The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The new "S" - worth to upgrade from S2?

Paratom

Well-known member
Since there are first reports out from the new "S" I wondered who of you S2 owners is planning to upgrade?
Improved higher ISO and even better color compared to S2 are the factors which I would be interested in.
Higher speed, better display, gps would be nice to have for me but nothing I really need.

The main problems seems used prices for S2 being lower than I had hoped for.

I even wonder if the used S2 prices will go up a little after the first bunch of cameras from "Upgraders" have been sold.

So who will upgrade or not and what are your reasons?
 

RVB

Member
Since there are first reports out from the new "S" I wondered who of you S2 owners is planning to upgrade?
Improved higher ISO and even better color compared to S2 are the factors which I would be interested in.
Higher speed, better display, gps would be nice to have for me but nothing I really need.

The main problems seems used prices for S2 being lower than I had hoped for.

I even wonder if the used S2 prices will go up a little after the first bunch of cameras from "Upgraders" have been sold.

So who will upgrade or not and what are your reasons?
I upgraded for a few reason's.new base ISO,better LCD with joystick which makes viewing easier,bigger buffer as well and a GPS module built in..also the leaf shutters sync at 1/1000th sec on the S and I believe a stop less on the S2..

And the AF is reworked and faster and I believe better in low light..
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
I upgraded for a few reason's.new base ISO,better LCD with joystick which makes viewing easier,bigger buffer as well and a GPS module built in..also the leaf shutters sync at 1/1000th sec on the S and I believe a stop less on the S2..

And the AF is reworked and faster and I believe better in low light..
So does the new camera fulfil your expectations/ how do you find the improvements?
 

RVB

Member
So does the new camera fulfil your expectations/ how do you find the improvements?
It's in the UK right now,I hope to have it in my hands sometime next week..and can give you some real feedback then...

It arrived at the dealer before xmas (with a CS lens)but I haven't had a chance to collect it,I will probably have to have it fedexed over to me..
 

Petster

Member
I do not see a real reason to upgrade. All the new features are nice to have.

  • I really like the GPS stuff but do I need it?
  • The S, old or new wasn't and isn't a camera you should work with when you need higher ISO. You need a good bunch of available or artificial light, if thats not available you should use a different camera.
  • The same applies for the Autofocus. I never had any trouble with the AF and if you need a really fast AF, you need a different camera.
  • The CS lenses will work the same way on the S2.
  • The only thing I need the rear screen for is to have a look at the histogram, therefore no better LCD is needed. Framing happens in the viewfinder, AF is reliable.
  • I'm used to the menu and I like the simplicity, I do not need a joystick.

Not speaking about the price. This makes an upgrade even more senseless, unless you just want to have it. :)

As stated earlier these are all good improvements and I hope that much more people going to use the S in the future, but for the folks out there already having a S2 it makes much more sense to wait for the next update.
 

proenca

Member
Agree with Petster.

I have a S2, which I bought a very nice price and I was already offered an increase amount of money over the price I paid for it.

So I tinkered with the idea of selling it and getting the new S.

but in the end, nothing really justifies the price I would end paying - bar having a new camera with a warranty much longer than the one I have.

I've seen a couple of 1600 shots and its better than my S2 current 1250, no doubt. But not earth shattering clean baby bottom good. Better ? yes.

AF is supposed to be faster, but I dont see the S2 ( or even the new S ) as a sport-sport"ish" camera.

So in the end of the day, if you need really high iso or fast AF, neither the S2 or the new S is the camera to use.

Maybe with the S3 or S4 things will change - but to honest, S2 AF is so nice and precise, ISO is quite good up to 320, 640 really usable that I'm not looking to upgrade unless they impement really wide DR and or really high ISO or Vibration Reduction in camera.

S2 is that good.

GPS is a nice thing to have - if the S2 had it , I would like it, but not having not really making a difference.

I do not see a real reason to upgrade. All the new features are nice to have.

  • I really like the GPS stuff but do I need it?
  • The S, old or new wasn't and isn't a camera you should work with when you need higher ISO. You need a good bunch of available or artificial light, if thats not available you should use a different camera.
  • The same applies for the Autofocus. I never had any trouble with the AF and if you need a really fast AF, you need a different camera.
  • The CS lenses will work the same way on the S2.
  • The only thing I need the rear screen for is to have a look at the histogram, therefore no better LCD is needed. Framing happens in the viewfinder, AF is reliable.
  • I'm used to the menu and I like the simplicity, I do not need a joystick.

