Worth getting a Leica S2 or a S006 in 2021?

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I failed to notice any better IQ the S006 was getting me that the SL2 wasn't and so I have returned the S006. If anything, S006 photos turned out a tad softer while the SL2 was sharp as tack! There was a mild difference in color reproduction but nothing that truly wowed me.. I wish I could justify keeping the S006 along with the SL2 but I simply couldn't.. plus, I have invested in the GFX system for a while and it takes incredible pictures.. not the Leica look but still gorgeous!

I will get the S3 when it goes for S007 prices of today  perhaps in 2022.. I really loved the handling of the S body though.. Feels better than SL2..  

[John McMaster]

What was the final thing you were looking at the images on?  On screen or a decent sized print?

john

[Stuart Richardson]

Sometimes you have to see it with your own eyes. I shot the S006 for six or seven years and absolutely loved it, but I came to the same conclusion in the the end. The SL2 has 95% of the color and rendering, but with even sharper results in a smaller, more modern body. The biggest thing it lacks is the optical viewfinder (which is great, but is also occasionally a handicap, just as the EVF is occasionally a handicap). The larger sensor has an impact on the way depth is rendered, but the SL and 35mm lenses are also faster, so it is not always critical. Regarding the S3, I would say that it is worth testing. I bought one, but it was not really for me. I prefer the SL2 and S006 to it, but I can see why others prefer the S3.

[Daedalus2000]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Sometimes you have to see it with your own eyes. I shot the S006 for six or seven years and absolutely loved it, but I came to the same conclusion in the the end. The SL2 has 95% of the color and rendering, but with even sharper results in a smaller, more modern body. The biggest thing it lacks is the optical viewfinder (which is great, but is also occasionally a handicap, just as the EVF is occasionally a handicap). The larger sensor has an impact on the way depth is rendered, but the SL and 35mm lenses are also faster, so it is not always critical. Regarding the S3, I would say that it is worth testing. I bought one, but it was not really for me. I prefer the SL2 and S006 to it, but I can see why others prefer the S3.

Is it important to use the prime SL lenses on the SL2 to get the quality that is similar to the S system? I have the S lenses, from the SL Leica lenses only the 24-90 zoom.

[helged]

1 hour ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Is it important to use the prime SL lenses on the SL2 to get the quality that is similar to the S system? I have the S lenses, from the SL Leica lenses only the 24-90 zoom.

The SL primes are, optically speaking, at a higher, or more modern, level than the S-lenses. The rendering of the S-lenses are, still, unbeatable... 

[aksclix]

5 hours ago, John McMaster said:

What was the final thing you were looking at the images on?  On screen or a decent sized print?

john

I was looking at it on my 28” monitor and my 75” TV, some just as-is and some with heavy cropping.. 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Is it important to use the prime SL lenses on the SL2 to get the quality that is similar to the S system? I have the S lenses, from the SL Leica lenses only the 24-90 zoom.

I am not sure. I suppose so, at least for certain things. I only have one SL lens: the 50mm APO Summicron. Otherwise I use the S lenses and M lenses. The 50mm is truly fantastic, but when when used at optimal aperture (generally 5.6 to 8), it is hard to tell apart from a recent M ASPH lens or S lens. At 2 or 2.8, it is another story, particularly at the edges and corners.

As for quality similar to the S system, it is hard to say. I know some like Mark do not think that the SL2 can approach the quality of the S system. I think, on the other hand, that it provides even more quality. It all depends on what you mean by quality! I don't mean to be evasive, but we all have different eyes. For me, I am interested in fine detail. The SL lenses are superb at that, and the stabilization and especially the multi-shot mode mean that the SL2 more often than not outrsesolves the S3 in my work. For people who are more concerned with bokeh or smoothness, then perhaps the S system has an inherent advantage with its longer lenses and bigger sensor.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[aksclix]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Sometimes you have to see it with your own eyes. I shot the S006 for six or seven years and absolutely loved it, but I came to the same conclusion in the the end. The SL2 has 95% of the color and rendering, but with even sharper results in a smaller, more modern body. The biggest thing it lacks is the optical viewfinder (which is great, but is also occasionally a handicap, just as the EVF is occasionally a handicap). The larger sensor has an impact on the way depth is rendered, but the SL and 35mm lenses are also faster, so it is not always critical. Regarding the S3, I would say that it is worth testing. I bought one, but it was not really for me. I prefer the SL2 and S006 to it, but I can see why others prefer the S3.

