If I already own an s007, is it necessary to buy an s006?

[Tom001]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I already have an S007, do I have to buy an S006? Is a medium format CCD better than a CMOS? I feel that the image quality and color of the S007 are very good, but I want to know if the S006 is better.

Thanks all

Tom

[Advertisement]

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

[Pieter12]

Different. And no longer supported, I believe. I prefer the CCD skin tones but I'm sure the 007 color can be adjusted to match or come close. 007 has a better ISO range and live view (if that's something you need/use/want).

[geetee1972]

 

2 hours ago, Tom001 said:

I already have an S007, do I have to buy an S006? Is a medium format CCD better than a CMOS? I feel that the image quality and color of the S007 are very good, but I want to know if the S006 is better.

Thanks all

Tom

If you care that much about the colour rendering (which I can well understand), you would be far better off buying a medium format film camera and shooting film. Aside from that, it's possible to process the S(007) files to look more like film (which is basically why people are starting to look at CCD sensor cameras again).

[Stuart Richardson]

I preferred the S006, but it is a lower DR, contrastier look. That is also a bit closer to slides than for example the wider DR of the S007. Both are excellent and it seems a bit overkill to me to get an S006 if you have an S007 and are happy with the look. Feels to me like a grass is always greener scenario. But perhaps see if you can borrow one?

[mikelevitt]

On 5/21/2024 at 3:09 PM, geetee1972 said:

 

If you care that much about the colour rendering (which I can well understand), you would be far better off buying a medium format film camera and shooting film. Aside from that, it's possible to process the S(007) files to look more like film (which is basically why people are starting to look at CCD sensor cameras again).

As a guy who spent a decade managing pro film labs (including production manager of the lab at the biggest auto company in the US - I know what I'm doing) and has owned, many, many CCD and CMOS cameras since the beginning of digital, including the 006 and 007,  I have a few thoughts on this.  IMO you need to decide what you want your output to be.  If you are making prints using chemical printing, there is an argument for shooting film.  If you have access to a high-quality scanner like an Imacon or drum scanner, there is a possible case for film.  Other than that, digital is better.  

If you want to make a print from a negative or slide using digital editing and printing you are dependent on the following things:

Age and quality of the film.  Film type and brand.  Who is processing the film, in what kind of machine using which chemistry?  Is it a dip and dunk, roller transport, continuous, or roller transport?  Is the chemistry in balance?  Are they plotting it properly and doing the right adjustments?  Are they using fresh control strips and a calibrated instrument to measure the processed strips?  Is it one-shot or replenished chemistry.  All of these things can change the color and density of your neg or slide.

Then you have to scan it.

Scanning is hard.  Scanners are expensive.  Any scanner you can afford (maybe with the exception of a coolscan 9000) will give you a result much worse than a cheap digital camera.  You need to know what you are doing.  It takes a lot of time and effort.  Film is dirty so you need to clean up the scans.  Color is all over the place depending on what you are using.  A scanner is basically a digital camera taking a photo of your film.

So if you want to roll the dice or play the roulette wheel of photography, sure shoot film.  Otherwise, shoot digital.  Since you are talking about the 006 vs 007, I can tell you for sure that the best scan you're every going to do from film won't be as good as a file from either of those cameras.  I own both the 006 and 007.  They are both great.  If I could only have one I would keep the 006 because the file is unique.

Film was not magic.  It was expensive, inconsistent and problematic - especially the processing and scanning.  Digital cameras have far surpassed what film can do.  All of the people who were great at scanning have retired or died.  Kodak (not really kodak, just the name on a new company) now makes Fuji's film.  The few processing labs left are appreciated, but not to the level of the greats of the past, like A&I in LA, or the one I can't think of in Miami - both of which ran their own KODACHROME lines - which was the most difficult and demanding process of them all.  Film is fun to shoot, but the idea that it is superior is wrong.  It is simply a cult at this point.

One more thing.  Many have said that you can duplicate the not the color of the 006 with the 007.  I guess that is true to some extent, and for most cameras I would say that is somewhat true - even between systems.  But the real differentiator between CCD and CMOS is not color.  I don't have a word to explain it, but it is something like clarity, transparency, dimensionality....  It's more obvious comparing the M9 to its successors, but you can definitely see it.  One day if I ever have some free time (doubtful) I will do a test to compare the files from both cameras - in the same place, same time and same subjects, and same lenses.  Haven't had the time yet....

 

Edited May 30, 2024 by mikelevitt

[HuntingSand]

I used to have the M9. Slow, amazingly low DR, prone to lockups with the "wrong" SD card, terrible screen, mediocre battery life, but man, those files were gorgeous. Then sensor corrosion set in, so I sold it on and bought the M240. I thought, hmmm, those M240 files don't really wow me, they're kind of undistinguished. Then I put really good glass on the M240, and the camera began to sing. I got out of the M system some years later, and am now experiencing the same transition with the S system. Alternating between my 006 and my 007 (I have both), it's the sensor in the 6 that makes the picture, whereas with the 7, it's the glass I mount. That at least is my superficial conclusion of the matter...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/21/2024 at 4:56 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

 Feels to me like a grass is always greener scenario. 

