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

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Pieter12 said:

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.

Well, that is how I used the camera for the most part as well. When doing portraiture or more fast moving work I would use AFs on the shutter button. I never really touched AFc. What do you photograph and how large do you print? Just curious...

Edited March 11 by Stuart Richardson

[helged]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

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!

Very strange, indeed, but you are not the only one experiencing this phenomena...: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4332469.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Stuart Richardson]

4 minutes ago, helged said:

Very strange, indeed, but you are not the only one experiencing this phenomena...: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4332469.

I have a knack for finding all the problems! Lol

I don't even use filters, so it must have been one that Seb had on there when he lent me the lens, otherwise just some weird interplay between the lens optics and aurora. I can see it happening with the 70mm, which has a flat glass front element, but I was using the 24mm.

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Well, that is how I used the camera for the most part as well. When doing portraiture or more fast moving work I would use AFs on the shutter button. I never really touched AFc. What do you photograph and how large do you print? Just curious...

I generally photograph documentary urban landscapes (not architectural) as well as table-top still life. My work is probably 75% black and white medium format film. I don't print very large as I don't have any particular reason to.

[mgrayson3]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

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.

It's worth remembering that prints from large format film undergo much less magnification than ones from digital sensors. Achieving perfect focus on ground glass may not be fun, but it has a larger margin of error, despite the shallow DoF. (I envy your eyesight, BTW!)

[epines]

23 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

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 also have excellent focus accuracy with my S (an S3). I rely on AF, via the rear button, all the time. Yes, it occasionally chooses something within the circle that's not where the crosshairs are, but only if there's a confusing jumble of items within the circle. If were trying to focus, say, on a single pencil in a caddy, with other pencils and pens in front and behind that pencil, it might choose a different one than I want, especially if another one has more contrast. The only other problem I've had is focusing on elements at medium distances, like 50-100 feet. Mostly it nails the focus, but not always. So what I do is turn live view on, use the rear button for AF in live view, then turn live view off. It's easy.

And as Pieter12 says, I use the Nikon for action. The S3 is for everything else. I think it is an outstanding system.

[ynp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/11/2024 at 8:40 PM, tom0511 said:

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

As many people here, I mostly use the manual focus. I have the Micro Prism screen and tried to use it for focusing. When I installed it myself I used it for a while with very unsatisfactory results. I returned to the regular screen. I assumed that it was my fault and I made an installation mistake. Then I was at Leica’s office, I asked the technician to install the Micro Prism screen again. I did not feel any difference and put it in my desk again. 
So for me the Micro Prism screen did not work and I use the regular screen on my S3. 
I tend to shoot at f.5.6 at portrait distances. That may explain why I have no problem with focusing. 

Edited March 12 by ynp

[Stuart Richardson]

20 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

It's worth remembering that prints from large format film undergo much less magnification than ones from digital sensors. Achieving perfect focus on ground glass may not be fun, but it has a larger margin of error, despite the shallow DoF. (I envy your eyesight, BTW!)

In any case, whichever is more challenging, I found that the S cameras were consistently slightly off. I have not had any trouble with my eyes/focusing on other systems, and given Leica themselves told me that there can be a discrepancy between the screen and the sensor, I am going to assume that is what it was. I suspect that Bernard is correct that the tolerance is very difficult to achieve or perhaps very difficult to maintain over the years and many mirror actuations.

 

20 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

I generally photograph documentary urban landscapes (not architectural) as well as table-top still life. My work is probably 75% black and white medium format film. I don't print very large as I don't have any particular reason to.

Makes sense. I think I tend to see focus problems quite clearly (or did at least when I was shooting the S system) because I did a lot of night work. In the winter here you have a lot of dark rocks set against snow, and a lot of highly detailed terrain at more or less equal distance from the camera (a lot of mountains in the background that rise up from the ground and very few trees/things in the way. So it tends to highlight these things quickly. I also work as a printer so I probably print too big (or at least sometimes) because it is readily accessible to me and basically just the cost of paper and ink. A lot of the photos from one series I did on the S were 40x60 inches (100x150cm) in night photos. At that size the true plane of focus is usually readily visible, so if it is off, it can ruin your day. In any case, I generally found ways to work around it and did not really have any real problems getting what I needed done, despite the occasional AF problems. Another trick I tended to use was to just back button focus a couple of different times with slightly different focus points, and almost always one or all of them would be spot on. For night I used a lot of headlamps and portable lights to illuminate features that I could then focus on.