I am a hoarder and it took a lot for me to return it.. I had no complaints about the IQ of the S006 and I did see what everyone meant by the colors..they were surely a bit more pleasing on the eye while the SL2 images were slightly more saturated but clearly sharper.  
 

I really like the ability to crop the crap out images just in case I need to and so the S3 will definitely help with that.. that’s a bit too expensive for me ATM.. will consider in 2022 😀 

[Jeff S]

Without custom color profiling, and without making prints, much of the capability of these and other fine modern cameras is lost IMO.  One doesn’t need to spend a lot to produce decent screen shots, even using a phone camera, provided pixel peeping isn’t the goal and at normal viewing distances.

Jeff

Edited January 16, 2021 by Jeff S

[John McMaster]

42 minutes ago, aksclix said:

I was looking at it on my 28” monitor and my 75” TV, some just as-is and some with heavy cropping.. 

 

So ~33MP, I do not know the SL2 but I can see the difference in an A3 print between my 37.5MP S(007) and 24MP M(240) but both look good on screen

john

[ZHNL]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure. I suppose so, at least for certain things. I only have one SL lens: the 50mm APO Summicron. Otherwise I use the S lenses and M lenses. The 50mm is truly fantastic, but when when used at optimal aperture (generally 5.6 to 8), it is hard to tell apart from a recent M ASPH lens or S lens. At 2 or 2.8, it is another story, particularly at the edges and corners.

As for quality similar to the S system, it is hard to say. I know some like Mark do not think that the SL2 can approach the quality of the S system. I think, on the other hand, that it provides even more quality. It all depends on what you mean by quality! I don't mean to be evasive, but we all have different eyes. For me, I am interested in fine detail. The SL lenses are superb at that, and the stabilization and especially the multi-shot mode mean that the SL2 more often than not outrsesolves the S3 in my work. For people who are more concerned with bokeh or smoothness, then perhaps the S system has an inherent advantage with its longer lenses and bigger sensor.

Well said. I agree fully. 

[aksclix]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure. I suppose so, at least for certain things. I only have one SL lens: the 50mm APO Summicron. Otherwise I use the S lenses and M lenses. The 50mm is truly fantastic, but when when used at optimal aperture (generally 5.6 to 8), it is hard to tell apart from a recent M ASPH lens or S lens. At 2 or 2.8, it is another story, particularly at the edges and corners.

As for quality similar to the S system, it is hard to say. I know some like Mark do not think that the SL2 can approach the quality of the S system. I think, on the other hand, that it provides even more quality. It all depends on what you mean by quality! I don't mean to be evasive, but we all have different eyes. For me, I am interested in fine detail. The SL lenses are superb at that, and the stabilization and especially the multi-shot mode mean that the SL2 more often than not outrsesolves the S3 in my work. For people who are more concerned with bokeh or smoothness, then perhaps the S system has an inherent advantage with its longer lenses and bigger sensor.

I’ve been wowed by SL2’s IQ with almost any lens I’ve tried except the Sigma 100-400 which was very bland and average compared to how other lenses performed 

in fact selling the S006 has given me a chance to replace Panasonic 70-200 with Leica 90-280

ill probably get the 21mm SL when it comes out. I’ll be all set with my SL2 then 

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

One thing I can say in general is that digital cameras really came into their own for me with the M9 and S2. It took a number of years for CMOS cameras to catch up to their image quality, in my mind. Sure, other cameras had excellent high ISO performance and high resolution, but I did not really like any of their images too much. They felt dead to me. More recently, the Panasonic S1 and Leica SL2 have impressed me with the character of their pixel level detail (which is what really matters in a big print...not just how many pixels you have, but what those pixels look like, as they will be the basis of any interpolation) as well as their color and features. While in some ways I still prefer the M9 and S2/S006, the difference is small enough and the gains in ease of use and high ISO performance are enough to make me ok with swapping out the S006. I still have the S3 and will wait until the light returns until I make my final decisions, but so far the camera I keep reaching for is the SL2.

[Daedalus2000]

17 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

One thing I can say in general is that digital cameras really came into their own for me with the M9 and S2. It took a number of years for CMOS cameras to catch up to their image quality, in my mind. Sure, other cameras had excellent high ISO performance and high resolution, but I did not really like any of their images too much. They felt dead to me. More recently, the Panasonic S1 and Leica SL2 have impressed me with the character of their pixel level detail (which is what really matters in a big print...not just how many pixels you have, but what those pixels look like, as they will be the basis of any interpolation) as well as their color and features. While in some ways I still prefer the M9 and S2/S006, the difference is small enough and the gains in ease of use and high ISO performance are enough to make me ok with swapping out the S006. I still have the S3 and will wait until the light returns until I make my final decisions, but so far the camera I keep reaching for is the SL2.

