Leica S system being discontinued?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

🤪 I have posted it so often… 

[Jeff S]

I’ve linked to it for over three years.  Even Jono now cites it in various reviews.

Jeff

Edited April 17, 2023 by Jeff S

[frame-it]

On 4/17/2023 at 3:43 AM, ZHNL said:

About system discontinued. I don’t feel there is much difference right now. S seems dead quiet for years.

I hope mirrorless will bring S life back. 

well, on the fuji side a GFX100 II has appeared online..

Edited April 18, 2023 by frame-it

[Vieri]

IMHO, the MTF appendix linked describes something that's actually not how MTF works. MTF curves are expressed in lines per mm, not in "1 is the best" as Roger mentions.

MTF describes resolution in terms of contrast between pairs of lines any given lens can project onto the image recording surface. In simple words, the thinner the lines you can discern before they "melt" and don't look separate anymore, the higher a lens' "resolution". Let's see two cases:

1. Assume your lens can project an image discerning up to two separate lines that are one nanometer thick, with one nanometer of separation between them.

Now, assume your sensor's pixels are 3 nanometers in size.

The 1 nanometer lines are lost in the 3 nanometer-sized pixels, and the resulting image will show a single, 3-nanometers-thick line, not two separate one-nanometer-thick lines and the space between them.

Hence, in layman's terms people say that the lens "outresolves" the sensor (whether the layman's terms are accurate, is a different story, but it doesn't change the facts).

2. Assume now that your lens can project an image discerning up to two separate lines that are three one nanometer thick, with three nanometers of separation between them.

Now, assume your sensor's pixels are 1 nanometer.

3 lines of pixels will be used to represent one line as projected by the lens, 3 lines of pixel will represent the separatio, three more lines will represent the second line.

Hence, in layman's terms people say that the sensor "outresolves" the lens (again, whether the layman's terms are accurate, is a different story, but it doesn't change the facts).

In case 1., updating your sensor to one with smaller pixels (or with more pixels, sensor size being equal) will make fully use of the lens' MTF power, thus improving the system. On the other hand, getting lenses with better MTF won't help seeing more details in your images.

In case 2., updating your lens will make fully use of the sensor's smaller pixels, thus improving the system. On the other hand, getting a sensor with smaller pixels (or with more pixels, sensor size being equal) won't help seeing more details in your images.

Best regards,

Vieri

Edited April 19, 2023 by Vieri

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, Vieri said:

IMHO, the MTF appendix linked describes something that's actually not how MTF works. MTF curves are expressed in lines per mm, not in "1 is the best" as Roger mentions.

MTF describes resolution in terms of contrast between pairs of lines any given lens can project onto the image recording surface. In simple words, the thinner the lines you can discern before they "melt" and don't look separate anymore, the higher a lens' "resolution".

It's not "lines per mm", it's contrast at frequency. You don't get a distinct jump between "2 lines" and "3 lines." One lens can project a certain frequency (waveform) at 40% contrast, and another lens will only achieve 30% contrast.

More sensor resolution means a higher sampling frequency, so the sensor is more likely to find low-contrast detail. The detail was always there, it just didn't line-up with the sensor pixels. So in your case 2, smaller pixels will get you more detail, but not as you would get with a higher-contrast lens.

Side note: this type of conversation always seems to linger on the smallest detail in a print. My attitude is that you should switch to a larger format if your work/vision requires you to place significant detail at the limit of what you can reproduce. Things get unpleasant at the limit of resolution.

[Vieri]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

It's not "lines per mm", it's contrast at frequency. You don't get a distinct jump between "2 lines" and "3 lines." One lens can project a certain frequency (waveform) at 40% contrast, and another lens will only achieve 30% contrast.

More sensor resolution means a higher sampling frequency, so the sensor is more likely to find low-contrast detail. The detail was always there, it just didn't line-up with the sensor pixels. So in your case 2, smaller pixels will get you more detail, but not as you would get with a higher-contrast lens.

