S4 product recommendation

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, John Smith said:

Stuart, I think you are right. As much as LF forum members swoon over the S, the DSLR is not the future. The S system was fantastic (and still is in some respects) ten or twelve years ago. Yet, you don't see Peter Karbe doing presentations on S lenses like you see him doing with SL, M, and even TL lenses. I would bet that the S4 will be a Texas-sized SL that continues Leica's ProFormat. Traditional S users could keep on using the older lenses with an adapter or move on to Leica's new lens offerings which would probably come close to the new Summicrons in performance. The system would also benefit from adapters for the SL and M lenses. I traded my S stuff in for some M lenses, including a Noctilux, and you really can't beat the interchangeability with the SL. That was a really smart move by Leica. The waiting list for a mirrorless S4 that allows for S (old and new), SL, and M lenses would be a whole lot longer than the one for the latest 35mm APO.

John, curious your thoughts, I asked Jeff the same question.  Is it not feasible to use the same S body, remove the mirror and then the lenses still work?  I understand most mirrorless systems are made to be more compact than a DSLR, but wouldn't Leica win by creating an S4 mirrorless of the same exact size? Why reduce it and have to create new lenses?

 

[John Smith]

11 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

John, curious your thoughts, I asked Jeff the same question.  Is it not feasible to use the same S body, remove the mirror and then the lenses still work?  I understand most mirrorless systems are made to be more compact than a DSLR, but wouldn't Leica win by creating an S4 mirrorless of the same exact size? Why reduce it and have to create new lenses?

 

You should ask Stuart because he's the camera expert. But from what I understand, Leica wouldn't want to do that because the closer a lens is to a sensor the better its performance is. This is why the M lenses were sharper than SLR lenses back in the film days. Just look at Canon and Nikon and what they've done with their mirrorless mounts. Big with the sensor up close. And now they're cranking out new lenses with entirely new specs. Mirrorless isn't about smaller size per se. It's about performance parameters. 

Edited April 19, 2021 by John Smith

[Advertisement]

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

[davidmknoble]

8 minutes ago, John Smith said:

You should ask Stuart because he's the camera expert. But from what I understand, Leica wouldn't want to do that because the closer a lens is to a sensor the better its performance is. This is why the M lenses were sharper than SLR lenses back in the film days. Just look at Canon and Nikon and what they've done with their mirrorless mounts. Big with the sensor up close. And now they're cranking out new lenses with entirely new specs. Mirrorless isn't about smaller size per se. It's about performance parameters. 

That's an interesting concept - closer / better.  I don't know that I could tell if my S007 were 'better' but the lenses handle more contrast than my sensor.  I'll have to do some research.

 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

John, curious your thoughts, I asked Jeff the same question.  Is it not feasible to use the same S body, remove the mirror and then the lenses still work?  I understand most mirrorless systems are made to be more compact than a DSLR, but wouldn't Leica win by creating an S4 mirrorless of the same exact size? Why reduce it and have to create new lenses?

 

I'm no expert, but I think Leica would love to sell new lenses, and would care more about optimizing overall performance than designing a camera primarily to support legacy glass.  (Of course current S lenses would still need to work flawlessly.) As good as the S lenses are, technology (and Leica) have moved on.  

Jeff

Edited April 19, 2021 by Jeff S

[davidmknoble]

54 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I'm no expert, but I think Leica would love to sell new lenses, and would care more about optimizing overall performance than designing a camera primarily to support legacy glass.  (Of course current S lenses would still need to work flawlessly.) As good as the S lenses are, technology (and Leica) have moved on.  

Jeff

Jeff, interesting thoughts.  I think Leica has done a good job of legacy even with the development of the L/SL lens mount.  The only lenses they sell are M, L/SL and S, and the R was depreciated because of the idea of going from film to digital, not just new development to sell lenses. 

I think legacy products working on new bodies is part of their culture and the last S lens talk they were clear that the S lenses could go to 100mp and maybe more.  If you look at their detached lens products they are for three different groups / types of photography.  I think Leica adds special lenses and special products for a large profit - the silver Noctilux 1.2 sold out in minutes, seconds in some stores at $16k a pop.  They've invested in new motors and we really don't need any more S lenses to have a complete kit.  

I think I disagree that they would design a whole new generation of S lenses. They are having trouble getting out the SL lenses and now there is talk of a 24-70 f/2.8 SL lens that isn't on the roadmap.  

