Leica S system being discontinued?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica L Mount diameter is about 51.6mm while S is about 66mm. I hope it ‘snot a problem. 

[Stuart Richardson]

17 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

I believe we all know the difference in design, weight and size. I wouldn't call the bottom image a hybrid. The Fuji X and XPro are hybrid because you can use the viewfinder in both optical and a digital mode, plus the optical mode has digital information that can be superimposed.

I have not used many mirrorless cameras, but for those I have used the viewfinder image was never as pleasing to me as an optical viewfinder. There seems to be a certain harshness, lag and detachment from the actual scene that I don't like. I also never use a rear display as a viewfinder. Unfortunately, that seems be the direction the industry has chosen.

I think that the reason is that it solves so many problems. I agree that an optical viewfinder will always be the most immediate and natural view. Unfortunately, the mirrorbox itself introduces a lots of challenges. By putting something necessarily bulky in between the sensor and the lens, you force a lot of design constraints on the lenses that forces them to be more complicated, larger and potentially worse performing than lenses without that constraint. Additionally, the full time operation of a mirrorless sensor (instead of being turned on only when the mirror is raised) allows for much more accurate focus, focus across the entire frame, and better metering. And of course, since it is an exact readout of the sensor, you get a view that is more representative of the result, rather than what the scene looks like. That is a disadvantage in some cases (such as working with flash or in extreme low light), but it can also be a great tool if you are working in black and white and want a black and white view of the scene, for example. It is also far less complicated to make and less prone to failure. It makes the sensors easier to clean as well. A hybrid solution like the X100 series seems ideal, but Leica has said they cannot implement it to their desired quality (which is frustrating).

On another note, it is slightly disconcerting to read Kaufmann's words. It does not sound particularly committal...not 2024, not 2025...seems like it will still be quite awhile now, if they ever do it at all...more than ten years since the last S lens or body (not including the S3, which really is the S007 with a different sensor, but otherwise exactly the same, down to the same HDMI standards that were out of date in 2015). I am getting R10 vibes...the way they spoke about the R system before they discontinued it. "Yeah, we are working on it!"

[Einst_Stein]

In the past, larger format has definitely IQ advantages that almost every one can tell immediately. It does not seem the same today. 

I have HB CF39 MFDB that works with Contax 645, HB Flexbody, and SWC, the difference from Leica M 240 is clear.

I have played GFX 100S for a short while, but then the advantages over SL2 is hard to tell. I actually prefer Leica am and SL’s IQ rendition. I returned GFX 100S after it and the C645 adapter combination burned one of mu C645 lens ( I believe it is the adapter), but that is another story.

Now I have S3, still, the advantages over SL2 is not that compelling. 

I think the larger format advantages would be easily compressed with more advanced but smaller sensor. I would guess a more advanced SL to make Sx advantages diminished. To the extend, a larger sensor is not necessary.

FF is a huge market, it should be easier to expand the SL territory that to expand S.

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think that the reason is that it solves so many problems. I agree that an optical viewfinder will always be the most immediate and natural view. Unfortunately, the mirrorbox itself introduces a lots of challenges.

I read an article in the early days of digital where an unnamed camera company executive stated that mirrorless was their ultimate goal, because it solved so many production/cost issues. Engineering and building a high-precision mirror box is very expensive, and the cost goes up as resolution increases. The lens mount, sensor, mirror, focusing screen, and AF module(s) need to be precisely aligned, within microns of each other. That alignment has to stay within tolerances in spite of bumps, temperature variations, wear, etc.

The interim solution from mainstream brands was to take the focusing screen out of the equation. Brands introduced "bright" screens that were as mushy as stewed peas, and couldn't be focused by eye. Only the most expensive professional cameras offered interchangeable screen, but they were limited to 20 MP (or thereabouts).

Thankfully, that happened around the time that the original SL came out. I saw an opportunity to jump off the 35mm SLR train, and I gladly took it. The only competing option at the time was Sony, and their viewfinders were just as bad as SLR viewfinders. I also purchased an S-006, which I still use for personal work. There's a very good reason why that camera cost so much: it's a magnificent cost-is-no-object anachronism.

