S4 product recommendation

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

Stuart, I don’t think I follow you here.  If Leica were to create an S4 mirrorless that could take SL, M or R lenses too, isn’t that what the current SL2 is? Wouldn’t that dilute the entire point of the S system and the customer base for that system? 

I guess it just seems to make sense to keep one DSLR and one mirrorless.  Canon and Nikon do that now, they were just later getting into the mirrorless.

Yes, but with a bigger sensor, the ability to use central shutter lenses and so on. I do kind of feel like the S will be more or less merged into the SL line, only with bigger sensors. I suspect they will continue to sell the S3 in that body shell as long as they have parts. I love the OVF, I just don't think the market loves it...at least not at the price that it is at.

[Advertisement]

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

[ardbeg]

I’m rather late to this discussion and very new to the S system as I acquired a gently used S 007 a month back but have been using S glass adapted to an SL2 for a year or more. So, take my comments as clearly from a newbie. That said, I love the system, anachronisms and all. It strikes me that Leica could, if desired, iterate through several more S body refreshes before they hit a potential natural stopping point in SLR design / feature innovation. By way of comparison, the S reminds me a lot of a Nikon 90s — excellent at what it does but limited by an accurate but single focus point AF tech, etc. There were a lot of tech innovations in SLR design and operation (beyond just switch from film to digital sensor) between say an N90s and a D850 or equivalent late in the maturity curve DSLR. Maybe iterative improvements take them only to an ~S4/5 but I think there is still significant market differentiation by keeping the OVF and focusing on a well charted AF innovation and operation course. Increased sensor resolution can of course come along for the ride.

[ZHNL]

1 hour ago, ardbeg said:

I’m rather late to this discussion and very new to the S system as I acquired a gently used S 007 a month back but have been using S glass adapted to an SL2 for a year or more. So, take my comments as clearly from a newbie. That said, I love the system, anachronisms and all. It strikes me that Leica could, if desired, iterate through several more S body refreshes before they hit a potential natural stopping point in SLR design / feature innovation. By way of comparison, the S reminds me a lot of a Nikon 90s — excellent at what it does but limited by an accurate but single focus point AF tech, etc. There were a lot of tech innovations in SLR design and operation (beyond just switch from film to digital sensor) between say an N90s and a D850 or equivalent late in the maturity curve DSLR. Maybe iterative improvements take them only to an ~S4/5 but I think there is still significant market differentiation by keeping the OVF and focusing on a well charted AF innovation and operation course. Increased sensor resolution can of course come along for the ride.

I like this idea about improve further on SLR. If S can even achieve to D800 level on AF and electronics performance, it would be an incredible tool. However, I just don’t have much confidence for that to happen.

For more than 10 years since S introduction, the progress of AF is very limited and from s007 to S3 is almost nonexistent other than swap a sensor after 5 year. This is really my biggest disappointment come from. Don’t want hide that!

[aksclix]

2 hours ago, ardbeg said:

I’m rather late to this discussion and very new to the S system as I acquired a gently used S 007 a month back but have been using S glass adapted to an SL2 for a year or more. So, take my comments as clearly from a newbie. That said, I love the system, anachronisms and all. It strikes me that Leica could, if desired, iterate through several more S body refreshes before they hit a potential natural stopping point in SLR design / feature innovation. By way of comparison, the S reminds me a lot of a Nikon 90s — excellent at what it does but limited by an accurate but single focus point AF tech, etc. There were a lot of tech innovations in SLR design and operation (beyond just switch from film to digital sensor) between say an N90s and a D850 or equivalent late in the maturity curve DSLR. Maybe iterative improvements take them only to an ~S4/5 but I think there is still significant market differentiation by keeping the OVF and focusing on a well charted AF innovation and operation course. Increased sensor resolution can of course come along for the ride.

I also acquired an S007 about a couple months ago.. loving it a lot! 
I also recently found out the focus point can be moved around in live mode ( not while using the OVF.. ) which is actually a cool thing.. I think it’s only available with the latest firmware 

 

[John Smith]

18 hours ago, setuporg said:

I honestly don't understand what are you talking about.  I've not used the M 75mm Noctilux and 90mm Summilux because I took Thorsten von Overgaard's word and pictures for it -- too clinical.  Thorsten says a lot of things many people agree or disagree with, but I'm with him on that.  The 50 Noct is better in its overall artistic output than the 75 Noct.  There's nothing in S lenses that's superseded by any of the new ones, IMHO.  The mirrorless MF are equally clinical.  If you like clinical then of course more MPs of clinical will be even better.  

