Entry into S system. 007 v S3

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a printer I would split the middle between the two of you. Additional resolution will make a print look better at very large sizes, and it can also help a lot with tonality and cropping, but in most practical cases, 35-50mp shot properly is enough to render a detailed print large enough to be convincing at any normal size. That said, additional resolution DOES make the print look better up close. I think people tend to think of viewing distance as a fixed concept, but in my experience it really isn't. People appreciate prints from far enough away to experience the whole image, and then they close in and look at details. People photographing portraits or abstract subjects can often get away with much less resolution than landscape shooters, as they are more likely to have a lot of bokeh and smoother details. Landscape often brings in a lot of high frequency detail that can be disturbing when it is too soft. Basically, no one tool fits everyone, and no one tool even fits every image from a given photographer.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Advertisement]

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

[davidmknoble]

@geddon_jt, going from the SL to the S007 is an increase in MP from 24 to 37, so you will most likely enjoy the increase.  The SL2 is a 47mp sensor and so a little different adjustment.  I do find the S007 dynamic range better than both SL and SL2 which you will like.  In terms of lenses, the 100 has such a slim DOF,  will most likely not use the f/2 to take images of horses and non-studio portraits.  Look at Mark Mann who uses 120 exclusively and lens is much less.  I think you might also enjoy the 45 (35mm equivalent) for some work.

[geetee1972]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:16 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

As a printer I would split the middle between the two of you. Additional resolution will make a print look better at very large sizes, and it can also help a lot with tonality and cropping, but in most practical cases, 35-50mp shot properly is enough to render a detailed print large enough to be convincing at any normal size. That said, additional resolution DOES make the print look better up close. I think people tend to think of viewing distance as a fixed concept, but in my experience it really isn't. People appreciate prints from far enough away to experience the whole image, and then they close in and look at details. People photographing portraits or abstract subjects can often get away with much less resolution than landscape shooters, as they are more likely to have a lot of bokeh and smoother details. Landscape often brings in a lot of high frequency detail that can be disturbing when it is too soft. Basically, no one tool fits everyone, and no one tool even fits every image from a given photographer.

Tonality is such an important part of the image quality. I'm curious to know if the 16 bit files in the S make a difference to that or not. On paper they absolutely should, but I am aware that there is disagreement as to whether the S is truly 16 bit or rather 14 bit with two additional 1bit channels (which I have been told means it's not truly 16-bit).

Either way, tonality is wy I went back to shooting film. You cannot get the tonal transition in digital that you can get from large or medium format film (well not at anything like sane levels of money and even then I think large format still trumps all digital).

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, geetee1972 said:

Tonality is such an important part of the image quality. I'm curious to know if the 16 bit files in the S make a difference to that or not. On paper they absolutely should, but I am aware that there is disagreement as to whether the S is truly 16 bit or rather 14 bit with two additional 1bit channels (which I have been told means it's not truly 16-bit).

Either way, tonality is wy I went back to shooting film. You cannot get the tonal transition in digital that you can get from large or medium format film (well not at anything like sane levels of money and even then I think large format still trumps all digital).

14 bit files in a 16 bit container.  In my experience, film or digital, larger format sizes (negative or sensor size) potentially make an important difference in terms of tonal gradations, assuming all other shooting and print workflow variables are reasonably comparable.  But those shooting (lighting) and workflow variables are key for extracting the most tonality and image quality, regardless of format size.

Jeff

[geddon_jt]

So I found a good deal on a 120mm S macro lens and pulled the trigger, along with a S to L mount adapter. Gonna experiment with this on an SL before pulling the trigger on an S camera. Thanks again everyone!

[ardbeg]

45 minutes ago, geddon_jt said:

So I found a good deal on a 120mm S macro lens and pulled the trigger, along with a S to L mount adapter. Gonna experiment with this on an SL before pulling the trigger on an S camera. Thanks again everyone!

I did the same thing but with S lenses on an SL2. I lasted about 9 months before the S camera “siren song” won me over and I got a used S 007.

[geddon_jt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quick update. Today we tested the macro 120mm on the SL 601. We have been using the SL since 2018 primarily with the 75 noctilux which of course is a much more expensive lens. But to say we were blown away by the rendering of the 120 macro is an understatement. Wow!! 

