S(007/3)..SL3...S4

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know - different sensor size.

Lately I have used my S007 again a couple of times, just to explore 2 things:

Image quality:

The combination of the S007 with S lenses still draws a different "look" which I do prefer over the SL2-S (I don't own a SL2 or S3).

One thing I find the transition between the focal plain/sharp area to the background less abrupt, the other thing I find special the midtowns to be special with the S body.

So yes, I do love the S files and prefer them over the SL2-S files in overall look. The closest would be the 50 Summilux SL which seems to produce a close look to the S images. I don't know how much is lens and how much sensor.

I Allmost had forgotten how great the S rendering is.

 

The second point, and this I find disappointing is AF accuracy. Even with not so difficult subject I often get slightly focus inaccuracy with the Leica S.(mostly very slight front focus at medium distances, but it is not that it is always off). My camera in combination with lenses have been checked by Leica and they say my camera and lenses are totally fine.

So the dilemma is I do prefer the IQ of the S system, but I do much prefer the better AF of the SL system.

I wonder if the SL3 will make the SL-system IQ closer to the S? (I am not sure since I don't know how much is lens, how much sensor, and how much sensor size).

Any S-user owning an SL3 allready and might share expectations? 

I think I am very interested in a mirrorless S4 (or how they will call it). But I am not patient.

I am also wondering how much better the S3 would be in regards of focus accuracy.

Short distances are mostly ok, its more the 2-10m range where I find it somewhat difficult.

 

Edited March 10, 2024 by tom0511

[tom0511]

What I really want: Give us that S4 asap, with ibis and face detection and reliable AF and the IQ of the S camera and let it work well with the "old"-S lenses please!!!

 

[tom0511]

ANy tips - until then - to master the AF of the S?

[Nosferatu]

Hi Tom, 

 

I think it's a question of pixel count in relation to sensor size. The larger the sensor and the fewer MP, the more pleasing the image. i.e. 60 MP squeezed into KB format, is less beautiful than the larger S sensor.

 

Hallo Tom,

ich denke, es ist eine Frage der Pixelzahl in Relation zur Sensorgröße. Je größer der Sensor und je weniger MP, desto gefälliger das Bild. d.h. 60 MP gequetscht auf KB-Format, ist weniger schön als beim größeren S-Sensor.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Personally, I found that that base ISO performance and lens level sharpness and microcontrast of the SL2 looked better than the S3, and I also preferred the SL2 color. The S3 was better at long exposure, but that is the only area where I preferred it. The color in the S2/S006 was the best of all of them, in my opinion. I found that the S3 had more pixels than the SL2, but on balance the SL2 made better prints because it had more appealing character to the detail. For some reason the detail of the S3 looked overly digital to me...I guess more aliasing or something. It was not in every picture. I am attaching a crop at 200% to emphasize the structure...almost like jpeg crazing. Anyway, it would only show up in large prints, and it is nitpicky. I just found that at the end of the day, the extra resolution did not help much even in large prints, because in almost every case the focus was more accurate in the SL2, the stabilization and lack of a mirror made it sharper and the lenses were sharper edge to edge. I would agree that all things being equal, a larger sensor with the same megapixel count will look better, but this is not all things being equal. The SL body has a lot of advantages over the S when it comes to cranking out sharp, well focused photos. The S has the advantage of having a mirror and having access to the full image circle of the S lenses. In terms of resolution, I think the jump from 24mp to 47mp is larger and more visible than the jump from 47 to 60 or 64mp.

As for mastering the AF in the S, make sure the entire circle in the VF is filled with the thing you want to AF on and that it is equidistant to the camera. The crosshairs is a distraction...it is not doing AF on a small point, it is the entire area described by the circle. The body will generally randomly choose the item with the most contrast within that circle. That is fine if it is all equidistant to the camera, but if it is not, then you need to verify. If you cannot do that, then take several photos while refocusing each time, and hopefully one will get it. Make a habit of learning the actual infinity point for your lenses so that when you focus at a distant landscape you can verify that it is correct by looking at the lens. I did this for about seven years and it worked pretty well. That said, switching to the SL2 and I never had to do it again, and that was quite a practical benefit to the system...it is just spot on nearly every time for me.

