Leica s Sensor Strategy ???

[vieri]

Hi Vieri,

I don't disagree that Leica is bringing unique products like the S and the T to the market.

What I do notice however is that after the initial release Leica IMO fails to keep the momentum up, subsequent releases (like the TL) are quite frankly often non-events, and systems like S and T don't seem to go in a direction that makes them reach their full potential.

It is probably too early to tell what will happen with the SL and the Q but when I read the SL2 wish lists on the Leica forums I am very concerned. If the S and the T are any guidance these people are going to be bitterly disappointed...

Thanks, Joris.

Hi Joris,

You certainly have a point here. The way I see it, Leica entered the digital age with the film M and R line. They developed the DMR, thought it wouldn't have a future, developed the digital M.

After that, they had to sort of "decide what to do when they grew up" in the digital age, and decided to skip traditional FF DSLR (much to R users' sorrow) and develop the S instead. They brought the S up to a very good stage, and they then developed the T (APS-C mirrorless), and then the SL (FF Pro mirrorless). They threw in the Q in between, which to me sits in between the T and the SL developing-wise as well.

They also developed a sizeable number of new lenses for all these systems, and re-did many of the old M ones as well.

Given their limited size, and consequent R&D resources and time, this to me has been an incredible effort; it had some glitches, sure, AF motor's part in S lenses and sensor corrosion in the M to name just a couple, which they addressed in style replacing for free forever the affected parts. Nevertheless, I think that Leica now has a complete lineup, very competitive such as the M, or potentially competitive such as the SL native lenses lineup (but manageable with adapted lenses while they release native ones).

Inevitably, to me, given their size and R&S resources, to arrive where they are now they had to put a lineup or two on hold at various times to concentrate their efforts on another - sometimes they just did nothing, sometimes they released minor incremental upgrades or side-grades (Mp-wise) such as the S moving from CCD to CMOS, but adding a lot to the camera in the process.

Now, they are in the position of take a breath, and concentrate on developing further their systems that do exist rather than having to create new ones from scratch; this is a much easier thing to do, R&D-wise, I am sure you'd agree on this. Therefore, I am not as hopeless as you are, and I am looking forward to seeing what will come next.

I guess the new M has been developed already, and I think we'll see something pretty soon (leaks started to appear already); I think the S is next in line, since I really think it deserves some attention first; we will probably see a upgraded SL after that, and a TL after that.

I guess now they are leaving the phase in which they had to keep developing new systems, to enter the phase in which they can plan comfortably the life-cycle of these systems and release upgraded models accordingly.

As always, just my 0.2. Best,

Vieri

 

[MGrayson]

John,

I completely agree with you on resolution. A 60 Mp S would be great, and would be nicely complemented by a 42 Mp SL-Res on the side of the 24 Mp SL-Fast, keeping the M at 24 Mp which I think is a sweet spot for what the M does. Now THAT would be a killer lineup!

Best,

Vieri

By my count, a 60MP S sensor would have almost the same pixel size as the 100MP Phase. (4.74µ vs 4.85µ) Shouldn't be a problem...

Not giving up the (006) in a hurry, though. For one thing, it's real and takes pictures today :ROTFL:.

--Matt

 

[Photo Lawyer]

Thank you, Roger, for starting this thread.
No problem with the S files. Very good color and excellent bw conversions. There is no way I can hand-hold this camera or do any street shooting with it due to the weight. Oh sure, I've done it, but it's simply not a good camera for a day trip somewhere as I have tendonitis AND tennis elbow in the right arm. There are many photographers who record their wonderful adventures shooting all over the world with the S. I had to buy one to find out for myself as there were none to rent. Well, that cost me big time.

You might try PeakDesign's camera strap. I am going on a trip and bought both the strap and the clutch. Tried them out yesterday. You could almost forget that you are carrying the S around. The clutch (I used them both at the same time) takes a lot of the weight off of the fingers and hand. Highly recommend them.

 

[JohnBrew]

You might try PeakDesign's camera strap. I am going on a trip and bought both the strap and the clutch. Tried them out yesterday. You could almost forget that you are carrying the S around. The clutch (I used them both at the same time) takes a lot of the weight off of the fingers and hand. Highly recommend them.

Thank you. The problem is not with the hand - it's the forearm tendons and elbow. I tried the Camdapter system suggested by Marc Williams - still have it, but now it's on my D810/Otus combo. Being left-handed would solve the problem. Funny - has anyone ever made a camera body with the shutter on the left side? I know, off-topic, sorry.

Back to Roger's original query - do you think Leica even HAS a strategy for the S? Updating to a CMOS sensor after everyone else has is not a strategy.