That can be easily fixed in PP.

Jeff

[Pieter12]

On 5/30/2024 at 11:38 AM, HuntingSand said:

I used to have the M9. Slow, amazingly low DR, prone to lockups with the "wrong" SD card, terrible screen, mediocre battery life, but man, those files were gorgeous. Then sensor corrosion set in, so I sold it on and bought the M240. I thought, hmmm, those M240 files don't really wow me, they're kind of undistinguished. Then I put really good glass on the M240, and the camera began to sing. I got out of the M system some years later, and am now experiencing the same transition with the S system. Alternating between my 006 and my 007 (I have both), it's the sensor in the 6 that makes the picture, whereas with the 7, it's the glass I mount. That at least is my superficial conclusion of the matter...

Since you can use the same lens on the 6, why bother with the 7?

[HuntingSand]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Pieter12:

Since you can use the same lens on the 6, why bother with the 7?

Different paths of travel. In a sense, they complement each other. 

[tom0511]

7 feels faster, has better dynamic range , can be used at higher ISO (which helps for a camera without ibis)

I agree the ccd sensor is special, the cmos of the 7 isn't bad however either IMO.

[irenedp]

On 5/30/2024 at 2:41 PM, mikelevitt said:

As a guy who spent a decade managing pro film labs (including production manager of the lab at the biggest auto company in the US - I know what I'm doing) and has owned, many, many CCD and CMOS cameras since the beginning of digital, including the 006 and 007,  I have a few thoughts on this.  IMO you need to decide what you want your output to be.  If you are making prints using chemical printing, there is an argument for shooting film.  If you have access to a high-quality scanner like an Imacon or drum scanner, there is a possible case for film.  Other than that, digital is better.  

If you want to make a print from a negative or slide using digital editing and printing you are dependent on the following things:

Age and quality of the film.  Film type and brand.  Who is processing the film, in what kind of machine using which chemistry?  Is it a dip and dunk, roller transport, continuous, or roller transport?  Is the chemistry in balance?  Are they plotting it properly and doing the right adjustments?  Are they using fresh control strips and a calibrated instrument to measure the processed strips?  Is it one-shot or replenished chemistry.  All of these things can change the color and density of your neg or slide.

Then you have to scan it.

Scanning is hard.  Scanners are expensive.  Any scanner you can afford (maybe with the exception of a coolscan 9000) will give you a result much worse than a cheap digital camera.  You need to know what you are doing.  It takes a lot of time and effort.  Film is dirty so you need to clean up the scans.  Color is all over the place depending on what you are using.  A scanner is basically a digital camera taking a photo of your film.

So if you want to roll the dice or play the roulette wheel of photography, sure shoot film.  Otherwise, shoot digital.  Since you are talking about the 006 vs 007, I can tell you for sure that the best scan you're every going to do from film won't be as good as a file from either of those cameras.  I own both the 006 and 007.  They are both great.  If I could only have one I would keep the 006 because the file is unique.

Film was not magic.  It was expensive, inconsistent and problematic - especially the processing and scanning.  Digital cameras have far surpassed what film can do.  All of the people who were great at scanning have retired or died.  Kodak (not really kodak, just the name on a new company) now makes Fuji's film.  The few processing labs left are appreciated, but not to the level of the greats of the past, like A&I in LA, or the one I can't think of in Miami - both of which ran their own KODACHROME lines - which was the most difficult and demanding process of them all.  Film is fun to shoot, but the idea that it is superior is wrong.  It is simply a cult at this point.

One more thing.  Many have said that you can duplicate the not the color of the 006 with the 007.  I guess that is true to some extent, and for most cameras I would say that is somewhat true - even between systems.  But the real differentiator between CCD and CMOS is not color.  I don't have a word to explain it, but it is something like clarity, transparency, dimensionality....  It's more obvious comparing the M9 to its successors, but you can definitely see it.  One day if I ever have some free time (doubtful) I will do a test to compare the files from both cameras - in the same place, same time and same subjects, and same lenses.  Haven't had the time yet....

 

The superiority, today, of digital versus film is unquestionable at least in terms of detail and sharpness. There is all that Mike mentions -controlling the highest quality in emulsion quality and lab processing or, when choosing the scanning route, the fact that it’s s the photograph of a photograph however sophisticated the scanning method-.  

Besides, there’s the lenses. A digital negative taken with a top analogic lens -a Schneider or a Rodenstock- is not as good as the same negative taken with a digital equivalent, simply because the latter has more lines..

[irenedp]

I have an S2 and an S3 (not a 007), and an M9P and a 10r.  The CCD files have significantly less DR but are gorgeous in color and mood; and it requires a lot of work to get similar results with the CMOS ones. However, there’s something to be said about the smoother color and tone gradation of the latter. The choice depends on the expected application of the file. 

[mikelevitt]

On 5/30/2024 at 8:41 AM, mikelevitt said:

like A&I in LA, or the one I can't think of in Miami

The Miami lab was BWC Chrome Lab.