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!

[Guest]

I find the AF on the 007 to be more "nervous" (for want of a better word) over the 006. Higher torque values in the lens to body connection may account for that. The 006 exerts lower torgue resulting in somewhat more steady AF (once it nails it, it has nailed it). That's my experience at least.

[Milan_S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, HandofSand said:

I find the AF on the 007 to be more "nervous" (for want of a better word) over the 006. Higher torque values in the lens to body connection may account for that. The 006 exerts lower torgue resulting in somewhat more steady AF (once it nails it, it has nailed it). That's my experience at least.

Indeed from my recognition the S2/S006 had a more steady focus. The S007/S3 often need pre manual focus and finetuning. 

[alainD]

7 minutes ago, Milan_S said:

Indeed from my recognition the S2/S006 had a more steady focus. The S007/S3 often need pre manual focus and finetuning. 

My recollection is that my S006 was slow to focus but was nailing focus all the time with all the lenses I had then. With my S3, this is hit or miss. My 180 always autofocuses perfectly, my 100 always needs manual focusing.

 

 

[tom0511]

Interesting to hear about the S006 more stable. Friendly when using the S2 and S006 I have been more happy with AF.

But then I compared S006 and S007 a couple of times directly and did not find a prove of one being more consistent over the other.

Thank you guys. I still own both S006 and S007 and should maybe use the S006 for a time and see consistency.

[Pieter12]

I have no issue working in MF mode. You know, how it used to be. The S cameras have a big, bright viewfinder unlike most any other. Unless you have vision problems, AF is just a luxury that one can work without or at least around.

Edited March 10, 2024 by Pieter12

[ZHNL]

Regarding AF. Yes, I think we discussed this many times here in S forum. S007 has no improvement over S2 or S006 in term of focus accuracy. It gives the impression that focus faster but actually has a lot more back and forth hesitation than accurately lock the focus. I prefer S006 and S2 if I have to pick one for AF. 

However, one thing, 007 over 006 has LV focus which is contract based on sensor focus. This can be very accurate. 

Regarding AF spot area Stuart mentioned above, this was my original theory but after extensive test I found it is more about subject contrast and distance that focus spot covered. The AF system or AF plus Lens combination are just not good enough. (I didnt use strong word here but I dont think this kind of AF performance can be considered as product to sell IMO)   

On the other hand, AF at portrait distance is a lot more reliable. Not as good as any modern MILC or DSLR but still a lot more reliable than long distance shot. My personal guess is S glass have floating element and complicate AF design, Leica S just don't have a well testing procedure to ensure reliable focus out of product line or the products are just not designed good enough to cover all the combination: lens and body, distance etc...

My experience with multiple lenses and body (loaner and my personal ones) show that performance is all over the place just like internet feedbacks here from different people. This indicate the whole system have design flaw that can't ensure reliable and consistent performance. On the other hand, even Nikon or Canon DSLR that have much more capable AF system proved individual AF fine tune feature which I think it is a must for SLR system. 

For me, one way to mitigate this is remember all lens the barrel location for infinity when I do landscape shots. For shot cover deep DOF but not just infinity, I use my eye to determine hyper focus point, as long as I focus at wide open, and the lens stop around f8 or f11. I am fine 90% of time. Just double check focus after shots. For 007/S3, use LV focus. 

I am facing dilemma to pick up a used S3 or get a new SL3. I kind of know what I will get from either. I just prefer S file to anything else out there but SL3/M11 sensor is really really awesome, color is also beautiful. (Not really sure about S3 in this case, no enough images for me to get an impression on how good they are)  but S lenses are just fit my personal taste better than anything out there include SL APO summicorn many loved here. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by ZHNL

[mgrayson3]

My 2 cents: It's been a long time since I relied on AF of any system (except those with eye-detect). Shoot the S in live-view, turn on focus peaking, go magnified and either focus manually at landscape distance or focus with my body (rock back and forth) at portrait distance. This prevents focusing on the glasses or eyebrows by watching the plane of focus rather than a particular detail. Even the most accurate AF won't tell you exactly WHICH point it's focusing on. Good portrait photographers do this automatically through the OVF, but I never got that good.