 

[docmoore]

John,

I assume that carrying the camera on a decent strap is not the problem ... just moving to a shooting position?

Years ago I found that a decent monopod and the RRS swivel and clamp made a huge amount of difference for
me when I was shooting a max size DSLR and 300mm lens. Since then I use it over 90% of the time for all my
cameras ... worked wonders with the Leica S 006 and now that I have just the M-D I still use it. When I pack for
trips the RRS head comes off and both fit in the bottom of a medium size checked suitcase.

With the L Plate you can shoot portrait or landscape and change orientation of the camera on the monopod in
seconds.

All of the weight is on the pod ... frees you up to frame focus and shoot at leisure as you are only exerting a
minimum of effort to stabilize the camera in X or Y not the Z axis. And you can shoot at very slow speeds without
movement ... especially if you use the 2 second timer.

Might be worth a try ... the tendonitis and tennis elbow is a BAD combination for almost any camera as you still
have to support the weight of your arm when composing and focusing. On the monopod you can rest your weight on
the camera.

Mine weighs about 2 - 3 pounds but it takes a massive strain out of the day.

Also tends to keep those at a distance who otherwise might think about hassling you or stealing you camera ... and
with a bit of extension those aggressive dogs do not approach.

I prefer this head:

RRS - Heads

I do not trust the lever clamp and with the screw knob you can tension the camera perfectly every time.

RRS monopods are here:

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Tri...andMounts?_ga=1.35660512.118211730.1444079301


I prefer an aluminum monopod for travel as it may dent but will still be effective if you need to defend yourself ...
while CF may be in two pieces fairly quickly. Never had to use it ... most folks think twice about approaching
someone with a baseball bat ... or monopod.

Bob

 

[JorisV]

Hi Joris,

You certainly have a point here. The way I see it, Leica entered the digital age with the film M and R line. They developed the DMR, thought it wouldn't have a future, developed the digital M.

After that, they had to sort of "decide what to do when they grew up" in the digital age, and decided to skip traditional FF DSLR (much to R users' sorrow) and develop the S instead. They brought the S up to a very good stage, and they then developed the T (APS-C mirrorless), and then the SL (FF Pro mirrorless). They threw in the Q in between, which to me sits in between the T and the SL developing-wise as well.

They also developed a sizeable number of new lenses for all these systems, and re-did many of the old M ones as well.

Given their limited size, and consequent R&D resources and time, this to me has been an incredible effort; it had some glitches, sure, AF motor's part in S lenses and sensor corrosion in the M to name just a couple, which they addressed in style replacing for free forever the affected parts. Nevertheless, I think that Leica now has a complete lineup, very competitive such as the M, or potentially competitive such as the SL native lenses lineup (but manageable with adapted lenses while they release native ones).

Inevitably, to me, given their size and R&S resources, to arrive where they are now they had to put a lineup or two on hold at various times to concentrate their efforts on another - sometimes they just did nothing, sometimes they released minor incremental upgrades or side-grades (Mp-wise) such as the S moving from CCD to CMOS, but adding a lot to the camera in the process.

Now, they are in the position of take a breath, and concentrate on developing further their systems that do exist rather than having to create new ones from scratch; this is a much easier thing to do, R&D-wise, I am sure you'd agree on this. Therefore, I am not as hopeless as you are, and I am looking forward to seeing what will come next.

I guess the new M has been developed already, and I think we'll see something pretty soon (leaks started to appear already); I think the S is next in line, since I really think it deserves some attention first; we will probably see a upgraded SL after that, and a TL after that.

I guess now they are leaving the phase in which they had to keep developing new systems, to enter the phase in which they can plan comfortably the life-cycle of these systems and release upgraded models accordingly.

As always, just my 0.2. Best,

Vieri

Hi Vieri,

Thank you for your reply. I own the SL, Q, T, M9 and S2P.

I am not worried (yet) about the SL and the Q. Those were competitive systems when launched and still are.

I am also not worried about the M. The M has a huge and very loyal user base and the M10 is just around the corner. Personally I won't upgrade to the M10. When I feel like using a rangefinder my M9 still serves me well.

My concern is with the S and the T systems. They have a small (IMO too small) user base and are IMO close to cardiac arrest and if Leica delays a substantial upgrade for another 2-3 years they will be on life support.

Hopefully Leica realizes this!!!

Joris.

 

[Paratom]

I feel that with most Leica digital cameras I get my images the way I want them to look like. I have also used and owned several Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras and over the years and few of the the files coming out of the camera where so easy to handle. Color being one important point. So yes, I think Leica is doing a good job on the sensors. They do not offer the highes MP, and dont win the DR comparisons to a D810,... but in summary I do like the sensors, even though I prefer T, M and S over Q and SL sensor.

