Keep me from selling my S007 kit!

[AlanD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The S glass is unique for portraits, although I have not had a chance to shoot with the Fuji 80/1.7 which may come close to the 70 Summarit-S.

I had a nice S setup with 35/70/120.  I swapped everything for a GFX100 which has corrected the overly “digital” look of the GFX50 line and pretty much eliminated gear acquisition syndrome for image quality.  Some of the best Nikon S rangefinder, Leica M and Contax G glass nearly fills the 33x44 sensor size.

The focus speed and reliability of GFX gave me more consistent results for dynamic portraits.

GFX glass is more Zeiss than Leica with that biting contrast, but the 80/1.7 is supposed to have the tonality of Leica.  For what it’s worth, I sold my Leica Q because it seemed to accentuate wrinkles that weren’t actually visible in my subjects.  With the S and GFX lenses, there is incredible detail but someone it is also pleasing.

I wish I still had my S006 for collectibility and fun, but primarily because I like the CCD look in combination with the S glass.  I still have my M9.

It’s a shame there are no reliable Leica S to GFX adapters.  I am not sure how the S to L mount performs.

[Jon Warwick]

15 hours ago, AlanD said:

I swapped everything for a GFX100 which has ….pretty much eliminated gear acquisition syndrome for image quality.  

This has been a similar experience for me too with my GFX100S. Albeit in my case I sold my SL2, digital Ms, 50m SL and M Summicron APOs, and despite extensively trying the S006/7, it was the GFX100S where I finally found the image quality that I’d been looking for. For now I have very little interest in other cameras, and my GAS is satiated - which I find very liberating. In terms of rendering, it is work-in-progress given I’ve tried it more to date on landscapes, rather than portraits, but I’ve had some success already in taming my GF 63mm lens’ “biting contrast” with filters like the Tiffen Black Pro Mist and Glimmerglass. A mixture of a bit of halation and (in particular) the lifting of the blacks seems to lend a gentler rendering with less abrupt contrast, which is more “S” like to my eyes. 

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

5 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

 In terms of rendering, it is work-in-progress given I’ve tried it more to date on landscapes, rather than portraits, but I’ve had some success already in taming my GF 63mm lens’ “biting contrast” with filters like the Tiffen Black Pro Mist and Glimmerglass. A mixture of a bit of halation and (in particular) the lifting of the blacks seems to lend a gentler rendering with less abrupt contrast, which is more “S” like to my eyes. 

this is with the GF63, with Acros RED, shot jpg, simply cropped and thats it. i noticed some of the film simulations seem to really work well for close up portraits

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!

 

[Jon Warwick]

15 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

.... I’ve had some success already in taming my GF 63mm lens’ “biting contrast” with filters like the Tiffen Black Pro Mist and Glimmerglass. A mixture of a bit of halation and (in particular) the lifting of the blacks seems to lend a gentler rendering with less abrupt contrast, which is more “S” like to my eyes. 

You can possibly see what I mean here with this image, taken with a 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter on the GF 63mm and GFX100S. It was certainly twilight when I took the image (40 second exposure), but in the top left corner you can see this Tiffen filter gave a little halation to what "highlights" there were, and it would also have lifted the blacks. This all combines IMHO to create a less abrupt contrast for the image, and hence more gentle rendering overall that I prefer. Certainly my experience suggests a gentle rendering seems to occur more natively with Leica S lenses (without the need for filtration), but for the sharp and contrasty GF lenses, I like the output that I'm now getting .... thanks to a bit of filter help!

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!

[frame-it]

31 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

You can possibly see what I mean here with this image, taken with a 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter on the GF 63mm and GFX100S. It was certainly twilight when I took the image (40 second exposure), but in the top left corner you can see this Tiffen filter gave a little halation to what "highlights" there were, and it would also have lifted the blacks. This all combines IMHO to create a less abrupt contrast for the image, and hence more gentle rendering overall that I prefer. Certainly my experience suggests a gentle rendering seems to occur more natively with Leica S lenses (without the need for filtration), but for the sharp and contrasty GF lenses, I like the output that I'm now getting .... thanks to a bit of filter help!

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!

are you using C1 or LR?

[Jon Warwick]

1 minute ago, frame-it said:

are you using C1 or LR?

