the characterization "S(007) with more pixels" seems right. ISO 3200 looks the same. 6400 is a bit better. 25000 is useless.

[mgrayson3]

After 10 more days with the S3, I'm liking it more and more. There is enough detail that it needn't be crunchy. The realistic look (as opposed to actual realism, which isn't always what we want) that has always been one of the S system's strengths persists at higher magnification. It's a good look.

[bilbrown]

On 12/15/2020 at 2:14 AM, Nick Guttridge said:

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'm pretty certain the S 007 is working in C1 now, I haven't checked it but I think that was part of the deal.

Can anyone confirm or do I have to connect it and check.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mgrayson3]

25 minutes ago, bilbrown said:

I'm pretty certain the S 007 is working in C1 now, I haven't checked it but I think that was part of the deal.

Can anyone confirm or do I have to connect it and check.

 

Yes, the 007 works and has profiles in C1. I no longer have mine, so I can't swear about tethering, but I *think* I tried it and it worked - faster than Adobe.