Matt

[BernardC]

17 hours ago, ZHNL said:

My experience with multiple lenses and body (loaner and my personal ones) show that performance is all over the place just like internet feedbacks here from different people. This indicate the whole system have design flaw that can't ensure reliable and consistent performance. On the other hand, even Nikon or Canon DSLR that have much more capable AF system proved individual AF fine tune feature which I think it is a must for SLR system. 

That's an inherent limitation of SLR phase-detect AF. I suspect that fewer people noticed it in older high-megapixel Canon and Nikon SLRs (D850, 5Ds) simply because they weren't looking as closely as you would with an S, and their AF lenses weren't as good as the S lenses.

Phase-detect AF on an SLR requires extreme precision in the relative position of the mirror box, mirror, focal plane, focus screen, PDAF mirror (attached to the main mirror), and PDAF sensor (at the bottom of the mirror box). You'll get sub-par results if any of these are out by even a fraction of a millimeter. On top of that, phase-detect has a maximum attainable accuracy, in terms of depth-of-field. That's not an issue with most S lenses that are either 2.5 or 2.8, but it could be with the 100/2.0 or the zoom and 180.

Incidentally, that's why some SLRs let you "fine-tune" AF for specific lenses. The camera can only focus to (i.e.) f:4.0 accuracy, so it guesses where the sharpest focus should be within that range. The problem is that lenses don't have an even distribution of depth-of-field front-to-back, so the camera might guess wrong if tit doesn't know the exact d-o-f spread for a specific lens. The S doesn't let you do that, but presumably Leica built that information into the lens or camera firmware.

PDAF on mirrorless sensors solves most of these issues. The depth-of-field issue is still present, but most implementations get around that by using a combination of "fast" and "slow" PDAF sensors, so a sub-set of the PDAF sensors should be compatible with any given lens. Also, mirrorless PDAF sensors switch to CDAF for fine focus. That won't happen if you are shooting a burst, but it will happen seamlessly if your subject stands still for a second or two.

All of that explains why the S4 should be a mirrorless camera. We've reached the limits of SLR accuracy.

[tom0511]

I checked today in the garden...I get better results with MF compared to AF, but the sharpness of those lenses is so great that I do not get "perfect" focus, my eyes are not bad. It worked, but when you are you used to good mirrorless AF, it is just sad that I seem to not be able to hit the focus spot more reliable with such good lenses and such a good sensor.

Yesterday I shot handball with a Canon R3 and 85/1.2. I shot many shots at f1.4 and some at f1.2 with eye detect and the camera hit the focus in most of the images. So it is amazing what is possible today.

So Leica pleas give us that S4.

Question: Anybody of you guys use the S screen for manual focus with the micro-lenses? 

PS: Besides my focus "thing" I love the IQ from the S-System over everything else (digital) I have used.

Edited March 11, 2024 by tom0511

[Stuart Richardson]

I found that with my eyesight (which is very acute when corrected), I was not able to fully accurately focus the S. I don't think this was me, however, as I am routinely able to focus 4x5 and 8x10 perfectly, which have shallower depth of field. I think it is as Bernard says, that the tolerances for the mirrorbox and focusing screen are infinitesimal. I also found a very slight difference between the peak focus on the screen and the focus confirmation. Usually the focus confirmation was right, and the screen was slightly off. I had the microprism screen and it was the same. I sent the camera to Leica once to adjust this, but it did not make a substantial difference. The S3 was also slightly inaccurate in this way. So I just figured that unfortunately it was par for the course. I had accurate results with back button AF, so I stuck with that. Manual was still good enough for situations where the tolerances were less critical, such as when slightly stopped down. I know there are a number of S users who have had better luck than me, which suggests to me that there is some tolerance variation. I have only had three bodies and all were slightly off, so maybe I just got unlucky? When I say slightly though, I do mean slightly...I did tests with extra magnification and so on, just to make sure it wasn't me. Also tested with both my contacts and glasses, and at different diopter settings without either. It was consistently slightly off.