Not speaking about the price. This makes an upgrade even more senseless, unless you just want to have it. :)

As stated earlier these are all good improvements and I hope that much more people going to use the S in the future, but for the folks out there already having a S2 it makes much more sense to wait for the next update.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I agree with you guys that even with good ISO1600 and faster AF it wont be a sports or available light camera-and yes, the AF of the S2 is very precise already.
On the other side I find 1-1,5 f-stops can make a difference even in so&so light.
With ISO 640 indoors with f2.5 I often come in the 1/60 or even longer exp range. And I am often forced to shoot very shallow DOF even if I dont allways want too.
gps and more buffer and joystick I really dont miss.
My problem is that since getting the 5dIII I am so spoiled with flexibility regarding ISO that the 5diii is used way too often compared to the S2.

I would be really interested how many people use their S2 as main camera. Do you still see this system as a medium format camera for good light?
Once on is spoiled by the IQ I want to use it for everything I can use it. But I am afraid that even with the higher ISO of the new "S" there is still one other factor which doesnt change...the S2 and specially the lenses will allways be considerably bigger than a DSLR or a Leica M and draw more attention....does it or is it a "problem" in the mind of the user/photographer/(me).
 
Last edited:

Petster

Member
Once one is spoiled by the IQ I want to use it for everything I can use it.
:) Totally understand what you mean and for me it was kind of a hard way to accept the limitations. I was coming from a DSLR as well and I have learned that you can not use the S2 as you would use a DSLR. Every system has its limitations. The S2 is in my opinion not a 24/7 camera.

The IQ of the S2 is marvelous but this comes amongst other things from the huge sensor. A huge sensor is very sensitive in regards of movement, therefore time and so on and here we are. Limitations.

Really nothing can compete with the IQ of the S2, but you will not get in every situation the IQ the camera can give. So coming back to your question, the Leica S2 can not be your main camera except you are always shooting in good light conditions.

Cheers,
Pete
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I would be really interested how many people use their S2 as main camera. Do you still see this system as a medium format camera for good light?
Well, not an S2, but a Pentax 645D, and it is my main camera. Even for available light photography in "bad" light, handheld. But the 645D is really good all the way up to ISO1600. If the S has the equivalent, then I would say an S could be that all around camera. Kurt, a GetDPI member, seems to use his S2 in all kinds of conditions. I don't understand why the S2 is a fair weather friend--it was not that long ago I was limited to 400 speed film for available light with my medium-format cameras and I got along fine with that even with the slow lenses.
 

D&A

Well-known member
+1. I was pleasantly surprised to find Pentax 645D files with extremely low noise at ISO 1000 and with careful exposure with a wide variety of subjects and lighting senarios, ISO 1600 can often be particular good. Whether one requires an ISO higher than 640 is dependent on so many factors which varies greatly between photographers.

As for the original S2 body which I was kindly provided to shoot with on three seperate occasions, I found it a remarkable performer and can only imagine for those that require the improvements in the new S model, that it could be a wothwhile upgrade, but again depending on how one intends to primarily use the camera.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Petster

Member
Well, not an S2, but a Pentax 645D, and it is my main camera. Even for available light photography in "bad" light, handheld. But the 645D is really good all the way up to ISO1600. If the S has the equivalent, then I would say an S could be that all around camera. Kurt, a GetDPI member, seems to use his S2 in all kinds of conditions. I don't understand why the S2 is a fair weather friend--it was not that long ago I was limited to 400 speed film for available light with my medium-format cameras and I got along fine with that even with the slow lenses.
Sashin, what is bad light? :) That could vary in ones perception massivly. What is good enough at ISO1600. Subjective too. About how many different situations we are talking here? Thousends? I think it is really hard to find the right words and not getting misinterpreted...
 

John Black

Active member
Tom - for what a Leica S upgrade costs, buying the new M is cheaper. The Type 240 is an unknown quantity for now, but presumably it brings good ISO 1600+ and the niceties of Live View. For low-light and difficult shooting conditions, I think the Leica M Type 240 has more value. Here in the US, upgrading from the Leica S2 to the Leica S will take around $10,000 new cash (give or take). That same $10,000 buys the Type 240 and some M lenses.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Sashin, what is bad light? :) That could vary in ones perception massivly. What is good enough at ISO1600. Subjective too. About how many different situations we are talking here? Thousends? I think it is really hard to find the right words and not getting misinterpreted...
I routinely make exposures measured in the minutes. I hand hold down to 1/8s wide open in mixed lighting in city streets as well as fading light at dusk at ISO 1600 so that should give an idea of light levels. I also shoot under very flat natural lighting with extreme color temperatures--dusk in the forest type of thing. From long exposure night photography to street photography. I just made 36" x 24" prints from a file shot at ISO1600 with a minute exposure time. The print looks great--much better than I could have gotten with ISO400 medium-format film. Maybe even better than ISO 100 film. Certainly no worse then my D800, perhaps better. To me "good enough" means something you can print 3 feet or larger and hung in a gallery.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Sashin, what is bad light? :) That could vary in ones perception massivly. What is good enough at ISO1600. Subjective too. About how many different situations we are talking here? Thousends? I think it is really hard to find the right words and not getting misinterpreted...
That's sort of what I was getting at in a very general way (in my post "above"). What is an acceptable image taken at high ISO (respective of noise levels) can be very subjective. There are also many additonal variables to consider and all one can do is relate to what their own parameters are and whether it works for them or not. It also depens on the kind of output one strives for, not to mention viewing distance....and so on and so forth.

