Anyone still buying into/investing in the S system at this point?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

36 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

 

I am not saying high MP is better.

Neither am I.  Just noting that the design of the S sensor includes aspects that make it unique (if one reads the link), and that “punch far above its weight” compared to other cameras that might have 37.5 MP, even from later sensor generations.

Jeff

[irenedp]

I think the S2 is somewhat special. The S3 is a great camera, and in some ways, like having the liveview, better. But I really love the S2. That one is a keeper.

[tom0511]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Quarterpounder:

So, if i were to buy into a Leica system and choose between SL and S today, pre-owned, why would I go for the S?

The bigger sensor gives you smoother transitions in regards of tomes but also sharpness falloff. ( I dont know how much is from the sensor and how much from the lenses). The S body let you use the excellent S lenses ( you can use them on SL3 with adapter but it will be louder and slower). The ergonomics of s body are great. If you like ovf, S will give it to you. I think the files leave more room fpr,postprocessing than ff.
 

what I miss with the S? Ibis and a more advanced af.

( I use both systems)

Edited December 23, 2024 by tom0511

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, Quarterpounder said:

So, if i were to buy into a Leica system and choose between SL and S today, pre-owned, why would I go for the S?

It really depends. You need to be able to ry out both cameras. The S and its lenses are heavy and perform better image-wise IMO. The downside is the heavy load can be difficult to lug around, more suited to studio or location work where one does not have to carry everything a lot. The S3 performs well at high ISOs, the S2 or S006 is limited in that aspect. If you can live with the lower ISO range, the S 006 CCD images are stunning. Just make sure the sensor has been replaced before buying one. Leica no longer has the parts to do that service. There is at least one third-party that I know of that can replace the sensor or the glass (the part that is subject to corrosion). Since none of the S cameras are currently in production, the availability of parts and service in the future could be a consideration.

S cameras do not have IBIS, so higher ISO is an advantage, otherwise a good tripod is recommended. The S has an outstanding, large viewfinder. Some complain about the speed and accuracy of the AF. I don't rely solely on AF, so it is less of an issue for me. It is not really a "action" camera, nor would I want to tote one around as a wedding or event photographer, but I'm sure others do.

I do not have or have ever used any SL of any sorts, but I believe it is much lighter and has IBIS, a great advantage for hand-held exposures. But it is crippled in my opinion by using an EVF and the sensor is full-frame. I would consider a digital M instead if I were only looking at Leicas and wanted access to a large range of available lenses.

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, Quarterpounder said:

Perform "better" in which way, and compared to which camera?

My opinion. The S images have more dynamic range and the colors are better straight from the camera, in particular the S 006 CCD. At least for me with RAW files processed in C1. The S lenses have a more pleasing look, less harsh than others, lacking what I consider digital curse.

 

On top of that I find the ergonomics and softer, more solid look of the S more pleasing than the hard lines of the SL.

[Stuart Richardson]

What is it exactly that you are unsure about? It seems like several people have tried to answer you in good faith. People make all kinds of choices for all kinds of reasons. I don't think there are so many, even here, that would make a full throated argument for choosing the S over all other systems in 2024. But there are still ways in which it is unique and a valid choice. As indicated, the S has a big beautiful optical viewfinder, and it probably the best DSLR ever made. The lenses have a really beautiful and consistent character. So beautiful, in fact, that the Thalia version of the lenses for 65mm is roughly 100,000 dollars for a used set. The lenses have gorgeous bokeh, low chromatic aberrations and high sharpness. They are fast for medium format and all look very consistent. The camera and lens combination was designed from the ground up as a set, and they all handle extremely well on the camera and the lenses are a very good fit for the sensors they have chosen. The S cameras have a synergy that is not commonly encountered in other camera systems. As a whole, the camera offers extremely good battery life, great ergonomics, extremely high lens quality, complete weather sealing, the option for leaf shutters in lens, and decent working speed for an older camera system. The ISO performance is quite respectable even in the CCD model (it is usable at all the ISO settings provided, though of course cannot compete with more modern cameras in that way). Ultimately the camera is very appealing to work with. I shot with an S for 7 or 8 years. In the end I moved on to the SL2, but there are things the S still does better than the SL2 (for example, colors out of the camera, the ease of using an OVF in bad lighting or with flash). Ultimately people are going to use what they enjoy using, and the S cameras are quite enjoyable to use for some people. They are past the end of their life cycle though, so there is no doubt that a modern mirrorless camera might out do them on the specs sheet.

Edited December 23, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

So, if i were to buy into a Leica system and choose between SL and S today, pre-owned, why would I go for the S?

You don't have to, either S or SL. you also don't have to choose Leica, unless you tell people what you are looking for. 

Edited December 23, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[tom0511]

Frienkly I wou.ld not buy into S system today, except I was a ovf fan.

I would probably wait what comes next from Leica medium format, or go Hasselblad ( or fuji or anything else)

if one chooses ff or larger sensor is another decision. If one feels to not see a difference, then I see no sense to buy into medium format system. Personally I strongly believe there is still a difference.

Edited December 24, 2024 by tom0511

[BernardC]

17 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

Perform "better" in which way, and compared to which camera?