[Photon42]

On 5/8/2021 at 5:11 PM, geddon_jt said:

Quick update. Today we tested the macro 120mm on the SL 601. We have been using the SL since 2018 primarily with the 75 noctilux which of course is a much more expensive lens. But to say we were blown away by the rendering of the 120 macro is an understatement. Wow!! 

The 120S is absolutely fantastic. Just like all (most) other S lenses .. 😇 I can go wonderfully close, too.

[davidmknoble]

It is interesting these conversations still take place after the S007 and the SL were introduced so long ago (in digital terms, not film terms).  Leica made such an interesting move.  I love the ability to mount different lenses on the SL(2).  So, I use M, SL, S, R and Nikon AIS lenses on the SL2 making it very hard to part with.  Yet, the S007 is such a great image file.  

After shooting film for 40 years, I could change with the times by upgrading film and chemistry.  For example, the Ilford Delta 400 is as crisp or crisper than the 1980’s Kodak 125. Upgrading a roll of film and new developer concentrate is incredibly cheap compared to digital.

So, is the S007 just tuned better in post processing, or is the sensor that much better than the one in the SL2?  Same for S3?  Clearly the price of the camera body (S3 new or S007 new) is 3-4 times that of the SL.  Or is the SL less expensive because Leica makes it up on buying new lenses, SL or M Noctiluxes?

If I could modify the SL2 files and get files that I quickly produce with the S007, I’d go SL2 exclusively.  It just seems I really am getting more with the S007.

Anybody else have thoughts here?

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, I have the opposite feeling. If I could get what I get out of the SL2 from the S3, I would not be selling it. I just don't like the look of the files compared to the SL2 and S006. The main part is the color, which I do not like, but it is also the character of the noise. Everyone else seems to love it though, so clearly the problem is my taste, not the camera.

As for film, the current films like the new Portra and Tmax 400 are fantastic, not as convinced by Neopan Acros II, which seems worse to the original to me, but at least it exists. I have not tried E100 yet, but I will be surprised if it can be as good as Provia 100F or E100G. I hope so! I never really got on as well with Ilford films. They are perfectly serviceable, but it always felt to me like the giant size and research departments of Fuji and Kodak showed up in the quality of their films (and quality control...at least until the Kodak breakup, after which Kodak had some major issues. Still, overall they are still very good when it comes to emulsion consistency. I have not had the same luck with Ilford...I had a whole box of 8x10 Delta 100 with a visible drop pattern on all the sheets).

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

So, is the S007 just tuned better in post processing, or is the sensor that much better than the one in the SL2?  Same for S3?  Clearly the price of the camera body (S3 new or S007 new) is 3-4 times that of the SL.  Or is the SL less expensive because Leica makes it up on buying new lenses, SL or M Noctiluxes?

 

Sensor size (physical format) matters, both in potential print rendering (tonal transitions, for instance) as well as in market (price) positioning. The SL market is far more competitive, and price sensitive (body and lenses), than the M system, with little or no competition.  Compact, high performing,  lenses are also much harder and expensive to produce than larger counterparts.  The S system plays in another market, which over time has changed significantly since its early release, before the likes of Pentax, Hasselblad and Fuji lowered the price of entry. Technology has also allowed more companies to produce high quality lenses to match increasingly more capable sensors, at all format sizes. 
 

The S3 would be even more expensive if the sensor architecture weren’t shared, and costs spread, with the M10-R and M10 Monochrom (similar to S007 and M240). 
 

Many factors to consider.

 

Jeff

Edited July 3, 2021 by Jeff S

[BernardC]

On 7/3/2021 at 9:09 AM, davidmknoble said:

Clearly the price of the camera body (S3 new or S007 new) is 3-4 times that of the SL.  Or is the SL less expensive because Leica makes it up on buying new lenses, SL or M Noctiluxes?

The S is much more expensive to build. It uses a custom sensor, shutter, mirror box, viewfinder, etc. It also needs more manual adjustment during the build process to make sure that everything is lined-up within very tight tolerances. One of the advantages of mirrorless is that small variations are self-compensating via AF. LensRentals wrote a blog post about that, years ago. Even high-end cameras had quite a lot of variance in flange-to-sensor distance, which is OK for mirrorless and video, but not for a high-end SLR.