[Stuart Richardson]

In my experience none of the three S cameras I owned over the years were fully accurate for manual focus either…at least not wide open and close up. They were always very slightly off one way or another. The focus confirmation was accurate, however. I could have been unlucky, but Leica themselves told me the tolerances were challenging and I should not rely 100% on the manual focus. This was from their customer service. It was one of the many reasons I sold the S3 in favor of the SL2 in the end. Interesting how the marketing bravado falls away when there is an actual issue…

Anyway, I know many here have had better luck. I wish I did too. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[frame-it]

On 11/4/2023 at 7:46 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

On another note, it is slightly disconcerting to read Kaufmann's words. It does not sound particularly committal...not 2024, not 2025...seems like it will still be quite awhile now, if they ever do it at all...more than ten years since the last S lens or body (not including the S3, which really is the S007 with a different sensor, but otherwise exactly the same, down to the same HDMI standards that were out of date in 2015). I am getting R10 vibes...the way they spoke about the R system before they discontinued it. "Yeah, we are working on it!"

well, at least he actually said it reasonably clearly in the interview!

[Pieter12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/4/2023 at 5:40 AM, Einst_Stein said:

I think the larger format advantages would be easily compressed with more advanced but smaller sensor. I would guess a more advanced SL to make Sx advantages diminished. To the extend, a larger sensor is not necessary.

Back to the viewfinder, the key component in my opinion for composing and focusing--and isn't that what it's all about? The larger and brighter the viewfinder, the better. And no rear-display BS for me, I need the camera to my eye for stability and immediacy. So even if a smaller sensor can deliver high IQ if the camera has a small viewfinder, it is inferior for my purposes. I don't have the space, demand nor the funds for super-size prints so more than 36MP is a waste.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Pieter12 said:

Back to the viewfinder, the key component in my opinion for composing and focusing--and isn't that what it's all about? The larger and brighter the viewfinder, the better. And no rear-display BS for me, I need the camera to my eye for stability and immediacy. So even if a smaller sensor can deliver high IQ if the camera has a small viewfinder, it is inferior for my purposes. I don't have the space, demand nor the funds for super-size prints so more than 36MP is a waste.

To me, 24mp is the sweet spot. 
with film, larger format means less grainy, more smooth toning, but this is not so clear in digital. What left in larger sensor digital is the focus depth, and perhaps ISO if sensor size are equal. What I see in the larger format can be found in the more advanced smaller sensor, except the focus depth. If smaller format lens can be moving to larger aperture, than it would be fine. I don’t see why it can’t be done.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[JohnathanLovm]

With the release of new Phase One P5, I wonder if Leica is waiting global-shutter sensor Sony IMX661, available which 128MP and slightly close to Leica S sensor size, will solve the rolling shutter/leaf shutter problem.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

On 11/5/2023 at 6:27 PM, Pieter12 said:

Back to the viewfinder, the key component in my opinion for composing and focusing--and isn't that what it's all about? The larger and brighter the viewfinder, the better. And no rear-display BS for me, I need the camera to my eye for stability and immediacy. So even if a smaller sensor can deliver high IQ if the camera has a small viewfinder, it is inferior for my purposes. I don't have the space, demand nor the funds for super-size prints so more than 36MP is a waste.

Just as an aside, the viewfinder in a mirrorless camera can be as large as the maker wants...it is not tied to the format anymore. The VF in the SL2 is quite roomy. If you wanted, you could make a micro 4/3rds camera with a viewfinder as large as a 645 camera... I came from the S for years and transitioned to the SL2 and did not really notice that the VF was smaller. That it was electronic? Absolutely...not that it was small or cramped though.

[irenedp]

I understand the issues the global shutter comes to solve. But a MF leica, or a MF Phase, are not a Sony A9.

 

[John McMaster]

15 hours ago, JohnathanLovm said:

With the release of new Phase One P5

Which is not necessarily a photo chip as it is in a survey UAV, so different requirements...

john