Does anyone use the S system "to be contrary"?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did feel S is left in dust by GFX. When I looked for the upgrade of my HB CF39, I read every possible post and review about GFX vs S. I cannot help to conclude that S is old. You name it: every thing on paper: sensor MP count, IB shake reduction, color depth, …, and most important, the price. I did donut about the justification of 100mp, but since the price and everything else is “superior”, it is a “free bonus”.

I bought the GFX100S from B&H. 

But due to the compatibility issues of CONTAX 645 lens, I returned GFX and bite the bullet, paying about twice price for the S3. Luckily, it turned out not a compromise. I really really like S3. The IQ is something you cannot  read it on paper specs,
 

 

 

[irenedp]

54 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I did feel S is left in dust by GFX. When I looked for the upgrade of my HB CF39, I read every possible post and review about GFX vs S. I cannot help to conclude that S is old. You name it: every thing on paper: sensor MP count, IB shake reduction, color depth, …, and most important, the price. I did donut about the justification of 100mp, but since the price and everything else is “superior”, it is a “free bonus”.

I bought the GFX100S from B&H. 

But due to the compatibility issues of CONTAX 645 lens, I returned GFX and bite the bullet, paying about twice price for the S3. Luckily, it turned out not a compromise. I really really like S3. The IQ is something you cannot  read it on paper specs,
 

 

 

Very much agree. On paper the Fuji is a much better proposal than the S3 at only half the price. But reality is different. The S3 is a surprisingly good camera. 

I assume that the upcoming S -if it comes, I’m sure they’re weary about the financials- will be mirrorless. But I hope that it will still has what makes a Leica better. 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, irenedp said:

Possibly if I did weddings I would think otherwise. But very happy with the S3 for my line of work. 

I've done weddings with the S, although it was never my main wedding kit (which was the SL). The S is great for big-budget summer weddings with hundreds of guests and late sunsets. The images feel like they are painted on a larger canvas.

The huge battery capacity and great weather resistance are definitely a bonus. I've done 12 hour weddings without ever needing to use the third battery. I've also shot through summer showers, which made for great images: guests scrambling for shelter, that "shadows in the rain" backlight effect from an isolated shower, the shine of fresh wet landscaping. I just wiped the camera down with an oversize lens cloth and kept on shooting, never skipping a beat.

[Coppereye]

I worked in commercial IT until 2008 when I left to follow my passion - Photography - just before I left I used Instagram to post a pic of the S2.

Professionally I used Canon 5D with L series lenses.  My style was changing and I was using prime lenses.  My first foray was a Pentax 645D killed the canon in IQ but I called it the Hedgehog - so many buttons, knobs dials etc. So I switched to Leica M10, S (006) and the awesome Q.  
 

I did sell the S (006) for an Hassie X1D it was a good camera but it didn’t feel right tried a Phase One but you need to spend some serious gym time so back to S but this time it’s a 007 - love the IQ it allows me to work simply who needs more than 1 focus point.  Must confess I use it as a studio camera or still life / macro.  
 

And yes I will continue to use the S whilst everyone says that Phase One or Hasselblad are better - I’m built that way - if it’s good enough for Rankin it’s good enough for me.  
 

 

[Pieter12]

Using (and I will assume owning) an S just to be contrary is an expensive bit of spitefulness. The money would be better spent on psychotherapy.

[mikelevitt]

006 takes photos no other current camera can duplicate.  I recently did a kind of weird studio shoot involving a lot of point light sources OOF in the background.  It looked good with the Canon and Fuji GFX bodies and lenses I tested with it, but the 006 and 100mm turned it into something that was pure magic.  For the right job, it's the best tool.

[mikelevitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/15/2023 at 7:59 AM, Einst_Stein said:

I did feel S is left in dust by GFX. When I looked for the upgrade of my HB CF39, I read every possible post and review about GFX vs S. I cannot help to conclude that S is old. You name it: every thing on paper: sensor MP count, IB shake reduction, color depth, …, and most important, the price. I did donut about the justification of 100mp, but since the price and everything else is “superior”, it is a “free bonus”.

I bought the GFX100S from B&H. 

But due to the compatibility issues of CONTAX 645 lens, I returned GFX and bite the bullet, paying about twice price for the S3. Luckily, it turned out not a compromise. I really really like S3. The IQ is something you cannot  read it on paper specs,
 

 

 

I have an 007, 2 006 and 3 GFX - 100, 100S and 100II.  I own most of the lenses in both systems.