I also do like the concept and sensor size of the S for what I do. Close to MF look with close to DSLR handling.

The last thing I like to mention is the user interface, where Leica -for my taste-does a very good job to keep things simple and intuitive.

The most difficult "position" in the Leica line up I see the SL. Since it is NOT really as fast as Leica promotes it-specially in regards of C-AF. And they take time to make the lens line up more complete.

 

[Photo Lawyer]

I So yes, I think Leica is doing a good job on the sensors. They do not offer the highes MP, and dont win the DR comparisons to a D810,... but in summary I do like the sensors, even though I prefer T, M and S over Q and SL sensor.

I thought I was going to pick up a M-D, but now an M10 might have been leaked. If so, I'd prefer a 007-like sensor. If Leica could use the same architecture that'd be terrific. Seems like they'd have to reinvent the Q/SL sensor for the M.

 

[Paratom]

I thought I was going to pick up a M-D, but now an M10 might have been leaked. If so, I'd prefer a 007-like sensor. If Leica could use the same architecture that'd be terrific. Seems like they'd have to reinvent the Q/SL sensor for the M.

I picked up a 262 not long ago, which I enjoy using. I might have waited for the M10, but then you never know when it appears and what it really has to offer. The speculation looks like it has increased in size / weight (if I understand right). That would not be in the direction I am interested in.

Todays cameras are so good that I do not have to be in any hurry for new products.

 

[PeterA]

I enjoy using my M cameras and my SL - the SL more because I can focus easier and can use longer lenses and best of breed non Leica manual focus lenses when required. For super long shooting Leica dont offer a lens that I can use well on the SL - so I bought a Fuji XT-2.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It could be argued that the duty of the lens is to project the best possible image on the sensor and that the duty of the sensor is to resolve the projected image with the least artefacts and minimum noise.

So, the sensor needs to balanced to the lens.

Best regards
Erik

 

[Godfrey]

I enjoy using my M cameras and my SL - the SL more because I can focus easier and can use longer lenses and best of breed non Leica manual focus lenses when required. For super long shooting Leica dont offer a lens that I can use well on the SL - so I bought a Fuji XT-2.

Not sure I understand. The SL90-280 is a pretty long lens already. The Telyt-R 250mm f/4 fitted with 2x Extender-R is a pretty nice 500mm f/4 that works nicely on the SL as well. Even my Sigma 600mm f/8 cat on a Nikon->M adapter works pretty nicely (for a $100 lens) and there are better quality 400, 500, 800mm lenses from Leica, Nikon, and others.. Why did you need to buy a Fuji XT-2?

(I had it already before I bought the SL: the Olympus E-M1 fitted with MMF-3 adapter, EC1.4 Teleconverter, and Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 makes for a stunning 560mm-equivalent f/5.6 lens with image stabilization and AF... )

G

 

[siddhaarta]

My 2 cents to the OP question:

- Leica will stay with their 2:3 ratio. This makes it difficult to cooperate with Sony as they seem to accommodate only the 3:4 ratio. I personally prefer the 2:3 ratio for landscape and for vertical stitching. So, Leica S has a unique selling point here for me.

- Clearly they follow the paradigm of avoiding cannibalism as regards MP within their own portfolio. This is dangerous if you think of the new competition from Hasselblad X1D, and Fujifilm with attractive pricing.

- Leica depends on their partners as regards new sensors. And in this league, R&D is getting obviously really, really expensive. As Sony is no real option for them, they depend on CMOSIS or maybe other small manufactures. IMO, this is the main reason why the S sensor development is very slow and will be in the future.

I personally don't miss more pixels as I can print big enough. The cropping reserves with 5K monitors are getting smaller though. On the other hand, more pixels means more shooting discipline necessary, but the S is not meant to be a pure tripod machine.

 

[fotografz]

Hi,

It could be argued that the duty of the lens is to project the best possible image on the sensor and that the duty of the sensor is to resolve the projected image with the least artefacts and minimum noise.

So, the sensor needs to balanced to the lens.

Best regards
Erik

This assumes that one strives for acuity at the expense of character. Selecting a lens for how it renders is a subjective call made by the artist. Some lenses, but not many, deliver both.

Likewise, a sensor that delivers the least noise may not be the objective of all photographic endeavors. There is a whole world of images were striving for measurable perfection is not the primary goal ... content and character is.