[Pieter12]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In any case, whichever is more challenging, I found that the S cameras were consistently slightly off. I have not had any trouble with my eyes/focusing on other systems, and given Leica themselves told me that there can be a discrepancy between the screen and the sensor, I am going to assume that is what it was. I suspect that Bernard is correct that the tolerance is very difficult to achieve or perhaps very difficult to maintain over the years and many mirror actuations.

 

Makes sense. I think I tend to see focus problems quite clearly (or did at least when I was shooting the S system) because I did a lot of night work. In the winter here you have a lot of dark rocks set against snow, and a lot of highly detailed terrain at more or less equal distance from the camera (a lot of mountains in the background that rise up from the ground and very few trees/things in the way. So it tends to highlight these things quickly. I also work as a printer so I probably print too big (or at least sometimes) because it is readily accessible to me and basically just the cost of paper and ink. A lot of the photos from one series I did on the S were 40x60 inches (100x150cm) in night photos. At that size the true plane of focus is usually readily visible, so if it is off, it can ruin your day. In any case, I generally found ways to work around it and did not really have any real problems getting what I needed done, despite the occasional AF problems. Another trick I tended to use was to just back button focus a couple of different times with slightly different focus points, and almost always one or all of them would be spot on. For night I used a lot of headlamps and portable lights to illuminate features that I could then focus on.

Reminds of a technique I use occasionally for table-top work. I put a ball of crinkled aluminum foil on a stick and hold it in different parts of the set-up to check focus/focus on.

[tom0511]

thank you guys!!! I went back to trust more my eyes and looks like I am more successful in achieving good focus, thank you for your tips and help!

I love those S lenses!

[tom0511]

Am 12.3.2024 um 18:34 schrieb epines:

I also have excellent focus accuracy with my S (an S3). I rely on AF, via the rear button, all the time. Yes, it occasionally chooses something within the circle that's not where the crosshairs are, but only if there's a confusing jumble of items within the circle. If were trying to focus, say, on a single pencil in a caddy, with other pencils and pens in front and behind that pencil, it might choose a different one than I want, especially if another one has more contrast. The only other problem I've had is focusing on elements at medium distances, like 50-100 feet. Mostly it nails the focus, but not always. So what I do is turn live view on, use the rear button for AF in live view, then turn live view off. It's easy.

And as Pieter12 says, I use the Nikon for action. The S3 is for everything else. I think it is an outstanding system.

stupid question: does life view help to see/check focus accurancy on the screen or does it make the AF to focus more accurate due to switching to a different way of focusing??? (contrast AF??)

 

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, tom0511 said:

stupid question: does life view help to see/check focus accurancy on the screen or does it make the AF to focus more accurate due to switching to a different way of focusing??? (contrast AF??)

 

It uses contrast AF, so it is more accurate. But it can still get fooled if it cannot find enough contrast. It is not as good as the contrast detect in the SL2, if I remember correctly.

[davidmknoble]

@Stuart Richardson That is such an interesting experience with the S3.  I use the S3 with the 45mm the most and shoot on the coast.  It is so early in the morning and still somewhat dark, so I use the zone focusing on the top display and have never had trouble with infinity.  Truthfully, I rarely use the autofocus, but interesting nonetheless.  I still get sharp horizons and sharp foregrounds (normally at f/stops from 8 to 9.5 to 11).

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

@Stuart Richardson That is such an interesting experience with the S3.  I use the S3 with the 45mm the most and shoot on the coast.  It is so early in the morning and still somewhat dark, so I use the zone focusing on the top display and have never had trouble with infinity.  Truthfully, I rarely use the autofocus, but interesting nonetheless.  I still get sharp horizons and sharp foregrounds (normally at f/stops from 8 to 9.5 to 11).

Believe me, not the one I was hoping for when I bought it. I do think there was an aspect of having expectations being super high given how much I loved the S2 and S006, and then when certain things started to disappoint me, it kind of became a snowball rolling downhill. That said, I shared my problems with other photographers whose opinion I trust, and they reassured me that I was not being unreasonable and that they also would not be able to work with it as it was. Ultimately, I think the fact that there was an S3 at all was a nice gesture by Leica to the existing user base. I know that a lot of users are very happy with their S3, but to me it was a big letdown. I am not sure what proportion of this stuff was unique to my particular S3, but I was able to reproduce some of the problems on other people's files, so I think part of it was just the way in which I pushed the camera.

[davidmknoble]

@Stuart Richardson, I got in with an S2-P, but only for a few months and the trade up program for the S007 came out and I effectively made money on the trade in.  I have loved the S007 and I still shoot both the S007 and S3 but I’ve either gotten lucky or my images are printed sufficiently small compared to yours that the issues don’t show up.  