I realized I prefer the OVF and the experience of photography to MF race and got a DFA 50/1.4 for my Pentax K-1 instead of chasing GFX100S.  I love the results, some say it's like a Summilux.  However it's hard for K-1 to get everything right every time, and I see how magical S is, even a year older than the K-1.  And the lens came out in 2018, with the DFA 95/1.4 that followed up recently.

I read Thorsten's interview. He didn't say, "Too clinical." He said, "It's too perfect." Funny how you say that the 50 Noct is better in its overall artistic output than the 75 Noct when you admit never having used the 75. 

Thorsten also quotes Stephan Schultz on his blog, saying that Leica does not plan any more lenses for the current S system.

 

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 April 21, 2021 by John Smith

[Jeff S]

29 minutes ago, aksclix said:

I also recently found out the focus point can be moved around in live mode ( not while using the OVF.. ) which is actually a cool thing.. I think it’s only available with the latest firmware 

 

This was one of the basic benefits with LV on the 007 from the start (using contrast detect off the sensor, not phase detect through OVF).

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2016/02/live-view-and-playback-operation-walkthrough-on-the-leica-s-typ-007/

Jeff

 

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, John Smith said:

Funny how you say that the 50 Noct is better in its overall artistic output than the 75 Noct when you admit never having used the 75. 

We have much more images from the 50 Nocts of all generations so it's a known entity.  I think it's applicable in many more situations as well, so will be "better" as in "on hand" more often.  The 75mm is even bigger so one will take it along not as much.  But of course you're right one would have to compare them directly in the same setup for your own situations.

[Miamistv]

Too many people here talk about the S lenses coming into the modern era.  Poseurs. Screw you for you know not of what you speak.  These lenses are top shelf, modern and incredible.  Lens technology does not change so fast and newer is not always better. The output from S lenses are beautiful and lack for nothing.  Any compromises, there are no perfect optics, are, minimal and appropriate.  Hone your skills and you will be rewarded.  Stop wanking. 

[aksclix]

1 hour ago, Miamistv said:

Too many people here talk about the S lenses coming into the modern era.  Poseurs. Screw you for you know not of what you speak.  These lenses are top shelf, modern and incredible.  Lens technology does not change so fast and newer is not always better. The output from S lenses are beautiful and lack for nothing.  Any compromises, there are no perfect optics, are, minimal and appropriate.  Hone your skills and you will be rewarded.  Stop wanking. 

Sharing an opinion with strong aggression doesn’t make you right 😂 it’s still just an opinion 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Miamistv said:

Too many people here talk about the S lenses coming into the modern era.  Poseurs. Screw you for you know not of what you speak.  These lenses are top shelf, modern and incredible.  Lens technology does not change so fast and newer is not always better. The output from S lenses are beautiful and lack for nothing.  Any compromises, there are no perfect optics, are, minimal and appropriate.  Hone your skills and you will be rewarded.  Stop wanking. 

A number of people are suggesting newer lenses primarily as a result of the possibility that the system goes mirrorless (Leica decision, not ours), in which case the current lenses would likely require an adapter.  And at that point, Leica would presumably want to sell more lenses and would need to market some ‘advantages’, at least as they determine.

A lot of M users prefer Mandler era lenses to Karbe’s designs.  Nothing new.  There always has to be a basis to sell more.

Jeff

Edited April 22, 2021 by Jeff S

[prismstorm]

Wishlist for a S4 body:

- Intermediary ISO values: why can't we choose ISO 250 or 640?

- Quick Exposure Compensation via top dial: why can't this be added through a firmware update? The SL has been able to do Quick EV adjustment since the Typ 601.

- Dual UHS-II SD or CF Express / XQD card slots: seriously, not a fan of bent pins in 2021.

- More than one singe center AF point: Even implementing 4-5 AF points would increase focus accuracy dramatically when the subject is off-center in the composition.

- LCD upgrade: The low-res, non-touch screen is disgusting in 2021 when you consider that the SL2 and SL2-S has double the LCD resolution and a much newer panel that is touch-capable. S is supposed to be the flagship of Leica, not an underdog with leftover parts back in 2015. 

- Maestro 3: Again, why does the SL2, which costs 4 times less, has this but the S line doesn't have it, even when it produces much beefier files.

The above should be mandatory, as it should have been implemented into the S3 from the beginning since all the technology is available. The S3 now feels like the same S Typ 007 body with a sensor swap.