Side note: this type of conversation always seems to linger on the smallest detail in a print. My attitude is that you should switch to a larger format if your work/vision requires you to place significant detail at the limit of what you can reproduce. Things get unpleasant at the limit of resolution.

Correct, I was referring to the way it is normally tested in practice, taking images of couple of lines, to give a "visual representation" that was easier to understand.

It stands that the appendix people links to is, in fact, not quite correct in terms of how MTF is measured (and makes little sense to me).

Best regards,

Vieri

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

30 minutes ago, Vieri said:

Correct, I was referring to the way it is normally tested in practice, taking images of couple of lines, to give a "visual representation" that was easier to understand.

I remember "testing" lenses in university. You could convince yourself that a lens was better than it actually was, if you strained your eyes. "Is that two lines, or just a smudge?" I eventually realized that nobody else was ever going to look at my pictures with a magnifier, and that my best shots didn't depend on that level of detail.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

I remember "testing" lenses in university. You could convince yourself that a lens was better than it actually was, if you strained your eyes. "Is that two lines, or just a smudge?" I eventually realized that nobody else was ever going to look at my pictures with a magnifier, and that my best shots didn't depend on that level of detail.

But...but...don't you want to know if that's one dimple you have to retouch off of your model's nose, or in fact two??

[Guest]

Re the OP's original question, it is quite clear that the S system as we know it (mirror box, OVF, simple AF system sourced from Pentax, etc.) is no more. Leica produced 300 copies of the S3, and that was it. I shot with it, and the lenses have no issue with the sensor, or vice versa, at least as far as I could discern, even with the 30-90 zoom, which I do not rate all that highly. Now, if and when Leica releases the S4, as others have noted, it'll be mirrorless, and with a new mount, requiring a new set of lenses altogether. The 100MP market is, shall we say, very niche, and occupied by Fuji and Hassy (gorgeous, the X2D), so S4 quantities will again be very limited, which in turn has a bearing on the pricing structure. Of course, this future release of an S4 may do more for Leica's reputation than for the company's accounting department, and as long as Leica can afford to run four design platforms simultaneously (M, Q, SL, S), all the more power to them. They nixed the lovely little APS-C lines (X, CL, TL), which required some restructuring in Wetzlar and probably freed up valuable human resources.

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, HandofSand said:

Re the OP's original question, it is quite clear that the S system as we know it (mirror box, OVF, simple AF system sourced from Pentax, etc.) is no more. Leica produced 300 copies of the S3, and that was it.

That's not a large amount, even at $20,000 a pop. I think they'll try to lower costs and increase demand for the next version. One way to do that is to use the SL system as a base, and increase the lens/component interchangeability between the two systems.

We've speculated here before, but one (blurry) prototype on Leica Rumors seemed to show such a beast: an SL with a bigger mount. Ideally you could put an adapter in the bigger mount to accept SL lenses with a crop factor.

Assuming a similar sensor to the M11 (60MP), it would give us 93MP "full frame", and the following crops for L-mount lenses: 60MP 24*36mm horizontal, 50MP 30*24mm vertical, 80MP 32*32mm. You could also do "full width" 2.4:1 widescreen video on the 45mm wide sensor for a 12K image! Surely they can sell more than 300 copies of a camera with those specs, provided that they cost is reasonable (twice the price of an SL2?).

[helged]

12 minutes ago, BernardC said:

That's not a large amount, even at $20,000 a pop. I think they'll try to lower costs and increase demand for the next version. One way to do that is to use the SL system as a base, and increase the lens/component interchangeability between the two systems.

We've speculated here before, but one (blurry) prototype on Leica Rumors seemed to show such a beast: an SL with a bigger mount. Ideally you could put an adapter in the bigger mount to accept SL lenses with a crop factor.