Overall,  I guess none of our opinions matter, they will do what they decide is best! Thanks for responding...

[ZHNL]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the S3 is pretty much as far as they can take the current bodies and lenses. Not so much that they cannot stand up to higher resolution, but that they cannot focus accurately enough and things that they could fit in the body shell. It is interesting to note that there really are not many SLR bodies that are super high resolution. You pretty much have only the Phase One cameras, the Canon 5DSR and Nikon D850. I suspect that it is difficult to achieve the focus accuracy required in an SLR format. At least in the case of the S3, the phase detect mechanism works ok, but it is far too large and imprecise for the super high resolution. It was even a bit borderline at 37mp, but at 64 you see if the sensor is even very slightly off.

With the mirror mechanism in place, I think it is highly unlikely that they will be able to provide any kind of stabilization, just due to size restrictions. If there had been that much free space to begin with, I doubt the camera would be as big as it is. Same goes for new screens...if Leica was going to truly update that side of the camera, they probably would have done so in the S3.

From what I have heard, I would agree with ZHNL in saying that what I have heard from people in a position to know is that the S4 will be mirrorless. I have not heard anything about when, how or what will happen with the lenses etc. It seems inevitable that they make a drastic change, either by cutting the product line entirely, or bringing it up to date and to a place where it can effectively compete for new users. I agree that there is much to love about the S in its current form factor, but any neutral observer must also concede that the system is not exactly thriving...

I agree about AF of S. I have to say I am the one of few who complain S AF accuracy the most even I personally know when I will expect to see the problem and how to avoid them and I used manual focus most of time. Still using old school eye ball focus wide open using hyperfocal distance during stop down shooting for deep DOF images, this is still the most enjoyable way shooting for me under great lighting condition. This is the big part of OVF S camera shooting enjoyment comes from.  Out of S glasses, I found 35/70 and 180 give less focus error that can be trusted more under well defined focus target with 37M file. 100 and 120 are prone to front focus at longer distance with 100 the worst offender. This behavior is cross multiple bodies I have, no matter is 007 or 006. 

I am a big fan of OVF camera but at this stage, to make S thrive or even survive, next S has to be MILC IMHO. 

[ZHNL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

 I have never used a tilt LCD and have had no issues with tripod work and landscape work without the tilt.  For me personally, I prefer the less is more method. The weather sealing is better without a tilt LCD and there is one less thing to break.  The only thing I use the LCD for (besides menu changes) is to see that I didn't grossly over or under expose something in the field and to see a reasonable histogram.  I may zoom in and check some critical focus, but that is it. I personally would dislike any kind of detachable LCD, but that is me.

I do have the right angle finder, but I've only used occasionally and mostly for the (infrequent) macro shots.

In reality, the S series was first for studio professionals and second, because of the size, a great landscape body and walk about body, but still does not remain a long lens documentary quick shoot body.  If you read some of the late Erwin Puts works, he showed an image of a 250mm or so (maybe 280mm) for the S series that never got put into production.  Because the lenses still have a ridiculous amount of room to go in contrast detail, I doubt Leica will discontinue the lens lineup just for a compact mirrorless body. 

Many, including me, love the brightness of the mirror system and the open f/stops on the S lenses make for fine focusing as well as real color and brightness evaluation.  Anytime it goes through a computer before you can see it, there are potential problems with color, lag, etc.  Even my SL2 has a lagging EVF when I'm shooting a sunrise with a 6 stop ND filter and 8 second exposures.  My S007 has zero lag. I suppose EVF technology is getting better and an EVF on an S body with no mirror is probably easier from a CLA standpoint.  

Second, I don't know, but it seems possible that a mirrorless body could be the same size.  After all, the sensor is in a straight line with the lens.  No reason to make the body a different size.  And if the mirror is removed, then it would seem the lenses would still work.

I'm also not sure I agree with the premise that a mirrored system could not focus say a 100mp 35 x 40 sensor.  It seems that 1 pixel to a billion pixels, if the 64mp system can be focused with a mirror, then the tolerances are there for higher resolution.  The wafer thin plane for digital has been there since the beginning.  That is one reason I like to shoot some old lenses with film, because of the thickness of the focus point.

