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!

Leica S-E versus Sony A7R, or even A7RII

John_McMaster

Active member
Not even Leica R lenses can be fitted to achieve infinity focus on the S
The longer lenses (280mm+) can be adapted at Solms/Wetzlar to work with S/LeiKo at infinity. I have had the APO Telyt Modular 1.4x focussing unit adapter modified to work with the S at infinity with both heads, I will get my 2x sent off sometime...

john
 

RVB

Member
Thanks for all the responses.

As per the comment above I need to go down to a dealer and at least hold and test one in the flesh.

I do agree with one point above which is the new Sony 90/2.8 is a drop-dead outstanding lens.

My head says stay with the Sony platform as I already have a significant investment. My heart says you'll always wonder if you don't try MF digital.

Noted about the 645Z. I should also check that out.

Thanks again for all the advice/responses.

LouisB
Louis,I would buy into the S system and built up your lens collection over time,you have AF and leaf shutters and in a couple of yrs even the 007 will be affordable as tech moves forward.

The S can also use Hasselblad,Contax and Pentax glass.

Rob
 

RVB

Member
For now... DxO is getting ready for a huge info dump on the 645Z and various Pentax lenses, they've already added the Z to OpticsPro 10, so stay tuned, there just might be another 90mm 2.8 that wants that title.


S2/S2P - Original model, ISO range of 160~1250 and missing many features the new cameras have, just holding one felt like a step back from the S 006. S2P had a tougher LCD plate and premium warranty.

S 006 - The second model, it has a much larger buffer, expanded ISO of 100~1600, joystick, GPS, faster AF, and a whole bunch of other features that make it just plain better than the S2.

S-E - Rebranded S 006 with a different-colored top plate and basic warranty... I wonder if these are refurb 006's? Functionally, it is 100% identical.

S 007 - The first CMOS "S" camera, physical features from the 006 are largely identical minus minor cosmetic and functional changes, such as a different more robust LCD, unmarked top dial, no more GPS "hump", and an updated UI. Under the hood you of course gain Live View and video, wi-fi connectivity, and all the benefits CMOS brings with it; such as clean high-ISO, deep shadow recovery, and so on.

Besides that, they all have the same 30x45mm sensor size and 37.5MP resolution.
One major bonus of the 007 (at least for some people) is the 3.5 fps!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
...
My question is: has the shipped sailed and is there really no point in a 37.5mpx MF sensor versus albeit a smaller 36pmx or even 42mpx sensor in the latest A7RII.

I've always been a bit confused about the sensor densities - is a 35mm 36mpx sensor actually going to yield a different level of detail than a 37.5mpx MF sensor?

Apologies if this is an old topic but I'd welcome some clarity.

LouisB
As a user of those systems (a7ii, S 006 and some other stuff) here is my opinion:
I see 2 areas where the S excels:
-transition from focused subject to background very smooth, no so abrupt like from smaller formats.
-very good midtones
I also prefer the colors, specially skin looks more natural for my taste.
My feeling is I gain more going from A7II or Leica M to Leica S than going from dx to FF.

I dont know how much of the difference is caused by sensor type, sensor format, and how much by lenses.

I also love a big optical viewfinder.

The area where the A7II excels is that it is much smaller, less obtrusive and faster to focus and shoot.
I think the best thing would be to check it out for some days and make your own opinion.
 

darr

Well-known member
My question is: has the shipped sailed and is there really no point in a 37.5mpx MF sensor versus albeit a smaller 36pmx or even 42mpx sensor in the latest A7RII.

I've always been a bit confused about the sensor densities - is a 35mm 36mpx sensor actually going to yield a different level of detail than a 37.5mpx MF sensor?

LouisB
Hi Louis,

There is a difference in dynamic range and noise between the same amount of pixels on a MF size sensor and the same amount of pixels on a FF 35mm (36x24mm) sensor. Remember back in the film days when we could see the graduation of colors better on MF film vs 35mm film? The physical size of the sensor matters. When I used my Sony NEX-7 for the first time, I was taken back by the noise. I immediately saw what happens when a lot of pixels are crammed into a physically small sensor.