Frankly, the fact that you aren't even sure what is or isn't good points to the answer.

The S system is heavier, bulkier, slower, harder to use, and much less flexible. Are you into that? For most people, those limitations make it into "the system you never take with you."

I love my S, but it's not a casual camera in any way.

 

That being said, the answer to your original question is "you need both!"

[LocalHero1953]

52 minutes ago, Quarterpounder said:

And isnt the key point of most Leicas to be the camera on the go, decisive moment and all?
Imagine Minox coming up with a 4x5, is that really their core competency?
I am also trying to understand whether the whole idea of "MF is somehow better than 35mm" applies to digital cameras in 2024. If a SL3 does 60MP, what MF digital can be "better" than that?

Reading all the replies, it seems as if the majority of S system users are "legacy users" rather than "switchers". People who invested into the system some time ago, and are now keeping their sunk costs. The IQ of the camera is still the same as when it was new, so why not. It was interesting to read that the S system has also been ridden by sensor corrosion issues.

Unless OVF is key, I cannot see any compelling reason to switch from another system to S. If one has already sunk a lot of investment into it, it makes sense to use it as long as possible.

No the key point of most Leicas is not to be the camera on the go looking for the decisive moment: Barnack, M and Q perhaps, not SL or S (or Sinar, Hugo, Thalia, M0.8).

And only the S006 had sensor cover corrosion, like the M9. The rest are clear.

You keep asking what is 'better' about the S, then jumping to conclusions from respondents' attempts to guess what you mean by 'better'. If you say what you're looking for, and your criteria for 'better', then you will get better replies.

I have the SL2-S, not the S. However, the results I have seen from the S, well presented and displayed, convince me that I would love to have one plus a couple of S portrait lenses. Colour, tonal gradients and a certain 'depth of look' are all distinctive. It's not a matter of specs - if it was, you wouldn't get far beyond the OVF - in every measurable criterion it is not a leader. Sadly, I don't 'need' one at current prices, not enough to convince others who have a call on my bank account.

[Sarnian]

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

And only the S006 had sensor cover corrosion, like the M9. The rest are clear.

Not forgetting that the S2 (and S2-P) also suffer from sensor cover corrosion. 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Quarterpounder said:

And isnt the key point of most Leicas to be the camera on the go, decisive moment and all?
Imagine Minox coming up with a 4x5, is that really their core competency?
I am also trying to understand whether the whole idea of "MF is somehow better than 35mm" applies to digital cameras in 2024. If a SL3 does 60MP, what MF digital can be "better" than that?

Reading all the replies, it seems as if the majority of S system users are "legacy users" rather than "switchers". People who invested into the system some time ago, and are now keeping their sunk costs. The IQ of the camera is still the same as when it was new, so why not. It was interesting to read that the S system has also been ridden by sensor corrosion issues.

Unless OVF is key, I cannot see any compelling reason to switch from another system to S. If one has already sunk a lot of investment into it, it makes sense to use it as long as possible.

Now you have clearly answered your own question. You should not get into S system. 
No worry why others want S. 

[LocalHero1953]

17 minutes ago, Quarterpounder said:

No need to become defensive. Threat title is "Anyone still buying into/investing in the S system at this point?"

So far, the "in favour of buying one" replies largely came from people who already own one, and/or with very vague "pros", e.g. "The S and its lenses are heavy and perform better image-wise IMO." Better than what?

No defensiveness - you want an argument based on something you can measure - I doubt you'll get one. Just treat it as significant that so many of those who own a S do not want to change. The OP was an experienced S owner/user and knew what they were dealing with - and their question was not 'why should I buy a S?'.

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, Quarterpounder said:

As you wish, just dont get angry. Its just a camera...chill bro.

angry? where do you read that?🤷‍♂️

[Stuart Richardson]

6 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

And isnt the key point of most Leicas to be the camera on the go, decisive moment and all?
Imagine Minox coming up with a 4x5, is that really their core competency?
I am also trying to understand whether the whole idea of "MF is somehow better than 35mm" applies to digital cameras in 2024. If a SL3 does 60MP, what MF digital can be "better" than that?

Reading all the replies, it seems as if the majority of S system users are "legacy users" rather than "switchers". People who invested into the system some time ago, and are now keeping their sunk costs. The IQ of the camera is still the same as when it was new, so why not. It was interesting to read that the S system has also been ridden by sensor corrosion issues.

Unless OVF is key, I cannot see any compelling reason to switch from another system to S. If one has already sunk a lot of investment into it, it makes sense to use it as long as possible.