For example, one of my favorite cameras was the Leica M9 which I deliberately shot at ISO 640 in all forms of light. I liked the noise structure of the M9 @ 640 when I made prints. It was similar to the character of film in how it rendered.

Personally, I've always prized what images subjectively look like creatively over whether they meet certain photo nerd criteria. This extends to whole systems where "like/dislike" of results in the aggregate is based primarily on some form of consistent success to my eye. Intuitive, holistic reaction weighs far heavier than analytical study of the parts.

I'm not knocking opposing points of view, I deal in acuity when doing certain commercial assignments, so I get it. I just do not think it is the primary driver of photography as a whole.

Similar in thought is the choice of systems which match creative objectives. For example, if one is interested in decisive moment images which strive to utilize the unique quality of still photography as freezing incredibly small slivers of time, then less responsive tools are not desirable.

In many respects, Leica has adhered to "look" over "prevailing specifications".

If Leica were to submit to the Sony Borg, it would be a sad day IMHO.


- Marc

 

[PeterA]

Not sure I understand. The SL90-280 is a pretty long lens already. The Telyt-R 250mm f/4 fitted with 2x Extender-R is a pretty nice 500mm f/4 that works nicely on the SL as well. Even my Sigma 600mm f/8 cat on a Nikon->M adapter works pretty nicely (for a $100 lens) and there are better quality 400, 500, 800mm lenses from Leica, Nikon, and others.. Why did you need to buy a Fuji XT-2?

(I had it already before I bought the SL: the Olympus E-M1 fitted with MMF-3 adapter, EC1.4 Teleconverter, and Zuiko ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 makes for a stunning 560mm-equivalent f/5.6 lens with image stabilization and AF... )

G

Hi Godfrey - I own and use the 90-280 - not long enough for my needs. I may have mentioned that I now reside on the beach at Manly (Queenscliff or North Steyne end) - and I look forward to using the fuji and 100-400 +1.4X extender for surf shooting ( when I am not on my board ) - the Fuji was my choice over the new Nikon 500 - because the Fuji system matches and beats the shutter speed and also delivers high quality but much cheaper autofocus glass than Nikon. I will also be using the Fuji in an underwater housing for my scuba and in surf shooting. I wouldn't risk the SL in an underwater housing - and I prefer to have the option to use autofocus lenses instead of relying just on hyperfocal focussing with manual lenses in water.

As you point out there are many choices for tele and alternative camera systems including olympus - but for my purposes the Fuji was what I decided on.

- Pete

 

[Godfrey]

Hi Godfrey - I own and use the 90-280 - not long enough for my needs. I may have mentioned that I now reside on the beach at Manly (Queenscliff or North Steyne end) - and I look forward to using the fuji and 100-400 +1.4X extender for surf shooting ( when I am not on my board ) - the Fuji was my choice over the new Nikon 500 - because the Fuji system matches and beats the shutter speed and also delivers high quality but much cheaper autofocus glass than Nikon. I will also be using the Fuji in an underwater housing for my scuba and in surf shooting. I wouldn't risk the SL in an underwater housing - and I prefer to have the option to use autofocus lenses instead of relying just on hyperfocal focussing with manual lenses in water.

As you point out there are many choices for tele and alternative camera systems including olympus - but for my purposes the Fuji was what I decided on.

- Pete

Ah, so you wanted longer lenses with autofocus, essentially, at lower weight. Similar reason to why the E-M1 and such are still with me (although I've used them so infrequently this past year it's probably time to sell off the system).

Manly Beach? Oh my ... I spent a week and some there back in 2001 while I was doing an event for work at a conference center nearby. Wonderful place! I'll get back there someday, I hope. A long, LONG lens for the surfers and such would be great there.

(I don't dive so the underwater housing need has never been an issue for me.)

G

 

[Shashin]

Funny - has anyone ever made a camera body with the shutter on the left side? I know, off-topic, sorry.

Yes, but they are out of business:

https://www.cameraquest.com/ektra.htm

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Marc,

From what I have seen most Leica lenses are very sharp, which essentially mean that they reproduce a dot as a dot, not as a disc.

Just to say, I stated that the lens should give the best possible image, never stated that their task was to deliver the sharpest possible image. But, those things often go hand in hand.

Out of focus rendition is another thing. Correction of spherical aberration, axial chroma and aperture shape affect out of focus rendition.

I don't have a Leica M9, but I have a P45+ that uses a Kodak sensor, like the Leica but with somewhat larger pixels. I combined it with one of the best lenses Hasselblad has, the Planar 100/3.5.

I shot an image with the Planar 100/3.5 P45+ combo and with the Planar 100/3.5 mounted on a HCam Master TSII with a Sony A7rII and made a 3-way stitch covering something like 48x36 mm.