The price difference can't be ignored, of course. Photographers who earn a living from their images will find it easy to justify (an S kit is cheaper than a window washer's van), but most hobbyists have a harder time. Thankfully the price difference isn't as high once you start looking at used and demo cameras.

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, BernardC said:

The S is much more expensive to build. It uses a custom sensor, shutter, mirror box, viewfinder, etc. It also needs more manual adjustment during the build process to make sure that everything is lined-up within very tight tolerances. One of the advantages of mirrorless is that small variations are self-compensating via AF. LensRentals wrote a blog post about that, years ago. Even high-end cameras had quite a lot of variance in flange-to-sensor distance, which is OK for mirrorless and video, but not for a high-end SLR.

The price difference can't be ignored, of course. Photographers who earn a living from their images will find it easy to justify (an S kit is cheaper than a window washer's van), but most hobbyists have a harder time. Thankfully the price difference isn't as high once you start looking at used and demo cameras.

Indeed, and mirrorless cameras can rely on software corrections to address lens distortions, which would show up in the OVF of an S unless minimized in the design and build.

Jeff

Edited July 5, 2021 by Jeff S

[davidmknoble]

@Jeff S and @BernardC, 

I get the sensor size differences (mostly pixel pitch), but at the same print density (DPI) a larger sensor just has a larger print size.  In old black and white, films were different and one could modify exposure and development on the same film.  I also agree that SLR type cameras can be more expensive to build than mirrorless.  Maybe even double.

What I am trying to wrap my head around is the 400% cost difference from the SL2 to the S3 (and during the SL2 introduction, the S007 was still available new).  I don’t believe cost of the body and tolerances is enough for that price difference, so I have to think the sensor quality of reading and evaluating light is better.  I do think the colors seem more natural than the SL2 (or SL for that matter).

I use both and enjoy both.  I keep thinking a comparison of a 37mb sensor (S007) and a 47mb sensor (SL2) are in the same neighborhood.  Yes, the S007 has more light gathering area, so I expect the subtle tonal graduations to be better, but it seems more than that.

Just rambling and musing…

David.

[davidmknoble]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Indeed, and mirrorless cameras can rely on software corrections to address lens distortions, which would show up in the OVF of an S unless minimized in the design and build.

Jeff

Which is why I love the S glass so much - it was meant to look through, not be corrected. In the same way, I love the R glass as well (some of it) as it was also meant to be looked through, not corrected later…

[Jeff S]

The cost to develop and produce the sensor underlying the S3 (and S 007 before that) would likely have been cost prohibitive without the economies resulting from sharing sensor architecture with the M10-R and M10 Monochrom (and the M240 before that). 
 

 

Jeff

Edited July 5, 2021 by Jeff S

[BernardC]

15 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

What I am trying to wrap my head around is the 400% cost difference from the SL2 to the S3 (and during the SL2 introduction, the S007 was still available new).  I don’t believe cost of the body and tolerances is enough for that price difference, so I have to think the sensor quality of reading and evaluating light is better.  I do think the colors seem more natural than the SL2 (or SL for that matter).

The S3 is 3x the price (aka 200% more), not 400%, but I get what you mean.

In the end, the two systems have different looks. The S is meant for high-end fashion/lifestyle gigs, and those people want an SLR and "traditional" lenses with real manual focus capability. It's a small niche, with no economies of scale. It's also not something that all photographers want or need. As others have mentioned, there are many reasons why you might prefer the look and operation of the SL cameras to the S.

A 3x price difference between two seemingly similar products isn't unusual. Musicians see an even bigger range, often more than 10x between entry-level (but perfectly adequate) and master-built.

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It's a small niche, with no economies of scale. 

 

Except across Leica product lines, to some degree, as noted.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[davidmknoble]

10 hours ago, BernardC said:

The S3 is 3x the price (aka 200% more), not 400%, but I get what you mean.

Yes my mistake, was looking at the SL2-S.  The S3 is 300% of the SL2 price or 200% more.  I get the niche.  I think I am just wishing the S sensor were in the SL2 because I enjoy using all the different types of lenses on it. But even after shooting the sunset tonight on the coast, I love the S007 files.  So, there’s my answer…

[BigBabyEarl]

So today. Knowing that there’s a mirrorless system in the works, 006, 007, or S3 if one was to start today?

Edited June 10, 2022 by BigBabyEarl