Even though I have never shot with a Leica S camera, I would see an immediate difference between the Leica S files and FF 35mm files. I currently shoot with two different MF backs and do so because of the quality and the ability to shoot with the glass I prefer.

Kind regards,
Darr
 

turtle

New member
The S-E looks great value until you try to build a system....

All the points raise above are great, but the sensor in the 645Z is truly astounding, with both more resolution than that in the S and bucket loads more dynamic range. It seems that the Z's files are almost impossible to 'break' in post processing.

Regarding lenses, clearly the S line up is more fleshed out, but it depends on what you need. I have the 28-45 (amazing lens), 75mm FA (stopped down, it is phenomenal i.e. for landscape use - perfect at f8 and beyond), 120, 80-160 and 200. Aside from the 28-45 they were very cheap and perform brilliantly. Personally, whenever I used the 75mm for landscapes, it amazes me and I cannot imagine wanting to spent many (ten?) times as much on a Leica optic, but that is because I do not need peerless performance at wide apertures. For this reason, I also have no reason to fork out for the Pentax 90mm Macro.

I also love a lot about the Z in terms of its functionality. Its pretty well perfect if you ask me. I would, however, likely prefer the S for handheld and studio use where a small selection of lenses might suit, and lighting is controlled.

For landscape shooters, I think the Z would be the way to go. The dynamic range is in a different league to any CCD camera.
 
M

mjr

Guest
The S has an optical viewfinder Louis!

In my opinion, shooting an S is different, if you try to process the files the same way as the A7r2 etc. then you will be disappointed, and I think missing something very special from the S. The files are deep and rich, I have never understood the need to push shadows massively, it may produce more details but at the cost of tone and depth. I often darken the shadows with the S, it gives huge depth and if you look beyond what is possible to get from a file and look instead at what makes a beautiful file full of richness and a 3d feel then the S is unbeatable with the glass available.

Remember that legacy glass on any camera is the same with the S, a body, contax adapter for example with a range of glass for very little money will give an excellent kit with af, metering and all you want, the contax glass is great too, pentax hasselblad v and H too, there are lots of options beyond buying new glass at list price from Leica dealers. I picked up an excellent 35mm and 180mm second hand for less than £2k each, they are stunning lenses! A good dealer also helps, I never pay list for anything. The Sony 90mm may be great at what DXO measure but there is much more to a lens than those parameters, the S glass is incredibly sharp but in combination with the sensor just produce stunning images, the added bonus being that they do exactly the same in all available focal lengths, not just one.

I now have the S 006 and the S 007, the 007 is just superb but expensive because it's new, the 006 has lost nothing from its beautiful files at lower ISO's, I just swap to the 007 as it gets darker.

Ultimately it depends what you want, form factor, simplicity of control etc. are way above the Z, the Z files have more DR than the S 006/SE for sure but for walking around, I'd never use the Z over the S, personal preference. I had Z owners on workshops last year, I loved handing the S over for them to have a look at, just see their faces light up when they hold it! But of course output is the most important thing, if you can take a well exposed photograph then the S is brilliant, post processing time is minimal. You may have the ability to recover a huge amount of detail with the sony and z cmos sensors but not necessary if you expose right.

When you have a hold of the different cameras then you will instinctively know what is right for you, if bad pictures come out of any of these cameras then it's pretty hard to blame the camera!

Enjoy whatever you choose.

Mat
 

anGy

Member
Mat, at base iso, which output do you prefer, the S006 or S007 ?
I'm a bit concerned that the new CMOS, large DR new sensor lost the character (or a bit of) compared to the S006.
Would be great to have your feedback on that.

ps: now that Lightroom officially supports the S007 with its own profile I think it's a good time to assess the (not overall) base iso IQ of the new S007. If there's an IQ trade off (like less natural transitions, 3D effects, vivid colors) compared to the S2/S006 then I won't upgrade.
 