So I ended up with a:

49x37 mm image with 39 MP and a 48x36 mm image with 82 MP. Here is a crop from both images at actual pixels:

It is pretty obvious that the 82 MP image is cleaner, with 39 MP the lens delivers detail that the sensor cannot handle correctly.

Next I downsized the 82 MP image to around 39MP in Photoshop, as shown below:

In my view the downsized 82 MP is still much preferable to the orginal 39 MP image.

This is an example where the Hasselblad lens outresolves the P45+ sensor, while the smaller pixels of the Sony sensor are a good match for the resolution of the lens.

So, what I think this example illustrates is that higher resolutions / smaller pixels are beneficial even if 39 MP is all that is needed.

Obviously, the Leica S (typ 006) has smaller pixels than the P45+ (6 vs 6.8 micron pixels), but the corresponding Leica lens probably is also a bit sharper. So the smaller pixels on the Leica would hep with smoother rendition while the higher sharpness of the Leica lens would increase the artefacts.

Another factor are the micro lenses. Increasing the sensitive pixel area reduces aliasing.

I am not sure that these difference would be obvious in say an A2-size print. Small print sizes mask many issues.

Regarding grain, increasing ISO essentially means that the sensor captures fewer photons, leading to an increase of shot noise and that shot noise would dominate the midtones. Once you have noise, it would be affected by sharpening and noise reduction.

My guess is that modern CMOS sensors have something like twice the well capacity (per surface area) compared to elder CCD. So I would guess that if you expose at 640 ISO something like 1280 ISO would be needed on modern sensors.

Best regards
Erik

This assumes that one strives for acuity at the expense of character. Selecting a lens for how it renders is a subjective call made by the artist. Some lenses, but not many, deliver both.

Likewise, a sensor that delivers the least noise may not be the objective of all photographic endeavors. There is a whole world of images were striving for measurable perfection is not the primary goal ... content and character is.

For example, one of my favorite cameras was the Leica M9 which I deliberately shot at ISO 640 in all forms of light. I liked the noise structure of the M9 @ 640 when I made prints. It was similar to the character of film in how it rendered.

Personally, I've always prized what images subjectively look like creatively over whether they meet certain photo nerd criteria. This extends to whole systems where "like/dislike" of results in the aggregate is based primarily on some form of consistent success to my eye. Intuitive, holistic reaction weighs far heavier than analytical study of the parts.

I'm not knocking opposing points of view, I deal in acuity when doing certain commercial assignments, so I get it. I just do not think it is the primary driver of photography as a whole.

Similar in thought is the choice of systems which match creative objectives. For example, if one is interested in decisive moment images which strive to utilize the unique quality of still photography as freezing incredibly small slivers of time, then less responsive tools are not desirable.

In many respects, Leica has adhered to "look" over "prevailing specifications".

If Leica were to submit to the Sony Borg, it would be a sad day IMHO.


- Marc

 

[rsmphoto]

I picked up a 262 not long ago, which I enjoy using. I might have waited for the M10, but then you never know when it appears and what it really has to offer. The speculation looks like it has increased in size / weight (if I understand right). That would not be in the direction I am interested in.

Todays cameras are so good that I do not have to be in any hurry for new products.

Funny, I just did exactly the same thing, using the same reasoning...rather than "beta test" the M10. Headed to Santa Fe next week for some R&R - just me and the new 262.

 

[fotografz]

Thanks Erik.

Unfortunately your sample comparison is a little flawed. There is an obvious lighting difference between the two images ... especially hitting the sign.

BTW, I am not arguing that certain combinations do not produce better acuity ... I'm saying that in many cases, for many people, acuity is not the driving force of their imagery.

However, even using your notion that "more is better", I've had experiences with CCD crop frame sensors (Leica M8) which for all practical purposes out-performed modern FF CMOS sensors with 4X the resolution in terms of "image qualities" (as opposed to pure image quality)

Here is a hand-held M8 casual snap-shot (no big deal), which printed flawlessly to 21.5" high on a 17"X22" paper for our Christmas party that year. This was shot in 2008 and I'd speculate that my current wonder-camera couldn't express it any better.



Back to the subject ... some people approach photography with an artistic mindset and some approach it in a more technical manner. Technical matters seem to dominate these days of constant change ... perhaps to the detriment of individual creative development?

I can't recall the famous photographer who commented on all the technocratic photographers who prattled on and on about this minutia verses that new gadget, and never moved forward ... (notably while he soldiered on with his old gear and made images that altered how people saw the world forever.

As usual, to each their own.

- Marc