The GFX is an excellent camera for commercial work.  If a client asked me for the sharpest, cleanest, largest file I can give them for something that is going to be printed on the side of a building, I am reaching for the GFX and 110mm f2 lens.  Stunning, unbelievable files.   If I am in a situation where I need extreme DR, GFX.  A fast-moving portrait session with a moving subject that needs to be in focus?  GFX.   Car in a studio?  GFX.  Car to car shoots on track?  GFX.  The AF works.  The IBIS is spectacular.  Some of the lenses are among the best I've ever used (110, 32-64, 23, 250) others are pretty good (45-100, 50) and one is pure awful (100-200mm).  If you are working, need consistent results, and a lot of versatility, it's great.

On the other hand, IMO the S cameras, especially the 006 offer an extra dimension to the files, while being smaller, noisier, and more difficult to work with.  The AF is silly.  If I need exact focus I focus manually (easy with the great viewfinder).  You need to use way more shutter speed because of the lack of IS and the large mirror.  All of the lenses are great.  Battery life is basically forever.  Both great systems for their purpose.

If I could only choose one for WORK it would be the GFX - 100% no hesitation.  If I could only choose one for fun, probably the S, though that's not to say the GFX isn't fun, just that I like the look of the lenses on the S.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think people (especially amateurs) tend to undervalue the total synergy of a system and the interface and handling, as compared to technical characteristics. So while it is clear that the technology now available has left the S system behind in many ways (ibis, AF, video quality etc), there is still no system quite like it. This is especially true if you want an optical viewfinder. If that is the case your main choices at this point are Phase One (at an extreme price point, and certain disadvantages...like bulk, lack of sealing etc), or Leica. The S system is likely the best DSLR ever made from a total system standpoint -- body quality, VF quality and lens quality. Nearly every lens in the system is spectacular, fully sealed, fast for MF and handles superbly on the body. The body itself is rugged, sealed and has seemingly endless battery life. The OVF is a breath of fresh air after using an EVF, even if it cannot be quite as precise with focus. For all the advantages of an EVF, they are still like looking at a TV, rather than engaging directly with the subject. From a results perspective, every S all the way back to the S2 is capable of producing stunning exhibition quality results up to and beyond 100x150cm. More modern cameras might capture more detail or dynamic range, but the pixel level quality and lens quality of the S system is so high that in my experience the results often even look better than some systems that "outdo" it on a technical basis. I work as a printer and have made exhibition prints from Phase One 100+MP backs that look worse than S images, usually because the photographer was using an older lens that could not keep up. So while it might have more megapixels, the resolution and image quality is lower because the total system image quality is being held back by the lens. In my experience Capture One and Phase backs always tend to look oversharpened as standard too, so unless the client is giving me a raw file or is more gentle in their processing, they tend to look "crunchy" in an unnatural way. The S seems to have avoided this in lightroom.

In any case, I think there is absolutely still a case to be made for using the S system if you like how it works. Certainly the images are in no way inadequate, even compare to more modern systems.

There are camera systems that are more than the sum of their parts that seem to attract a certain kind of photographer for a very long period. In digital, the Ricoh GR series cameras have done this (and in film as well). In film, for example, the Mamiya 7 system is still highly sought after because it does a certain kind of photography so well and in such a usable body as compared to the size of the film. Of course the Hasselblad V cameras have a similar longevity. Let alone M cameras. I think if the cameras can be maintained, the S might also find itself in this niche. So far nothing has come along that has "bettered" the S camera in its particular genre.

Edited May 28, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[ImmerDraussen]

vor 46 Minuten schrieb Stuart Richardson:

I think people (especially amateurs) tend to undervalue the total synergy of a system and the interface and handling, as compared to technical characteristics. So while it is clear that the technology now available has left the S system behind in many ways (ibis, AF, video quality etc), there is still no system quite like it. This is especially true if you want an optical viewfinder. If that is the case your main choices at this point are Phase One (at an extreme price point, and certain disadvantages...like bulk, lack of sealing etc), or Leica. The S system is likely the best DSLR ever made from a total system standpoint -- body quality, VF quality and lens quality. Nearly every lens in the system is spectacular, fully sealed, fast for MF and handles superbly on the body. The body itself is rugged, sealed and has seemingly endless battery life. The OVF is a breath of fresh air after using an EVF, even if it cannot be quite as precise with focus. For all the advantages of an EVF, they are still like looking at a TV, rather than engaging directly with the subject. From a results perspective, every S all the way back to the S2 is capable of producing stunning exhibition quality results up to and beyond 100x150cm. More modern cameras might capture more detail or dynamic range, but the pixel level quality and lens quality of the S system is so high that in my experience the results often even look better than some systems that "outdo" it on a technical basis. I work as a printer and have made exhibition prints from Phase One 100+MP backs that look worse than S images, usually because the photographer was using an older lens that could not keep up. So while it might have more megapixels, the resolution and image quality is lower because the total system image quality is being held back by the lens. In my experience Capture One and Phase backs always tend to look oversharpened as standard too, so unless the client is giving me a raw file or is more gentle in their processing, they tend to look "crunchy" in an unnatural way. The S seems to have avoided this in lightroom.