As an aside, I've spent a good bit of time lately with my R8 and some old R glass. Until I really spent time with the S007 I thought the R8 was too clunky as I compared it to the MP and M3.  However, I've really grown to love it next to the S because it is so similar.  And all the R glass works great on my SL2, so why not?  For that matter, so does the S glass.  It seems like Leica took the R8 / R9 and split it into a hybrid - Leica S for high res intentional shooting and Leica SL for quick and long lens shooting.

Sorry to ramble....

 

Once I have enjoyed tilt LCD on tripod, there is no way I forget it. GFX 100S and Panasonic have the best implementation in business. 

Only if Leica can deliver a useable iphone APP which is not,  shooting S on tripod under strong day light or low angle are miserable experience at best. 

With ND filter from 6~10 stop, you may have zero lag but you can't see anything anyway I don't know if there is good way to focus even other than focus first and put filter on after. 

Low light focus is one of big advantages of MILC cameras.   

Edited April 19, 2021 by ZHNL

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

Jeff, interesting thoughts.  I think Leica has done a good job of legacy even with the development of the L/SL lens mount.  The only lenses they sell are M, L/SL and S, and the R was depreciated because of the idea of going from film to digital, not just new development to sell lenses. 

I think legacy products working on new bodies is part of their culture and the last S lens talk they were clear that the S lenses could go to 100mp and maybe more.  If you look at their detached lens products they are for three different groups / types of photography.  I think Leica adds special lenses and special products for a large profit - the silver Noctilux 1.2 sold out in minutes, seconds in some stores at $16k a pop.  They've invested in new motors and we really don't need any more S lenses to have a complete kit.  

I think I disagree that they would design a whole new generation of S lenses. They are having trouble getting out the SL lenses and now there is talk of a 24-70 f/2.8 SL lens that isn't on the roadmap.  

Overall,  I guess none of our opinions matter, they will do what they decide is best! Thanks for responding...

I think you missed my point, which included the requirement that current S lenses work flawlessly on any new body.  And even better if SL, M and R lenses can do the same.  A comprehensive ecosystem.  But aside from profits selling new bodies, additional profits would come from new S  lens sales.  The model is well established with other Leica systems.  Sure, the M has fantastic legacy glass, but new M lenses, in the same focal lengths, are continually released to create new sales, even more so when they work on the SL, or potentially on a new S. 

Jeff
 

[aksclix]

5 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

They are having trouble getting out the SL lenses

Really? The primes were getting sold out fast earlier.. they're more in stock of late.. 

Too many options out there today for pros and serious enthusiasts.. moreover, Leica SL lenses are pricey even for Leica owners.. Slightly less expensive SL lenses in the used market keep appearing every now and then, they don't last too long at all, which says there are enough buyers out there and are simply waiting to save a thousand or more in the used market. I am one of them I got my 24-90 and 90-280 in practically new condition for a lot less than retail price..  

Going back to the S topic, I think evolution is inevitable and the S will evolve into something else. Perhaps by 2025.. considering how slow they are in rolling out lenses   

 

[aksclix]

7 minutes ago, ZHNL said:

Out of S glasses, I found 35/70 and 180 give less focus error that can be trusted more under well defined focus target with 37M file. 100 and 120 are prone to front focus at longer distance with 100 the worst offender. This behavior is cross multiple bodies I have, no matter is 007 or 006. 

Haha! I only have the 35/70/180  

[ZHNL]

2 hours ago, John Smith said:

The S system was fantastic (and still is in some respects) ten or twelve years ago. 

S system is fantastic now and even in foreseeable future. It is still the most enjoyable camera system I ever touched out of anything now or before out there. (I have SL2, GFX100s and had X1d2) It is really just need to be appreciated by those who truly know the specialness of this system.

I feel Just mess market who chasing the on paper spec don't know how to appreciate this beauty.  

[aksclix]

2 minutes ago, ZHNL said:

S system is fantastic now and even in foreseeable future. It is still the most enjoyable camera system I ever touched out of anything now or before out there. (I have SL2, GFX100s and had X1d2) It is really just need to be appreciated by those who truly know the specialness of this system.

I feel Just mess market who chasing the on paper spec don't know how to appreciate this beauty.  

Yea.. there's something about the ergonomic design on the S. Despite being bulky, I find it very comfortable to hold... even with the 180mm. 