I have a few I would love to do very very large in part to see how the files hold up.  That may be a good test!  I do have an SL3 on order and loved the SL2 in Antarctica with the 90-280.  I laugh that I had to de-sharpen a few of those images to print well!

[Stuart Richardson]

Other than the focusing/calibration problems and noisy pushed shadows, I think my problems were largely matters of taste. So if you are happy I think you will continue to be happy. It is also a matter of comparing the S3 to the S006 and SL2...I would take any of them over the vast majority of cameras out there, even ones that are much newer or more "advanced". I was still able to make some photos I really like with the S3, and the lenses are still superb, especially for portraiture. I found the SL2 better for most of my work, however.

Edited March 21 by Stuart Richardson

[tom0511]

update from my side. thanks to this thread I have been encouraged to work on my focus skills. It looks like AF with my S006 was slower but a little more precise than my S007 (Leica says its spot on).

After shooting SL and M for a longer period I was impressed how the S lenses+ larger sensor render that I decided to use the S more often again

I had a good opportunity to buy a used S3 for a good price, received it today and it appears to focus pretty accurate. I am quite happy. I will sell my S007, keep the S006 as an all-time classic for good light. I skip the SL3 for my new S3.

I will keep my SL2-S though for low light etc.

I can't tell you how happy I am . The S IQ rocks, even its a bit cumbersome.

 

 

[Chaemono]

If one looks at Reid Reviews’ SL3 Studio Tests (also vs. SL2) one can clearly see that Leica fixed the red channel in the SL3. Reds, oranges and yellows look much better than with the SL2. Sean Reid only picks up on the better yellows (he didn’t pick up on the improved reds in the M11 vs. the M10R either). This means that if the S4 comes with a Sony 100 MP BSI sensor, which is highly likely IMO, one can be really hopeful that colors and WB will be at least as good as in the S3. 

 

[mikelevitt]

On 3/11/2024 at 10:04 AM, BernardC said:

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.

I've owned pretty much every Canon Pro DSLR and Mirrorless since day 1 of digital, and since 1Dmk2n the AF has always been  bulletproof - in that you could shoot fast lenses wide open with virtually no errors.  The 1Dx took it to another level, and the mirrorless bodies are impossible to miss with.  They all worked great in the studio and for portraits, and progressively got better at sports, action and tracking.  I haven't had to "fine-tune" a Canon since the 1DX1.   They focus accurately with fast lenses right down to 1.2.  The "maximum attainable accuracy" doesn't seem to apply to Canon.  This sounds like making excuses for Leica's poor performance and design of their AF system.

I would rate the S (I own 2 006s and an 007) as about as good as the original 1Dmk1 - which was not very good.  That's a 2001 camera.  S2 is from '09, 006 is from 2012, and 007 from 2014.  All of the canons since day 1 have had multiple, selectable focus points.  The "extreme precision" is something that Canon has managed to achieve for more than 20 years, and at a much lower per-camera cost than Leica.

Why Leica lagged so far behind with the S cameras is open to speculation, but my guess is that they didn't want to spend the money to develop the AF on a niche camera.  So if they can keep the image quality with modern AF and IBIS on the "S4" it could be a monster.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[BernardC]

9 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

I've owned pretty much every Canon Pro DSLR and Mirrorless since day 1 of digital, and since 1Dmk2n the AF has always been  bulletproof - in that you could shoot fast lenses wide open with virtually no errors.  The 1Dx took it to another level, and the mirrorless bodies are impossible to miss with.

You are comparing apples an oranges. Those great Canon pro sports cameras had less than half the resolution of the S2, and less than a third of the S3. Terms like "front focus" and "back focus" only started to be popular once the D800 came-out, and photographers noticed that their images weren't as sharp at the pixel level as they used to be. Nikon offered 1Dx equivalents at the time (D3, D4), which also rarely mis-focussed.

9 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

Why Leica lagged so far behind with the S cameras is open to speculation, but my guess is that they didn't want to spend the money to develop the AF on a niche camera

That was an issue with all medium format SLRs. I have read (although I can't confirm) that Pentax, Mamiya/PhaseOne, Hasselblad, and Leica (and probably Rollei) all got their AF modules from the same Japanese supplier. They were stuck with single-point AF because 35mm multi-point sensors only covered the central part of the image (so they were effectively single-point). None of the OEM suppliers could be persuaded to manufacture a dedicated medium format AF sensor; the market only amounted to a few thousand units per year, and potential customers were going through bankruptcy crises. It wasn't the right environment to invest hundreds of millions of yen into new medium format DSLR PDAF sensors.