In any case, I think there is absolutely still a case to be made for using the S system if you like how it works. Certainly the images are in no way inadequate, even compare to more modern systems.

There are camera systems that are more than the sum of their parts that seem to attract a certain kind of photographer for a very long period. In digital, the Ricoh GR series cameras have done this (and in film as well). In film, for example, the Mamiya 7 system is still highly sought after because it does a certain kind of photography so well and in such a usable body as compared to the size of the film. Of course the Hasselblad V cameras have a similar longevity. Let alone M cameras. I think if the cameras can be maintained, the S might also find itself in this niche. So far nothing has come along that has "bettered" the S camera in its particular genre.

I fully agree in Stuart‘s comments. Maybe one point to add that is important for me. All S-lenses can be used on the SL-bodies, in case I need more autofocus points, IBIS or an EVF. 
If a potential S4 could use the SL-lenses as discussed somewhere, it would be close to perfect.

[414concrete]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think people (especially amateurs) tend to undervalue the total synergy of a system and the interface and handling, as compared to technical characteristics. So while it is clear that the technology now available has left the S system behind in many ways (ibis, AF, video quality etc), there is still no system quite like it. This is especially true if you want an optical viewfinder. If that is the case your main choices at this point are Phase One (at an extreme price point, and certain disadvantages...like bulk, lack of sealing etc), or Leica. The S system is likely the best DSLR ever made from a total system standpoint -- body quality, VF quality and lens quality. Nearly every lens in the system is spectacular, fully sealed, fast for MF and handles superbly on the body. The body itself is rugged, sealed and has seemingly endless battery life. The OVF is a breath of fresh air after using an EVF, even if it cannot be quite as precise with focus. For all the advantages of an EVF, they are still like looking at a TV, rather than engaging directly with the subject. From a results perspective, every S all the way back to the S2 is capable of producing stunning exhibition quality results up to and beyond 100x150cm. More modern cameras might capture more detail or dynamic range, but the pixel level quality and lens quality of the S system is so high that in my experience the results often even look better than some systems that "outdo" it on a technical basis. I work as a printer and have made exhibition prints from Phase One 100+MP backs that look worse than S images, usually because the photographer was using an older lens that could not keep up. So while it might have more megapixels, the resolution and image quality is lower because the total system image quality is being held back by the lens. In my experience Capture One and Phase backs always tend to look oversharpened as standard too, so unless the client is giving me a raw file or is more gentle in their processing, they tend to look "crunchy" in an unnatural way. The S seems to have avoided this in lightroom.

In any case, I think there is absolutely still a case to be made for using the S system if you like how it works. Certainly the images are in no way inadequate, even compare to more modern systems.

There are camera systems that are more than the sum of their parts that seem to attract a certain kind of photographer for a very long period. In digital, the Ricoh GR series cameras have done this (and in film as well). In film, for example, the Mamiya 7 system is still highly sought after because it does a certain kind of photography so well and in such a usable body as compared to the size of the film. Of course the Hasselblad V cameras have a similar longevity. Let alone M cameras. I think if the cameras can be maintained, the S might also find itself in this niche. So far nothing has come along that has "bettered" the S camera in its particular genre.

I am an amateur photographer and do not claim to be a professional. I do not have the same needs as someone who relies on their equipment to support their family. My photography journey spans 40 years, during which I have used countless different systems and brands. I completely agree with Stuart's statement about the "total synergy of a system and the interface and handling." For me, the S3 is the finest camera system I have ever owned or used. Others may have different priorities or needs, as Mike Levitt stated, which is perfectly fine. However, most people never actually handle the equipment to determine if a system is a good fit for them. Instead, they rely solely on specifications and unreliable YouTube reviewers who praise the latest and greatest shiny objects.