Bonus points would be going mirrorless, getting a EVF, and even IBIS. A properly done Leica mirrorless medium format camera with IBIS, EVF, WYSIWYG, upgraded screens, processors and card slots, will be killer.

Also, option to turn off LENR would be nice, they did that for the SL2, why not here.

Edited April 22, 2021 by prismstorm

[John McMaster]

One thing that has not been said, the M and S lenses are for optical viewfinders so are better corrected than lenses for electronic v/fs.  Look at the distortion in some SL, GFX, XD lenses if you can get them before software tweaks the output...

john

 

[John Smith]

5 hours ago, John McMaster said:

One thing that has not been said, the M and S lenses are for optical viewfinders so are better corrected than lenses for electronic v/fs.  Look at the distortion in some SL, GFX, XD lenses if you can get them before software tweaks the output...

john

 

Peter Karbe talks about this in his SL-lens presentation. Lenses, of course, present a host of variables and compromises. For the 50mm Summilux-SL, Leica decided that chromatic aberration (I seem to recall) was easily resolved through software. That allowed Leica to better correct other variables to improve the lens's performance. So, while the M and S lenses might be designed for optical viewfinders, I don't think you can say that in and of itself makes them better optically. As for the SL lenses, I'm not aware of any software tweaks besides what Karbe mentioned about the 50mm Lux. I understand the Q has some, but it is not an SL lens.

Edited April 22, 2021 by John Smith

[BernardC]

7 hours ago, prismstorm said:

Wishlist for a S4 body:

- Intermediary ISO values: why can't we choose ISO 250 or 640?

- Quick Exposure Compensation via top dial: why can't this be added through a firmware update? The SL has been able to do Quick EV adjustment since the Typ 601.

- Dual UHS-II SD or CF Express / XQD card slots: seriously, not a fan of bent pins in 2021.

- More than one singe center AF point: Even implementing 4-5 AF points would increase focus accuracy dramatically when the subject is off-center in the composition.

- LCD upgrade: The low-res, non-touch screen is disgusting in 2021 when you consider that the SL2 and SL2-S has double the LCD resolution and a much newer panel that is touch-capable. S is supposed to be the flagship of Leica, not an underdog with leftover parts back in 2015. 

- Maestro 3: Again, why does the SL2, which costs 4 times less, has this but the S line doesn't have it, even when it produces much beefier files.

The above should be mandatory, as it should have been implemented into the S3 from the beginning since all the technology is available. The S3 now feels like the same S Typ 007 body with a sensor swap.

Bonus points would be going mirrorless, getting a EVF, and even IBIS. A properly done Leica mirrorless medium format camera with IBIS, EVF, WYSIWYG, upgraded screens, processors and card slots, will be killer.

Also, option to turn off LENR would be nice, they did that for the SL2, why not here.

I agree with most of what you wrote. I think the issue is that the S3 upgrade was done on a tight budget. The option were probably

• Doing the minimum to get a new sensor in the old body,
• Doing nothing at all.

The S3 uses a variation on the M10-R sensor, so that part didn't require a huge additional investment.

It would have been great if they got rid of CF card slot, and installed a better screen, but the cost/benefits might not have added-up. Same thing with the processor. The S3 doesn't do 10 fps, or advanced video, so the newer processor wouldn't make much difference.

As regards AF points, I have read that the issue is suppliers. Nobody makes phase sensors that are big enough for medium format. Something that fills a frame on an APS-C SLR would  produce a tight cluster of AF points in the middle of a medium format frame. That's even less useful than having a single AF point. The S series isn't marketed to professionals who depend on AF in the first place, so a bespoke phase sensor would be an expensive endeavour with no payoff.

[setuporg]

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

so a bespoke phase sensor would be an expensive endeavour with no payoff.

But a DSLR does not require phase detection on sensor...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/videos/photography/what’s-the-difference-between-phase-vs-contrast-autofocus

[ZHNL]

26 minutes ago, setuporg said:

But a DSLR does not require phase detection on sensor...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/videos/photography/what’s-the-difference-between-phase-vs-contrast-autofocus

SLR have a separate AF sensor which is phase detection only. There is no point for SLR implement contrast detect on that sensor as it is not for image anyway and it will be slower because of feedback control nature of CDAF. The focus error is not from phase detection but separated path from focus and imaging and open loop nature that focus algorithm instruction can be off from individual lens or camera based on detected phase error.
 

007 do have CDAF for LCD shooting. 

 There are also technical complication for off center focus accuracy and aperture allowed due to light angle but that is a separate topic. 
 