Photoshop.

And in this particular example, I decided to use the "Provia" Camera Profile when processing the Raw file.

 

[mgrayson3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try a little negative clarity on an unfiltered image and see how close that gets you to your desired look.

Edited December 21, 2021 by mgrayson3

[AlanD]

I just don’t see a strong argument for the S bodies over the GFX100 bodies.  Leica really has to look at the S investment as the equivalent of their cine line.  Transition the S as a cine lens for SL bodies and sell an S to GFX adapter and they are going to be able to sell BNIB S lenses at the $8K they are asking.

[mgrayson3]

Abundantly repeated response retracted.

Edited December 21, 2021 by mgrayson3

[Jon Warwick]

3 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

Try a little negative clarity on an unfiltered image and see how close that gets you to your desired look.

Many thanks for your comment.

In the past, I’d only really explored negative clarity for Portraits …. but this evening, after your suggestion, I’ve explored it more, notably for Landscapes / Nature.

I’m really rather impressed! It certainly helps avoid what I considered to be some digitals’ “excessive” mid-tone contrast (which made the texture & detail of tree bark, branches, and leaves look rather harsh). That high mid-tone contrast off digital was something that I’d found jarring when I compared it to the softer rendering I preferred of drum-scanned film.

It seems the negative slider could really help to bridge that gap and create a more filmic rendering that I desire, so many thanks again for your suggestion!

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[frame-it]

48 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

Many thanks for your comment.

In the past, I’d only really explored negative clarity for Portraits …. but this evening, after your suggestion, I’ve explored it more, notably for Landscapes / Nature.

I’m really rather impressed! It certainly helps avoid what I considered to be some digitals’ “excessive” mid-tone contrast (which made the texture & detail of tree bark, branches, and leaves look rather harsh). That high mid-tone contrast off digital was something that I’d found jarring when I compared it to the softer rendering I preferred of drum-scanned film.

It seems the negative slider could really help to bridge that gap and create a more filmic rendering that I desire, so many thanks again for your suggestion!

aha

 

in Lightroom its easy:

make an oval mask, set range mask to "luminance", adjust the smoothness to almost zero, and drag range to the right to select the highlights, and then use negative clarity and negative texture inside this mask + lift shadows and adjust highlights if required, i use that for harsh bits in tree branches etc etc works very well.

 

[Arif]

On 12/21/2021 at 8:15 AM, Jon Warwick said:

It was the GFX100S where I finally found the image quality that I’d been looking for. 

Same for me, after 10+ years of S2/007, I am very satisfied now with the GFX100S image quality and more importantly "focus consistency" with the 80/1.7 at F1.7 and the 110/2 at F2.  I do love the S100 and the S120 and have all the S-lenses waiting for a future adapter. The attached picture is with the 80f1.7 with minor post processing.

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!

[mgrayson3]

I have the luxury of shooting for my own pleasure (and the annoyance of my friends and family). It's always a balance of the "good enough's". Good enough detail for large prints, Good enough percentage in focus, Good enough ergonomics, Good enough optics, Good enough color.... These are not mutually exclusive, but they are often at odds. If I wanted the highest focus hit-rate, I'd go Sony FF (Ok, I will never get another Sony, so I would actually get Canon or Nikon, but you get the idea). If detail were paramount, the IQ4 150. Ok, too expensive. Then the GFX 100. The S3 isn't far behind, but that's also not the comparison in question.

I have the luxury, as I said, of choosing my own balance of these parameters. For me, the S(007) would still win. I shoot landscape and architecture, so magnified live-view takes care of that. I don't shoot moving subjects, or the weightings would change. I've never printed more than 40" wide where (and I've done the test), you need a loupe to distinguish 37, 64, and 100 MP. Aside: I find 60MP to be a dividing line. Above that, and going from fullscreen to 100% is an unrecognizable step - am I looking at the same image? Below 60MP, and it looks like zooming.

Why I'm sticking with the S? Ergonomics - I *like* using it. Every thing else in MF is just a tool, and usually with too many buttons that are glove unfriendly. And at its best, it produces the most pleasing images - the highest highs, if you will. You'll note that these are both purely personal! And that, as I keep repeating, is the only thing that matters. How much does each individual photographer like the use and output of a given system.