Assuming a similar sensor to the M11 (60MP), it would give us 93MP "full frame", and the following crops for L-mount lenses: 60MP 24*36mm horizontal, 50MP 30*24mm vertical, 80MP 32*32mm. You could also do "full width" 2.4:1 widescreen video on the 45mm wide sensor for a 12K image! Surely they can sell more than 300 copies of a camera with those specs, provided that they cost is reasonable (twice the price of an SL2?).

I would be more than surprised if S4 (or whatever) isn't back compatible - by means of electronic adapters - with (present) S-lenses, SL-lenses, R-lenses and, possibly, M-lenses (the FF lenses with automatically activated crop factors). Would be fun & time will tell...

[helged]

2 hours ago, HandofSand said:

Re the OP's original question, it is quite clear that the S system as we know it (mirror box, OVF, simple AF system sourced from Pentax, etc.) is no more. Leica produced 300 copies of the S3, and that was it. I shot with it, and the lenses have no issue with the sensor, or vice versa, at least as far as I could discern, even with the 30-90 zoom, which I do not rate all that highly. Now, if and when Leica releases the S4, as others have noted, it'll be mirrorless, and with a new mount, requiring a new set of lenses altogether. The 100MP market is, shall we say, very niche, and occupied by Fuji and Hassy (gorgeous, the X2D), so S4 quantities will again be very limited, which in turn has a bearing on the pricing structure. Of course, this future release of an S4 may do more for Leica's reputation than for the company's accounting department, and as long as Leica can afford to run four design platforms simultaneously (M, Q, SL, S), all the more power to them. They nixed the lovely little APS-C lines (X, CL, TL), which required some restructuring in Wetzlar and probably freed up valuable human resources.

300 is a low number indeed, wouldn't be possible without building on 007, I guess. It is said that S3 Monochrome was in the workings, but that Corona++ put an end to that adventure.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, helged said:

I would be more than surprised if S4 (or whatever) isn't back compatible - by means of electronic adapters - with (present) S-lenses, SL-lenses, R-lenses and, possibly, M-lenses (the FF lenses with automatically activated crop factors). Would be fun & time will tell...

From what I hear, backward compatibility with at least the S lenses, yes, definitely. You're probably right re the other mounts, too. M lenses, though, that would be very interesting indeed.

[frame-it]

On 4/20/2023 at 5:14 AM, helged said:

I would be more than surprised if S4 (or whatever) isn't back compatible

possible sensor for the mirrorless S4

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!

[John McMaster]

First time Sony sensors would be used, as well as 3:4 ratio....

john

[BernardC]

Isn't that the same sensor that Fuji and Hasselblad use in their mirrorless medium format cameras? It's the default choice, but we know that Leica isn't afraid to shop elsewhere.

[irenedp]

I wrote to Wetzlar last week asking for an eyecup replacement for my S2 and they are sending me one.  So at least they have some stock. 

[LeicaR10]

I think some may not recall the S3 sensor was Leica designed to include its architecture and custom made for that camera.  Both the sensor and architecture were used in the follow on M camera sensors.  I highly suspect Leica will be going the same route again.  The S4 will be unlike any other MF camera out there.  Might be a good time to start saving for it.  As you all know, Leica enjoys surprising the photographic world...I expect nothing less.  r/ Mark

Edited May 5, 2023 by LeicaR10

[helged]

9 hours ago, irenedp said:

I wrote to Wetzlar last week asking for an eyecup replacement for my S2 and they are sending me one.  So at least they have some stock. 

Great to know!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jon Warwick]

On 5/2/2023 at 7:03 PM, BernardC said:

Isn't that the same sensor that Fuji and Hasselblad use in their mirrorless medium format cameras? It's the default choice, but we know that Leica isn't afraid to shop elsewhere.

I think that’s possibly the one in the mirrorless 100mp cameras already from Fuji and Hassie. Given the existence on that chart of a 100mp Monochrome sensor too, I wonder if we’d ever see B&W versions from those players ….maybe too niche for their liking, who knows.