As a user of those systems (a7ii, S 006 and some other stuff) here is my opinion:
I see 2 areas where the S excels:
-transition from focused subject to background very smooth, no so abrupt like from smaller formats.
-very good midtones
I also prefer the colors, specially skin looks more natural for my taste.
My feeling is I gain more going from A7II or Leica M to Leica S than going from dx to FF.

I dont know how much of the difference is caused by sensor type, sensor format, and how much by lenses.
The first point is actually a "feature" of medium format in general, the larger in format you go, the more gradual the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus becomes.

Compared to something like the 85L or 135L on my Canon system, the absolute level of blur I get from the 150/2.8 on the Pentax seems about the same, but even looking at thumbnails, you can tell that the Canon lenses chop the image up like razor blades, while its not totally apparent that something isn't in focus in the Pentax shots.
In a portrait you can get only the eyes in focus on both, but step back and the Pentax shots make it seem like the whole face is decently sharp.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Mat, at base iso, which output do you prefer, the S006 or S007 ?
I'm a bit concerned that the new CMOS, large DR new sensor lost the character (or a bit of) compared to the S006.
Would be great to have your feedback on that.

ps: now that Lightroom officially supports the S007 with its own profile I think it's a good time to assess the (not overall) base iso IQ of the new S007. If there's an IQ trade off (like less natural transitions, 3D effects, vivid colors) compared to the S2/S006 then I won't upgrade.
I've not yet had a serious look at it, only downloaded the update yesterday. A few observations though, adobe standard profile is rubbish compared with imbedded, it's really "thin" colour wise and takes a lot more processing, embedded is really nice so I have taken to using that but will see what the update does on base ISO files today. My feeling is that there was a little difference between the 2 cameras before the update but only side by side, in isolation you couldn't see any marked difference. If you shoot inside or lower light though the 007 is absolutely brilliant, the files are just wonderful at ISO 800.

Mat
 

turtle

New member
I'd be interested to hear whether there are big differences between the 6 & 7 too (harks back to the M9 vs M240 debate, doesn't it). I also wonder, whether give time, the consensus will be that the 7 has enough advantages to outweigh any small nuances that some like about the 6.

My (personal) view on the CMOS vs. CCD issue is that character differences absolutely pale compared to the person's skill in PP. The latter will make a difference to how the images are really appreciated, but the former will not. Huge DR, however, is actually very useful and can make an enormous difference on where you can take an image shot under very demanding lighting conditions.

Not everyone shoots the same and I respect that, but when I look over a lot of my old B&W film work, I would have had to throw half of it out had it been shot on a CCD with 11-12 stops of DR. I would not have stood a chance. But now that we are in the 14-15 stops realm, with huge quality gains in shadow recovery, I have been able to go back to shooting the images that I see and enjoy. Then again, slide film was never my thing! I can see that someone used to shooting colour under gentler lighting conditions would find the S a beautiful solution.

FWIW, I do not find the handling of the 645Z to be bad. I know people rave about the lovely S and it does look svelte and gorgeous, but seriously, the 645Z is one of the best handling cameras I have ever used. Its an absolute joy to shoot hand held, altho it gets heavy with the massive 28-45.Weight aside, its one heck of a machine than shows just how well a tool can be designed with the user in mind.



Mat, at base iso, which output do you prefer, the S006 or S007 ?
I'm a bit concerned that the new CMOS, large DR new sensor lost the character (or a bit of) compared to the S006.
Would be great to have your feedback on that.

ps: now that Lightroom officially supports the S007 with its own profile I think it's a good time to assess the (not overall) base iso IQ of the new S007. If there's an IQ trade off (like less natural transitions, 3D effects, vivid colors) compared to the S2/S006 then I won't upgrade.
 
Last edited:

jerome_m

Member
I'd run my own comparison between the 85L and the 150/2.8 if I still had the former lens with me, but unfortunately, the only two similar shots I have with each one at wide open aperture were taken 6 years apart!

And we can see that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is more gradual in the picture taken with the larger format camera.
 
Top