I will use my S007 whenever I am not running after fast AF. 2 of my lenses have new motor and they're not terribly slow either... 

[ZHNL]

2 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

That's an interesting concept - closer / better.  I don't know that I could tell if my S007 were 'better' but the lenses handle more contrast than my sensor.  I'll have to do some research.

 

Not true for performance. General speaking, It(without mirror) gives more flexibility in design without the mirror space that you can use shorter distance design but not other way around for SLR. Potentially, you also have the option to have smaller lens without mirror.

Other than that, long flange distance actually will force a telecentric design which is preferred for corner rendering at cost of lens size , weight and $$. Many cinematic glasses design choose this design approach purposely.   

[Stuart Richardson]

I doubt they would leave the body shell unchanged for mirrorless, because doing so would mean that you could not adapt M, R or SL lenses. Leica also tends to take design seriously, and leaving the camera in its current shape (which was developed specifically for an SLR format) does not make sense with mirrorless. I am sure that if the S4 is mirrorless, it will be in a new body. I am also sure, however, that they will try to maintain key features of the S body, so that existing users will feel at home. My hope would be that Leica would leave the 4 button interface, which really is better to use than the one they changed to in the SL2, but it goes against what they have been doing with their other cameras. The SL2 is already pretty familiar to the S in terms of handling, so I suspect that a mirrorless S4 would be similar. In addition to sensor size, I suspect they will find other ways to differentiate it from the SL line, but I am not sure what they would be. Perhaps a larger VF, better flash integration etc. 

[John Smith]

1 hour ago, ZHNL said:

Not true for performance. General speaking, It(without mirror) gives more flexibility in design without the mirror space that you can use shorter distance design but not other way around for SLR. Potentially, you also have the option to have smaller lens without mirror.

Other than that, long flange distance actually will force a telecentric design which is preferred for corner rendering at cost of lens size , weight and $$. Many cinematic glasses design choose this design approach purposely.   

Mount diameter lends itself to more flexible design. Shorter flange distance allows more light to get to the sensor (and less diffusion) which also affects lens design. Here is a Nikon engineer who talks about both. 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by John Smith

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I doubt they would leave the body shell unchanged for mirrorless, because doing so would mean that you could not adapt M, R or SL lenses. Leica also tends to take design seriously, and leaving the camera in its current shape (which was developed specifically for an SLR format) does not make sense with mirrorless. I am sure that if the S4 is mirrorless, it will be in a new body. I am also sure, however, that they will try to maintain key features of the S body, so that existing users will feel at home. My hope would be that Leica would leave the 4 button interface, which really is better to use than the one they changed to in the SL2, but it goes against what they have been doing with their other cameras. The SL2 is already pretty familiar to the S in terms of handling, so I suspect that a mirrorless S4 would be similar. In addition to sensor size, I suspect they will find other ways to differentiate it from the SL line, but I am not sure what they would be. Perhaps a larger VF, better flash integration etc. 

+1

Jeff

[prismstorm]

4 hours ago, ZHNL said:

S system is fantastic now and even in foreseeable future. It is still the most enjoyable camera system I ever touched out of anything now or before out there. (I have SL2, GFX100s and had X1d2) It is really just need to be appreciated by those who truly know the specialness of this system.

I feel Just mess market who chasing the on paper spec don't know how to appreciate this beauty.  

Hi ZHNL, would you care to elaborate why and what you prefer about the S system compared to all the other competing MF systems? Is it purely down to the OVF experience? 

Because obviously SL2 / GFX100S / X1DII are all mirrorless designs with focus-anywhere AF points / IBIS / face & eye detect AF, and contain many of the other modern features that the S simply doesn't carry in the current iteration.

[ZHNL]

30 minutes ago, prismstorm said:

Hi ZHNL, would you care to elaborate why and what you prefer about the S system compared to all the other competing MF systems? Is it purely down to the OVF experience? 

Because obviously SL2 / GFX100S / X1DII are all mirrorless designs with focus-anywhere AF points / IBIS / face & eye detect AF, and contain many of the other modern features that the S simply doesn't carry in the current iteration.