Although I am not a professional, I still remember how I felt the first time I looked at images from my M8 and later the M9 and S2-P. These 3 cameras had a deep impact on me and I never understood why. Since then I have played with many cameras, but never felt the same effect. Recently I got the S5, because of the good deal and the free sigma 45mm, and I was pleasantly surprised by the colours. Also the S5 feels like a very capable camera. I will follow closely your recommendations because we seem to have similar preferences.

[Stuart Richardson]

Thank you! Personally, I think the reason is that they have natural color with a fairly high contrast and moderately high saturation to certain colors. I think they benefited greatly from working with Kodak for the sensors. For all their faults, Kodak knows color, and I suspect that when Kodak was originally designing the CCD's, they put in some of their magic. Leica probably consulted with them as well about how to achieve the best results. I think Leica as a Western company closely connected to the Kodachrome aesthetic, tuned their color in that direction, whereas I feel like Nikon and probably Sony as well leaned more towards the Velvia style. All this is speculation, but otherwise it is hard to say why those cameras color is consistently more convincing...

For the S5, try setting the color to Camera Natural (in Adobe too). I think you might like it. It has a very nice natural and moderately saturated palette.

[Daedalus2000]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you! Personally, I think the reason is that they have natural color with a fairly high contrast and moderately high saturation to certain colors. I think they benefited greatly from working with Kodak for the sensors. For all their faults, Kodak knows color, and I suspect that when Kodak was originally designing the CCD's, they put in some of their magic. Leica probably consulted with them as well about how to achieve the best results. I think Leica as a Western company closely connected to the Kodachrome aesthetic, tuned their color in that direction, whereas I feel like Nikon and probably Sony as well leaned more towards the Velvia style. All this is speculation, but otherwise it is hard to say why those cameras color is consistently more convincing...

For the S5, try setting the color to Camera Natural (in Adobe too). I think you might like it. It has a very nice natural and moderately saturated palette.

Thanks for the thoughts. I find the Sony output very much not to my liking, I guess with lots of work and presets or whatever people use one can get good colour, but I do not have the time, patience or skill to do that, especially when I can find it easily from a Leica camera. I will explore the SL2 further, I have not used it much.

With respect to the S5, yes we agreed on that some time ago in the thread below. As I said, our preferences match so if you have any input on how to setup the SL2, it will be great to hear it. 

 

 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Thanks for the thoughts. I find the Sony output very much not to my liking, I guess with lots of work and presets or whatever people use one can get good colour, but I do not have the time, patience or skill to do that, especially when I can find it easily from a Leica camera. I will explore the SL2 further, I have not used it much.

With respect to the S5, yes we agreed on that some time ago in the thread below. As I said, our preferences match so if you have any input on how to setup the SL2, it will be great to hear it. 

 

 

While it might not change your opinion, creating a custom color profile takes minutes (e.g., with a ColorChecker Passport) and can be done once. Recommended for any camera when color is important.  
 

Jeff

[aksclix]

on another note, my Mac mini with 16G and M1 chip just arrived.. hoping to get to the huge backlog of images waiting to be processed..
I agree Sony's colors straight out of the camera needs work.. my images are still super sharp though.. I've compared BIF shots of Sony a9+200-600 with Canon R6+100-500 and the 200-600 is comfortably better.. maybe I need to give Canon another chance since its considerably lighter than the Sony setup.. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by aksclix

[Daedalus2000]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

While it might not change your opinion, creating a custom color profile takes minutes (e.g., with a ColorChecker Passport) and can be done once. Recommended for any camera when color is important.  
 

Jeff

Thank you Jeff. I have done that but still I am not getting colour that I like. Do I need to do a profile for every situation, like indoors, in overcast weather, in mixed light etc?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Thank you Jeff. I have done that but still I am not getting colour that I like. Do I need to do a profile for every situation, like indoors, in overcast weather, in mixed light etc?

Best practice, but depends on how critical one wants to be, and what effects are being sought. Sometimes one does not want color ‘neutralized’. Some folks even profile for each lens; I don’t bother.  Of course there are additional methods to tweak in PP, but these require more time and effort.  Always nice if a camera produces desired results without too much work. But the flip side is the flexibility and convenience of digital compared to film days.

Jeff