[GMB]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:10 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I think people (especially amateurs) tend to undervalue the total synergy of a system and the interface and handling, as compared to technical characteristics. So while it is clear that the technology now available has left the S system behind in many ways (ibis, AF, video quality etc), there is still no system quite like it. This is especially true if you want an optical viewfinder. If that is the case your main choices at this point are Phase One (at an extreme price point, and certain disadvantages...like bulk, lack of sealing etc), or Leica. The S system is likely the best DSLR ever made from a total system standpoint -- body quality, VF quality and lens quality. Nearly every lens in the system is spectacular, fully sealed, fast for MF and handles superbly on the body. The body itself is rugged, sealed and has seemingly endless battery life. The OVF is a breath of fresh air after using an EVF, even if it cannot be quite as precise with focus. For all the advantages of an EVF, they are still like looking at a TV, rather than engaging directly with the subject. From a results perspective, every S all the way back to the S2 is capable of producing stunning exhibition quality results up to and beyond 100x150cm. More modern cameras might capture more detail or dynamic range, but the pixel level quality and lens quality of the S system is so high that in my experience the results often even look better than some systems that "outdo" it on a technical basis. I work as a printer and have made exhibition prints from Phase One 100+MP backs that look worse than S images, usually because the photographer was using an older lens that could not keep up. So while it might have more megapixels, the resolution and image quality is lower because the total system image quality is being held back by the lens. In my experience Capture One and Phase backs always tend to look oversharpened as standard too, so unless the client is giving me a raw file or is more gentle in their processing, they tend to look "crunchy" in an unnatural way. The S seems to have avoided this in lightroom.

In any case, I think there is absolutely still a case to be made for using the S system if you like how it works. Certainly the images are in no way inadequate, even compare to more modern systems.

There are camera systems that are more than the sum of their parts that seem to attract a certain kind of photographer for a very long period. In digital, the Ricoh GR series cameras have done this (and in film as well). In film, for example, the Mamiya 7 system is still highly sought after because it does a certain kind of photography so well and in such a usable body as compared to the size of the film. Of course the Hasselblad V cameras have a similar longevity. Let alone M cameras. I think if the cameras can be maintained, the S might also find itself in this niche. So far nothing has come along that has "bettered" the S camera in its particular genre.

I am an amateur who uses the S system since 2011. S2, S006, and S007. Agee 100% with what you say. Also, after my S007 developed problems during our current South America trip, I used again the S006, which, fortunately, I had with me as a backup. Really love its rendering. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, and just an additional aside to say it was certainly not my intention to criticize amateurs, I just mean that people who use the equipment professionally usually spend so much time with given gear that they tend to care more about how it works for them, rather than what is necessarily the latest and greatest. They also often have more experience and know their needs more clearly, so they know what advancements are truly useful for them, and those which are less helpful, while newer amateurs tend to rely more heavily on advice from others. Usually if they like the system they will stay in for a lot longer than most amateurs might, as long as it is still producing results that their clients are happy with. There are also of course amateurs who know far better than most pros too. It is not a value judgement, just an observation.

[GMB]

35 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes, and just an additional aside to say it was certainly not my intention to criticize amateurs, I just mean that people who use the equipment professionally usually spend so much time with given gear that they tend to care more about how it works for them, rather than what is necessarily the latest and greatest. They also often have more experience and know their needs more clearly, so they know what advancements are truly useful for them, and those which are less helpful, while newer amateurs tend to rely more heavily on advice from others. Usually if they like the system they will stay in for a lot longer than most amateurs might, as long as it is still producing results that their clients are happy with. There are also of course amateurs who know far better than most pros too. It is not a value judgement, just an observation.

Stuart, I know that you were not criticizing “amateur” or perhaps better hobbyist, that is to say people who are fortunate that they don’t have to make a living from photography. And, as an aside from someone who is in that fortunate position, one thing I truly enjoy with the S system is the user experience, the optical view finder, the simplicity of the menu system, and the haptic experience. And I may be an outlier as a hobbyist, but I normally stick to a system. I recently got a Canon R for certain situations (where the S simply doesn’t work). And while this is technically a fantastic camera with perfect autofocus and good lenses, I don’t enjoy using it. But if I were a professional photographer, chances are that I would use Cannon or Nikon as my main system. 