Sometimes generalizations are hard to make and even harder for someone else to extrapolate precisely how it may apply to their expectations. How many times do we find people arguing whether a camera's feature set and capabilities are adaquate for a certain phootgraphic task? Anyhow, I don't want to get off topic regarding upgrading the S2 camera.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I routinely make exposures measured in the minutes. I hand hold down to 1/8s wide open in mixed lighting in city streets as well as fading light at dusk at ISO 1600 so that should give an idea of light levels. I also shoot under very flat natural lighting with extreme color temperatures--dusk in the forest type of thing. From long exposure night photography to street photography. I just made 36" x 24" prints from a file shot at ISO1600 with a minute exposure time. The print looks great--much better than I could have gotten with ISO400 medium-format film. Maybe even better than ISO 100 film. Certainly no worse then my D800, perhaps better. To me "good enough" means something you can print 3 feet or larger and hung in a gallery.
That type of performance is anything but normal . Sort of falls into the same class as asking Tiger Woods what driver I might use. I don t doubt for a minute that you are achieving such results ..just saving its not common ...so others should not take it as benchmark of performance .

I have an S2 system and have used it enough ..from landscapes in Aspen ,to shooting both action and the crowd at the US Open Tennis . Done street shooting similar (not as good) as Kurt etc .

The most common reason to invest in MF is to gain access to the superior IQ . This in general includes the ability to render fine detail,provides superior tone separation and realistic color . To gain this benefit generally it takes greater care in your technique. Using higher shutter speeds or a tripod to minimize loss of detail (which you can easily see in a MF file ) . I generally try to shoot static subjects (so its only me that is moving) at 1/2-3X focal length . Yes I can handhold the 70 /2.5 at 1/60 but I will lose some captures at anything less than 1/250 .

Yes you can shoot at ISO 1600 just be sure to add in exposure compensation of 1/2 to 1 extra EV to keep those shadows open ....isn t that shooting at ISO800 when determining your shutter speed?

Don t forget that in MF you have way less DOF ..so you get some really cool bokeh ..but when shooting 2-3 people in a group which one would you like in focus . One of the most difficult aspects of limited DOF is actually considering where to place that small wedge of sharpness.

So if you are used to a 35MM DSLR you have some adjustment to do . I try to shoot street at f5.6 never less than 1/250 and landscape at f8 or f11 which requires a tripod .

Sure I want higher ISO but generally I want ISO800 on the new S to look as good as ISO400 on the S2 . Beyond that you have to bring the "A" game and that requires not only ability but also plenty of practice .

Now I can also compare this to a D800E using the best Leica R lenses I can find . This of course is a bad example of what I started the response with . I have good eyes and used Leica R lenses from the beginning shooting plenty of sports . I would not recommend this to most photographers as its just too hard to get acceptable hit ratios. But if you are speaking of night shooting ...the D800E is stunning up thru ISO3200 and excellent at ISO6400. Smaller faster lenses and its night verse day in available light and night photography .

Generally I think of high ISO performance as ..whats the highest ISO you can routinely get excellent quality . If is 6400 is the limit ..then I look at 1600 as a pretty good indicator of what I would use . I like the S2 to about 800 but its better at 400 ....so any improvement in the S could make ISO800 a really good performer .
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Common Ground Fair. 645D, 35mm manual focus lens, f/5.6. 1/50 sec, ISO 1600. Mixed lighting.



100% crop:



Swift river under moonlight. ISO 800, 124 sec., f/8.



Astrophotography on a tracking mount, 3-minute exposure:



If the S is anything like the 645D, I would say it is a flexible system. No need for another DSLR.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
This is what I call bad light. Full frame and 100% crop. ISO1600 and 1/60sec and 55mm lens. Naturally, handheld.
 

aeaemd

Member
How is the long exposure performance? what is the longest you can go with no noise?
Does it have long exposure Noise reduction on all the time or it is 'off and on" option?
Is there an intervalometer for stacking?

Amr
 

RVB

Member
Another small point that is that the S2 viewfinder is 96% coverage and the S is 98%
 
Top