With respect to your decisive moment question: Leica has been making SLRs since the 1960s, and the S camera was essentially a modernized version of the R9. Just because they were not as popular does not mean they were not competent at it. The Leica SLR lenses have usually been as good or better than the current generation M lenses they coexisted with, while also having superb telephoto designs. They were also the genesis of Leica APO designs, which started with the 180mm APO Telyt. The S was a very logical step for Leica in the SLR world. The R cameras had optics that were so good they mostly outresolved the film they shot on, and it was harder for them to differentiate between their competitors. Canon and Nikon had gone all in on autofocus and tech like matrix metering and high frame rate drives, while Leica focused more on lens and body quality and precision focusing. Ultimately they lost because photographers mostly chose the features over the quality, since the differences were not as visible on film and Canon and Nikon still made very good lenses at a lower price point. Rather than bring out a 35mm DSLR into a crowded market, they decided to design a camera from the ground up around optimal image quality and handling. They felt like the big MF cameras like Phase and Hasselblad were not required on digital and a sensor between medium format and 35mm would give the blend of quality and handling they wanted. They saw the Hasselblad and Phase bodies were too big and too slow with lenses that were not as good as their own designs. At the same time, most 35mm cameras topped out at 24mp at the time. The S2 was launched at 37.5 megapixels (remember, this was before the D800 and A7R etc) with lenses that could be absolutely tack sharp over that entire sensor. Meanwhile the camera itself was not much bigger than a 5D and had superb handling, dramatically better OVF, days of battery life and very accurate AF (within its limits).

But also keep in mind all this happened in 2008! Almost all the S line development happened between 2006-2015. The S3 is just a swapped sensor on an S007. You say "unless OVF is key" you cannot see a compelling reason to switch to an S from another system. I would agree...but do you expect people to? It is a discontinued system that is mostly 15 year old tech. Most of the users are certainly legacy users. I don't think anyone here is trying to tell you that it is worth investing in the S system if you do not already see something compelling in it for you. If you are curious, you should try to get your hands on one and use it. It will probably go a much longer way to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages than anything we might say here.

[Pieter12]

4 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

No need to become defensive. Threat title is "Anyone still buying into/investing in the S system at this point?"

So far, the "in favour of buying one" replies largely came from people who already own one, and/or with very vague "pros", e.g. "The S and its lenses are heavy and perform better image-wise IMO." Better than what?

First, that quote needs to be taken in context. The S was being compared to the SL. So there's your better than what. But it could be better than everything else currently being offered. Second, the OP is about still buying into the system, not necessarily for the first time, more continuing to buy equipment that the manufacturer is in effect walking away from and will have limited or no official support in the near future. It is a risk some are willing to take, and it seems to stem from the image quality produced and the more reasonable prices on the market for gear that once sold for quite a bit more.

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, Quarterpounder said:

No need to become defensive. Threat title is "Anyone still buying into/investing in the S system at this point?"

So far, the "in favour of buying one" replies largely came from people who already own one, and/or with very vague "pros", e.g. "The S and its lenses are heavy and perform better image-wise IMO." Better than what?

Yes I am planning to replace all C645 lenses with the counter offers from Leica S.

Edited December 24, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[HuntingSand]

OP here...Someone raised the issue of risk in this thread. I guess that's a fair point. Objectively speaking, there are multiple risks staying with (or further investing into) a system that is no longer in development. In the case of the S system specifically, both camera bodies and lenses have historically been affected by failures, which means the risks are actually not unknowns. As such, they can be factored into the continued operation of the system, as long as the system fulfills the needs of the user. How much longer Leica itself is set up to assume & absorb the cost of these risks, that might just be the real unknown here. Meanwhile, I have observed dimishing numbers of S lenses (never mind S bodies) in the marketplace over the past twelve months, so people do still seem to build out their S portfolios. And once that new Kipon adapter comes to market allowing S lenses to autofocus on Fuji's GFX bodies, the remaining (mostly 2nd hand) stock will either disappear rather quickly, or appreciate in price. Probably both. 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, HuntingSand said:

OP here...Someone raised the issue of risk in this thread. I guess that's a fair point. Objectively speaking, there are multiple risks staying with (or further investing into) a system that is no longer in development. In the case of the S system specifically, both camera bodies and lenses have historically been affected by failures, which means the risks are actually not unknowns. As such, they can be factored into the continued operation of the system, as long as the system fulfills the needs of the user. How much longer Leica itself is set up to assume & absorb the cost of these risks, that might just be the real unknown here. Meanwhile, I have observed dimishing numbers of S lenses (never mind S bodies) in the marketplace over the past twelve months, so people do still seem to build out their S portfolios. And once that new Kipon adapter comes to market allowing S lenses to autofocus on Fuji's GFX bodies, the remaining (mostly 2nd hand) stock will either disappear rather quickly, or appreciate in price. Probably both. 

For your concerns, don't buy into S.  M would be the safest bet for you. 

S is not for everyone. Nothing is for everyone anyway. It is the best choice for me and many people here, but not for other people.

Just choose the one you like, you can afford, and feel most comfortable.  

Edited December 25, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[HuntingSand]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Einst_Stein:

For your concerns, don't buy into S.  M would be the safest bet for you. 

S is not for everyone. Nothing is for everyone anyway. It is the best choice for me and many people here, but not for other people.

Just choose the one you like, you can afford, and feel most comfortable.  

Never mind my concerns…

Re playing it safe, I recently bought a IIIB from 1938, a wonderful sample of mechanical engineering. It has already successfully served a very specific purpose. As I also own two S cameras and various S lenses, they, too, serve their purpose. When I get it right, in rather stunning fashion.