[irenedp]

Some cameras are like swiss knives, but others aren’t. Last night I came back from a trip with a group of amateurs who are specialized in birds. I carried the S3 and a Nikon (a D850). I have used the S3 for some landscapes, and the Nikon for everything else. Although it is not state of the art anymore -my daughter uses a Z9 but I didn’t want to borrow a camera I haven’t used- I was able to step up the learning curve of bird photography quickly and got some acceptable results.  There is a difference, but noticeable only if you’re “into” it between the files coming from the S3 and those of the Nikon when photographing landscapes or buildings. And I think 80% of the difference are the lenses and 20% the sensor. I do prefer to work with the S3 for that kind of work, but the Nikon and it’s Canon and probably Sony equivalents are excellent. And more versatile. I can’t do, or poorly, birds with the S3

[mgrayson3]

I've had S cameras since the (006). I had an X1D for a year. Never loved it. Sold the system. Had a GFX 100 for year because I needed IBIS for magnified focusing. Hated using it - flaky control dials and a UI worthy of Sony. Some of its lenses are amazing, the GF 100-200 zoom and the GF 250/4 prime, especially, but I'm a WA shooter and the GF 23 left me distinctly cold compared to the marvelous S24.

Enter the X2D. I've done a number of comparisons - carrying both the S3 and the X2D and shooting the same image with both. Now that the XCD 25/2.5 is out, there's even something to compare with the S24 (before that, it was the XCD 21, a much wider lens. Anyway, the Hassy system gives me better results. VERY close color, higher keeper rate. Do I like the ergonomics of the S3 more? You bet! Do I like the size, weight, and results from the X2D? Yeah. The lack of a focal plane shutter makes adapting lenses harder on the X2D, which leads to the bizarre situation where older Hasselblad lenses work much better on the Leica than on the Hasselblad.

Where the S system trounces the X is with the S120/2.5 Macro. The S70/2.5 is also a very special "ordinary" lens. Both systems have incredible 30mm and 45mm optics.

And I sorta miss the 006 files. In summary, I'm never selling the S lenses, but I'm using the X as my main system.

[Jeff S]

On 5/28/2024 at 8:38 AM, mikelevitt said:

and one is pure awful (100-200mm).

 

32 minutes ago, mgrayson3 said:

Some of its lenses are amazing, the GF 100-200 zoom

So, on average, pretty good.

Jeff

[mikelevitt]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

 

So, on average, pretty good.

Jeff

Yes.  The great ones are really, really great.  The not great ones are pretty good still.

[Pieter12]

Pretty much gone off the rails. I haven't read anything about being contrary.

[davidmknoble]

Having loved the S system since 2018 (and having all my original lenses just adding an S3 body), I also have dabbled in the Hasselblad X2D system (and the 50 Cii on the back of some old hasslelblad V bodies).  

I found the new Hasselblad lenses (38v, 55v) to be lacking compared to the S because there was so much field curvature out of the box, I had to stop down incredibly far to get a focus plane that was somewhat flat.  However, some of the X lenses are strong.  I have the 35-70 zoom which is much stronger than the 35-90 S lens.  I also have the 135m with the 1.7x extender and the 30mm lens.  These all have very small curvature and are strong across the entire optical system.  For those lenses I enjoy shooting landscape work at lower apertures and get the color through the Phocus app.  

That said, I end up drifting to a different editing style with the Hasselblad and I come back to the S system quickly.  Probably because I have used it long enough that I can get it to do exactly what I want.  I would love for the S4 to have true calibrated 16-bit color, but I’m not sure if Capture One keeps that 16-bit or not.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Coppereye]

On 5/28/2024 at 2:06 AM, Pieter12 said:

Using (and I will assume owning) an S just to be contrary is an expensive bit of spitefulness. The money would be better spent on psychotherapy.

I’ve had the psychotherapy, also I never used the word spite - that’s solely your comment.  My journey towards Leica is a dream I shared with my later father in law.  When I started to work professionally it had to make sense in business terms, hence the 5D.  I tried a few other lenses from the seemingly standard 24-70 + 70-200 zooms. I started working with a few fashion clients and for me there was no life to the images ( probably down to me ) the client, MUA loved them but it wasn’t what I saw in my head.

i tried the Practika 645D the IQ was superb but there were so many options, when I wanted just be able to set ISO, speed and Aperture

So I took the plunge into Leica - it was like a progression M -> Q -> S

I have tried the Hasselblad X1D which I really wanted to like but disappointed.  Tried the Phase One a studio camera in my opinion.  So the S it is.  I can take it out, ( sturdy strap  ) the70mm lens is awesome and these days I am not able to set the shutter speed as low is used to.  I sold my M10 but I have replaced it with an M3 SS and 50 collapsible.

I consider my logic to be valid, without spite or malice.  The only system I haven't tried is the  Sony, which is because it is expensive to keep changing systems.

 

just a note I have had many hours of psychotherapy over the last 20 years - I was diagnosed with ADHD and Asperger’s to go along with other mental issues.  This was changed a few years ago and now I’m classed as autistic or the current term of Neurodivergent.

I would ask that you consider your wording, you don’t know who is on the other side