A few things stand out for me:

1. Best OVF shooting experience. with 70mm on it, you can shoot both eye open:) If you enjoy fast pace eyeball manual focus shooting, there is no better system.  I do, under good day light, I always reach S if I bring two system with me. Shooting modern MILC system with fancy Eye focus is a very boring experience. That is not the gear I want reach for fun. and viewing through EVF under high dynamic range condition is not an enjoyable experience at all no matter which EVF you are talking about. I just back from Oregon coast trip. Try shooting along the beach under sun with GFX100s/SL2 with S, you will know the difference.     

2. File quality from larger Sensor and Lens combination. The rendering is very smooth and consistent cross the focal length in the line. Never on your face sharpness, Corner is less stressed with low vignette. Distortion is low as well. The file is less 'digital' to my eyes. especially edit  S2/S006 portrait file, the mid tone is very subtle and delicate. I need spend a lot more time for other files to match 006 results under same condition if I try to. I don't really see much advantage of S system on landscape compare to others. As mentioned, shooting from tripod is not a good one compare to many competitions. Sharp and high dynamic range are cheap and everywhere nowadays. If you limit yourself comparing S for those, you miss the point IMHO. 

3. Ergo and menu control, This is the by far the best camera ever compare to anyone out there. No 20 pgs craps you need wade through.

4. build quality in term of "hardware" It is a joy to handle it.  

I may miss something and this might be subjective for sure, but that is all that matters to me anyway. 

[ZHNL]

3 hours ago, John Smith said:

Mount diameter lends itself to more flexible design. Shorter flange distance allows more light to get to the sensor (and less diffusion) which also affects lens design. Here is a Nikon engineer who talks about both. 

 

I am a loyal Nikon user and still have Z6 with a few Nikkor F mount gems, try to post this in Sony forum LOL  The major advantage of short flange distance is wide angle lens design can have more freedom. The lenses can be smaller. So high quality and small wide angle glass is possible. It would be difficult to do with mirror in the way. However, we just can't say that the closer the better, it is plain wrong and make no sense.

I am sure if S4 is mirrorless, we will see smaller high performance wide angle glasses compare to SLR version. I don't mind S glasses at all as the future glass will be all focus by wire which I don't enjoy using. I would avoid it at any cost if possible.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[aksclix]

1 hour ago, ZHNL said:

A few things stand out for me:

1. Best OVF shooting experience. with 70mm on it, you can shoot both eye open:) If you enjoy fast pace eyeball manual focus shooting, there is no better system.  I do, under good day light, I always reach S if I bring two system with me. Shooting modern MILC system with fancy Eye focus is a very boring experience. That is not the gear I want reach for fun. and viewing through EVF under high dynamic range condition is not an enjoyable experience at all no matter which EVF you are talking about. I just back from Oregon coast trip. Try shooting along the beach under sun with GFX100s/SL2 with S, you will know the difference.     

2. File quality from larger Sensor and Lens combination. The rendering is very smooth and consistent cross the focal length in the line. Never on your face sharpness, Corner is less stressed with low vignette. Distortion is low as well. The file is less 'digital' to my eyes. especially edit  S2/S006 portrait file, the mid tone is very subtle and delicate. I need spend a lot more time for other files to match 006 results under same condition if I try to. I don't really see much advantage of S system on landscape compare to others. As mentioned, shooting from tripod is not a good one compare to many competitions. Sharp and high dynamic range are cheap and everywhere nowadays. If you limit yourself comparing S for those, you miss the point IMHO. 

3. Ergo and menu control, This is the by far the best camera ever compare to anyone out there. No 20 pgs craps you need wade through.

4. build quality in term of "hardware" It is a joy to handle it.  

I may miss something and this might be subjective for sure, but that is all that matters to me anyway. 

Mostly agree but it’s not a whole lot am afraid and it’s not for everybody.. if I were to have only one camera (medium format) it wouldn’t be the S.. I’ve always said that the X1D is the most beautifully designed camera but if size didn’t matter then I think the S body is second to none.. the ergonomics is surprisingly awesome for a big body.. 

that said, it’s extremely ridiculous for the body leather to be peeling off after moderate use.. it’s even more ridiculous having to send the camera overseas only to get a new grip installed.. how hard is it to have that part in stock and get the part shipped to your local dealer? Especially when it’s such a common problem with the S.. another major flaw is the need to have a motor replaced on S lenses.. again looking at a terrible turnaround time.. 

I think it’s a blunder but many have no problems forgiving that easily.. I don’t know how many were pissed when this whole thing started to happen whenever it did..