Leica S typ 007 or sl2?

[yudafu2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/2/2022 at 2:37 PM, cwolfphoto said:

Hi guys thank you for all your answer. And big thank you Stuart Richardson. And you too are right mgrayson3.... It is difficult to answer, and I wish i could have a way to test the camera o r rent the camera so I can see for myself but theres no way of doing that here... Im trying to get some raw file of both to see how they look, and to be honest I do a lot of post production some times and change some colors and all that so the look out of camera is not as important as how manageable are the files, but one think I can not do is fake lens character or qualities, Im often looking for more cinematic qualities out of the lenses and i dont know if sl lenses are way to clinical or not...

Based on what you say you are looking for, I would suggest go for the S006 or 007. The 007 does not have the CCD color of the 006, but it makes up for it with greater latitude in post-processing.  In terms of DR and latitude, the 007 is second to none within the S and SL system. SL2 files are great in terms of color and sharpness, but it does suffer from relatively small DR range.  The S lenses produces a more cinematic look compared with the SL lenses. Less perfect, but more gentle and elegant, especially the 100, 120, 70, 180, and also the 35.   

For about the last ten years, my S camera is my go-to portrait setup. Whenever I have a serious portrait project, I always go for the S.  

 

George 

[davidmknoble]

At then end of the day it depends on the use.  The S007 has significantly more dynamic range than the SL2.  If you want dynamic range, you have to go that route.  Even the SL2-S has more dynamic range than the SL2 (I had the Sl2 and traded it in for an SL2-S). The SL lenses are pretty spectacular, but the SL2 just doesn’t produce files that are as flexible as the S007.

[chrismuc]

On 8/6/2022 at 11:35 AM, davidmknoble said:

At then end of the day it depends on the use.  The S007 has significantly more dynamic range than the SL2.  If you want dynamic range, you have to go that route.  Even the SL2-S has more dynamic range than the SL2 (I had the Sl2 and traded it in for an SL2-S). The SL lenses are pretty spectacular, but the SL2 just doesn’t produce files that are as flexible as the S007.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

at base ISO, the DR of the S 007, S3, SL2 and the SL2s are basically the same

Edited August 12, 2022 by chrismuc

[mgrayson3]

4 hours ago, chrismuc said:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

at base ISO, the DR of the S 007, S3, SL2 and the SL2s are basically the same

About 15 years ago, LuLa was going on about "real" or "useful" dynamic range, and how expensive digital backs had much more dynamic range than cameras that had the same DR measurements. It was so reminiscent of "The Abso!ute Sound", it made me want to go out and buy Shun Mook Disks.🤣

[Stuart Richardson]

I know this is not really a popular statement in some circles, but dynamic range in full frame has not particularly bothered me since the M8. As soon as the M9 came around, it had more dynamic range than slide film and if you shot it like slide film (i.e being spot on with you exposures with a slight bias to underexposing) it would yield incredible results. I did not find the extra dynamic range of the S3 very useful, as it was primarily in the highlights. Meaning that if you overexposed, you had a lot of leeway. But how many of us routinely overexpose? Dynamic range in the shadows is what really matters, because generally when photographing we underexpose because we need to keep the shutter speed high enough to handhold, or we shoot for the highlights and then lift the shadows. In this way, I find the SL2 to be ahead of the S3 because the lifted shadows are clean, while they quickly show banding in the S3. The S007 is better with this, but I still find the SL2 to be cleaner. So, at least for me, the SL2 may have "less DR", but it has much more usable DR for how I shoot. It's the same as film...people very rarely pull film unless they are doing so because of a mistake. But people push film all the time to get the extra speed.

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

About 15 years ago, LuLa was going on about "real" or "useful" dynamic range, and how expensive digital backs had much more dynamic range than cameras that had the same DR measurements. It was so reminiscent of "The Abso!ute Sound", it made me want to go out and buy Shun Mook Disks.🤣

That's because digital backs used 16-bit encoding, whereas consumer cameras were typically around 12-bit. That doesn't necessarily limit the minimum and maximum values (RAW files are LOG encoded), but it provides more tones in between those two values.

Things have improved since then on the consumer side.

[mgrayson3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, BernardC said:

That's because digital backs used 16-bit encoding, whereas consumer cameras were typically around 12-bit. That doesn't necessarily limit the minimum and maximum values (RAW files are LOG encoded), but it provides more tones in between those two values.

Things have improved since then on the consumer side.