Enjoy what you like. Like what you enjoy... or something like that.

Edited December 25, 2021 by mgrayson3

[John Smith]

On 12/24/2021 at 4:24 PM, Arif said:

Same for me, after 10+ years of S2/007, I am very satisfied now with the GFX100S image quality and more importantly "focus consistency" with the 80/1.7 at F1.7 and the 110/2 at F2.  I do love the S100 and the S120 and have all the S-lenses waiting for a future adapter. The attached picture is with the 80f1.7 with minor post processing.

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!

Maybe it's me, but I just don't see any depth to this image.

Peter Karbe, in a video about SL lenses, talks about APO and how the "Leica look" is a third-dimensional kind of depth to the images. You see it not only in the S lenses, but also in the SL's. Incidentally, some S members imply the S lenses are best because there are no software corrections with them. Karbe, in the same video, was asked about the quality of S lenses versus SL lenses. He said Leica raised the bar with the SL lenses.

[mgrayson3]

2 hours ago, John Smith said:

Incidentally, some S members imply the S lenses are best because there are no software corrections with them. Karbe, in the same video, was asked about the quality of S lenses versus SL lenses. He said Leica raised the bar with the SL lenses.

I don't think there is a "because". I actually believe that software correction is a great boon to lens designers, just as digital was to audio. But that advantage, and the freedom it allows, can be used to the detriment of the final result - listen to early digital CD's. S lenses are good because they were designed for their look. They are heavy because that look without software correction requires a lot of glass. SL lenses are very good, and they focus very fast, but the combination of lens and SL or SL2 is not as pleasing to me.

[mgrayson3]

I should add that I think the 90-280 is the best zoom ever made (most lovely rendering that almost no prime comes close to) and by itself justifies the SL system.

[shanefking]

On 12/21/2021 at 6:51 AM, Jon Warwick said:

You can possibly see what I mean here with this image, taken with a 1/4 Black Pro Mist filter on the GF 63mm and GFX100S. It was certainly twilight when I took the image (40 second exposure), but in the top left corner you can see this Tiffen filter gave a little halation to what "highlights" there were, and it would also have lifted the blacks. This all combines IMHO to create a less abrupt contrast for the image, and hence more gentle rendering overall that I prefer. Certainly my experience suggests a gentle rendering seems to occur more natively with Leica S lenses (without the need for filtration), but for the sharp and contrasty GF lenses, I like the output that I'm now getting .... thanks to a bit of filter help!

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!

Interesting image, well done. 

[Jon Warwick]

6 hours ago, shanefking said:

Interesting image, well done. 

Thanks. I was looking for something relaxing, colourful and nature-inspired to “walk into” for my bedroom wall, hence why the image is arguably a little abstract. Yet to frame it, but the lightly cropped print is done, ending up at c 50” wide on FineArt Baryta.

[John Smith]

22 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

I don't think there is a "because". I actually believe that software correction is a great boon to lens designers, just as digital was to audio. But that advantage, and the freedom it allows, can be used to the detriment of the final result - listen to early digital CD's. S lenses are good because they were designed for their look. They are heavy because that look without software correction requires a lot of glass. SL lenses are very good, and they focus very fast, but the combination of lens and SL or SL2 is not as pleasing to me.

I understand liking the rendering of the S better. That could be true of even older M lenses, such as the Noctilux 1.2. I like the 75mm Noctilux's rendering over the 75SL's. But my point was that Karbe said that the SL lenses raised the bar even compared to the S lenses, and I don't think he was referring to software correction. I used to have the S system and loved it. But switched over to the SL when I compared the 70mm on the 007 to the 50Lux on the SL. But I was just making a point about what Karbe had said. My original comment had to do with a Fuji image. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[shanefking]

On 12/30/2021 at 5:52 AM, Jon Warwick said:

Thanks. I was looking for something relaxing, colourful and nature-inspired to “walk into” for my bedroom wall, hence why the image is arguably a little abstract. Yet to frame it, but the lightly cropped print is done, ending up at c 50” wide on FineArt Baryta.

Yeah, the colors don’t read like a typical landscape photo, and the way the composition gets broken up it reads like a flat abstraction at a glance.  I did a double-take before it became clear what I was looking at.  A great image to spend time with ☺️