Edited April 22, 2021 by ZHNL

[prismstorm]

11 hours ago, BernardC said:

I agree with most of what you wrote. I think the issue is that the S3 upgrade was done on a tight budget. The option were probably

• Doing the minimum to get a new sensor in the old body,
• Doing nothing at all.

The S3 uses a variation on the M10-R sensor, so that part didn't require a huge additional investment.

It would have been great if they got rid of CF card slot, and installed a better screen, but the cost/benefits might not have added-up. Same thing with the processor. The S3 doesn't do 10 fps, or advanced video, so the newer processor wouldn't make much difference.

As regards AF points, I have read that the issue is suppliers. Nobody makes phase sensors that are big enough for medium format. Something that fills a frame on an APS-C SLR would  produce a tight cluster of AF points in the middle of a medium format frame. That's even less useful than having a single AF point. The S series isn't marketed to professionals who depend on AF in the first place, so a bespoke phase sensor would be an expensive endeavour with no payoff.

There is a difference between knowing why Leica didn't do anything for the S3 iteration except slap the new sensor in a S007 body, and agreeing with what they did. 

The S3 costs up to four times a SL2 / GFX / X1DII, and none of the technology / features really match up. Although realistically we can still operate and shoot great pictures with a S3, it still leaves a sour taste in the mouth, and makes one seriously doubt the system's prospects.

My S3 just arrived two days ago, so I'll have to tune myself to get used to what I do have on hand, as the S4 is mythical at best at this point. The S system is at a crossroad and Leica is internally split between what direction to take it. I don't mind either way but my worst nightmare is that it will go the fate of the R system, and at some point the SL system completely takes over. 

The only other two DSLR type medium format cameras are the Hasselblad H and Phase One XF, both also have a single center AF point, but their sensors are 1.5 larger than the one in the S. Plus, Hasselblad H has the 'True Focus' technology and Phase One has the 'AFr (autofocus recompose) feature to compensate for plane of focus errors after re-composition, whilst the S still has nothing of that sort after a decade of development and 4 iterations. Leica could make use of gyroscopes (already present in M10-R / SL2 and beyond) to alleviate the focus problems when a subject is off-centered and the depth of field is minimal. Right now, we either have to force our subjects to stay in the dead center, use live view contrast detect (which is excruciatingly slow), or stop down to f/8-11 to compensate with depth of field (which contradicts Leica's constant marketing about using their lenses wide open and that the widest aperture is a usable aperture). At this sensor size and resolution, any focusing errors render any IQ advantages moot. 

[setuporg]

5 hours ago, ZHNL said:

SLR have a separate AF sensor which is phase detection only

Exactly.  So no need for PDAF on the main sensors, no special pixels.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[BernardC]

9 hours ago, setuporg said:

Exactly.  So no need for PDAF on the main sensors, no special pixels.

I was talking about the sensor located at the bottom of the mirror box, which is a phase-detect sensor. It's a technology that Leica was first to develop. They licensed it to Minolta in the 1980s.

The problem is that commercially available mirror-box phase sensors are sized for smaller formats, so a multi-point sensor on an APS-C SLR becomes a bunch of AF points clustered at the center of the frame on medium format. In a way, it's better to have a single focus point than several points that practically overlap.

As noted above, PhaseOne and Hasselblad have the same issue, although they have both implemented "focus and recompose" workarounds. Leica could do this too (it's just simple maths), but maybe their customers don't find it as important. The M is the ultimate "center focus point" camera, after all.

[prismstorm]

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

I was talking about the sensor located at the bottom of the mirror box, which is a phase-detect sensor. It's a technology that Leica was first to develop. They licensed it to Minolta in the 1980s.

The problem is that commercially available mirror-box phase sensors are sized for smaller formats, so a multi-point sensor on an APS-C SLR becomes a bunch of AF points clustered at the center of the frame on medium format. In a way, it's better to have a single focus point than several points that practically overlap.

As noted above, PhaseOne and Hasselblad have the same issue, although they have both implemented "focus and recompose" workarounds. Leica could do this too (it's just simple maths), but maybe their customers don't find it as important. The M is the ultimate "center focus point" camera, after all.

Except that:

1) the M has a much smaller sensor, so depth of field is not as shallow and therefore focus is not as critical at any equivalent aperture; and 

2) the M is traditionally used much more in street / documentary settings, where things are shot at f/8 or above or hyperfocal is used, also making critical focus not as vital than the S, where really belongs in studios and on tripods