Those are valid reasons (although nobody has ever used all 16 of those bits). I've nearly screamed myself hoarse about range having nothing to do with smoothness. And I agree that certain systems looked (and look) better than others, but that's due to the care and choices of the engineers as well as personal preferences.

[mgrayson3]

I wish I knew how to delete a post...

Edited August 12, 2022 by mgrayson3

[hoppyman]

On 8/2/2022 at 7:18 AM, Sailronin said:

The SL-S EVF is very good, but you still lose the subject for the length of time the "review image" is set, even if it's set to 0 there is loss. My biggest issue is when working in my home studio I do a lot of black background with studio flashes. It becomes almost impossible to compose of focus as the modeling lights are not very bright.  Same problem with the Hasselblad 907x, can't see to compose or focus.

I have the SL2 (used almost entirely in studio) but I would think that the EVF experience is similar. I shoot Fashion, beauty, portraits etc

I shoot on tripod using the LCD not the EVF in any case. this lets me be face to face communicating with the subject all of the time too.

Do you have normal room lighting in studio as well? That is fine for focus for me. I have all modelling lights Off  (to avoid overheating of the flashes with multiple, rapid sequences anyway).
I have these settings for my studio flash profile if they might be helpful to compare?
AFs, zone, ( I normally prefocus and lock with half depressed release)
auto review OFF
Live view  Exposure Preview PAS

Edited August 13, 2022 by hoppyman

[Sailronin]

1 hour ago, hoppyman said:

I have the SL2 (used almost entirely in studio) but I would think that the EVF experience is similar. I shoot Fashion, beauty, portraits etc

I shoot on tripod using the LCD not the EVF in any case. this lets me be face to face communicating with the subject all of the time too.

Do you have normal room lighting in studio as well? That is fine for focus for me. I have all modelling lights Off  (to avoid overheating of the flashes with multiple, rapid sequences anyway).
I have these settings for my studio flash profile if they might be helpful to compare?
AFs, zone, ( I normally prefocus and lock with half depressed release)
auto review OFF
Live view  Exposure Preview PAS

Hi, I shoot mostly table top still life in the studio so I have pretty low light except modeling lights for setup and then the strobes so I get pure black background. So mostly I use either an HB503CW with old Leaf back or my S(006).

[hoppyman]

19 hours ago, Sailronin said:

Hi, I shoot mostly table top still life in the studio so I have pretty low light except modeling lights for setup and then the strobes so I get pure black background. So mostly I use either an HB503CW with old Leaf back or my S(006).

Attempting to comment for you on the difficulty focusing of course. I don't know what settings you use for your exposure there. how close to the B/G etc. We are shooting different subjects of course......  Here Base ISO  and /f4,5 ...F/5.6, B/G well behind the model ( ~ 1.5-2metres)
In my experience the room lighting for focus doesn't affect the rendering of black background.
As your subject is still life I imagine that you could take your time, focus with MF and then turn off the room lighting for the actual exposure? Just my thoughts.

I typically used MF mode with S2 and S(Typ007 (for portraits). AFs actuated only by the back button (not the shutter release)
 

[Sailronin]

Thank you. I do use back button focus and could use more light to allow better autofocus. 

[davidmknoble]

On 8/12/2022 at 6:50 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

In this way, I find the SL2 to be ahead of the S3 because the lifted shadows are clean, while they quickly show banding in the S3. The S007 is better with this, but I still find the SL2 to be cleaner.

This is interesting Stuart.  Most of my work with the S has been higher f/stop landscape using square filters.  I do think that getting the right exposure is important. I really enjoy the R lenses, which is why I worked with the SL, the SL2 and prefer overall the SL2-S.  I still feel like I have some issues with files on the SL2-S versus the S007 or S3 (which I haven't used long enough to know).  On the coast, the light levels between the sky, the ocean reflection and the white of the waves, mixed with shadows on the wet rocks is a challenge.

You are making me think that I need to spend a little more time with exposure. As an aside, I have picked up an M11 and it has been the best color and tonality out of the camera I have every used.  I think the idea of the SL2-S and M11 sensor types really do well.  So, then it becomes lens and look.

Also, using black and white film for almost 4 decades I still love the overall look of film.  I have toyed with the idea of picking up an old hasselblad and shooting 120 for a spell...

Really nice and detailed analysis of your use on the S system. It's given me some food for thought!

David.

[tom0511]

My unscientific feeling has been that the S-files come out with a bright midtone range, while SL2 images come out more contrasty and one has to brighten midtones more often which sometimes makes it more difficult regarding color and noise in those areas.