You are right, however, that this is one of the biggest advantages of contrast detect mirrorless. This problem simply vanishes.

[Stuart Richardson]

By the way, I forgot to say that when I wrote to Leica Customer Service about the S3's focusing screen not matching the AF module, this was their actual word for word response. I had also asked them about a picture where I saw concentric circles in the image, which I had never seen in a camera before. I am attaching a screenshot of what it looked like with the dust spotting feature so it is accentuated. It was just in the very center (I did not have a filter, I believe. It was a friend's 24mm, perhaps he did. @sebben?): The color version shows it as well.

Dear Stuart,

 

 

I received feedback from my colleagues.

They analyzed the pictures and I should ask you, if you have used a filter in front of the lens?

Auroro borealis are visible at a small spectrum in green color. This spectrum is around the limits of digital cameras. In combination with high resolution of the Leica S3 and a filter in some cases are Newton rings can be visible.

 

 

About the viewfinder. I got the confirmation that the viewfinder can be a little bit different to the sensor.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / kind regards

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!

Edited March 11, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Pieter12]

I have to ask, is everybody shooting wide open? I have no problem with either manual or autofocus on any of the 3 S bodies I have. Of course, I don't use the cameras for action shots, that would be foolish...that's what Nikons and Canons are for. I get more softness from camera movement than I every have from problems focusing.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Pieter12

[Stuart Richardson]

No. Most of my focus inaccuracy was in landscape work. The camera would often front focus...sometimes substantially. So I would point it at mountains a km away and it would focus at 100m etc. This was not an issue usually for the 120mm, less so for the 70mm, but very common for the 35mm and 45mm. I came to believe that the camera was either doing some sort of hyperfocal focusing to adjust for the field curvature of the lenses, or just plain missing focus. It is also why I felt like it was most likely due to the AF patch being large and the camera biasing its focus towards the nearer object with the most contrast. So where the 120mm and 70mm were more likely to fill the AF patch with equidistant detail, the wide angles would have both the horizon and the foreground in the AF patch, and it would bias towards picking the foreground. So it might be focusing on the grass at 10m instead of the horizon line. With the wide angles at least I had to double check each time I shot. I will say, I rarely had any problems with portraits. But I did adapt my technique for landscape to take into account these focus point variations. I think some users might not notice. I was/am doing a lot of large prints, so I tend to be pretty critical about it.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Pieter12]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

No. Most of my focus inaccuracy was in landscape work. The camera would often front focus...sometimes substantially. So I would point it at mountains a km away and it would focus at 100m etc. This was not an issue usually for the 120mm, less so for the 70mm, but very common for the 35mm and 45mm. I came to believe that the camera was either doing some sort of hyperfocal focusing to adjust for the field curvature of the lenses, or just plain missing focus. It is also why I felt like it was most likely due to the AF patch being large and the camera biasing its focus towards the nearer object with the most contrast. So where the 120mm and 70mm were more likely to fill the AF patch with equidistant detail, the wide angles would have both the horizon and the foreground in the AF patch, and it would bias towards picking the foreground. So it might be focusing on the grass at 10m instead of the horizon line. With the wide angles at least I had to double check each time I shot. I will say, I rarely had any problems with portraits. But I did adapt my technique for landscape to take into account these focus point variations. I think some users might not notice. I was/am doing a lot of large prints, so I tend to be pretty critical about it.

I guess I don't run into any AF problems because the camera is set to only use AF on demand through the back button. Highly recommend it. All my AF cameras are set up this way.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

vor 43 Minuten schrieb Pieter12:

I have to ask, is everybody shooting wide open? I have no problem with either manual or autofocus on any of the 3 S bodies I have. Of course, I don't use the cameras for action shots, that would be foolish...that's what Nikons and Canons are for. I get more softness from camera movement than I every have from problems focusing.

I like to shoot at wider apertures, often at f4.0