Leica 007 - A Warning To Potential Buyers

[justalexander]

The problem with this thread is that the comments jump around . Maybe try looking at what is most important .....can you focus a 30mm lens at f8 and nail infinity . If you have trouble doing this ....at this point give up .

I know very well how the AF system works in the S bodies and without a doubt it has limitations . This has been explained in a lot of detail but ultimately I have to determine my exact focus point with a visual inspection . So I focus on where I want the exact plan of focus and then I check it with a quick manual adjustment . Normally this is a very quick and smooth process ..no more difficult than using a range finder .

The reason you would use live view is to better control the “exact plain of focus “ and to inspect the depth of field . It is the best way to get a precise focus .

The auto focus could be completely disabled and it would not affect my technique for landscape much at all .

Of course the indicated focus distance on the lens should be more accurate ....but if you are using that scale to judge your depth of field ....assuming that everything will be sharp ....then you don t “get it” .

I will drop off this thread as I expect many others have . Excellent advice has been presented on both (1) how to insure the S system is functioning as designed and (2) the best practices in techniques to get the most out of the system . Doesn t appear that any of this input has been accepted by the original poster .

I have empathy for the frustration after a major investment when things don t appear to be working ...this has happened to me many times ...sometimes its the gear ....most of the time its me .

Hi Roger

The thread keeps jumping around because it is based on many different problems I've experienced with the S system. Problems which I do not have with my Hasselblad, Canon or Sony systems.

I know exactly how autofocus works, on all of my camera systems. When my 10+ year old Hasselblad confirms focus, I know for a fact that when I pull it up on the screen it will be in focus. The same for the Canon and Sony. When any of the systems can't autofocus I will use other techniques like focusing on an object of similar distance and recomposing, or using the lens barrel markings, or using the aperture combined with hyperfocal focussing. My success rate using those combinations would be 99.9% The only way I can get that level of accuracy on the Leica S is by using live view focussing.

Other problems include faulty batteries and faulty battery chargers. The battery charger said full charge but the camera said no charge.. for all 3 batteries that I own. This required me to leave the job and return home to collect my Sony and Canon systems. Neither of those have ever left me without power.

Then there is the apparent light leak which I'm still waiting for an explanation. The unusual 'measles' blobs on the sensor.

Just because you have a system that works as intended doesn't mean others do. I'm sure you've purchased something in your life that hasn't worked properly where others who've purchased the same thing has. You can't simply deny that others have problems because you don't.

This thread was intended to let anyone looking at the S system know that out of the Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, Sony systems I've owned, I have experienced as many problems with the S as I have combined with ALL the other systems. Your experience might be different as will everyone else's. But my experience is not unique as others have confirmed.

If this thread provides no benefit to you then you're free to drop off. If you could please look back at the images I posted earlier and provide an explanation for some of these issues that would be appreciated.

Justin

 

[justalexander]

Hi Bernard,

Justin has problem with his native Leica lenses. He merely uses the Hasselblad lens as an example of a lens not having those issues.

What he says, in essence, that with the Leica S (typ 007)

• With AF he gets out of focus images
• With lens set at infinity marking he gets out of focus images at 30 mm focal length on object 500 away
• With magnified lve view he gets accurate focus but lens scale indicates 8.0 m
• Camera has been in Germany for repairs for three times in a year and Leica states it is OK
• My understanding is that this applies to several Leica S lenses he has

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Erik

That's all correct. You appear to be doing a better job at explaining my position than I am. Thanks

Justin

 

[justalexander]

The problem with this thread is that the comments jump around . Maybe try looking at what is most important .....can you focus a 30mm lens at f8 and nail infinity . If you have trouble doing this ....at this point give up .

I know very well how the AF system works in the S bodies and without a doubt it has limitations . This has been explained in a lot of detail but ultimately I have to determine my exact focus point with a visual inspection . So I focus on where I want the exact plan of focus and then I check it with a quick manual adjustment . Normally this is a very quick and smooth process ..no more difficult than using a range finder .

The reason you would use live view is to better control the “exact plain of focus “ and to inspect the depth of field . It is the best way to get a precise focus .

The auto focus could be completely disabled and it would not affect my technique for landscape much at all .

Of course the indicated focus distance on the lens should be more accurate ....but if you are using that scale to judge your depth of field ....assuming that everything will be sharp ....then you don t “get it” .

I will drop off this thread as I expect many others have . Excellent advice has been presented on both (1) how to insure the S system is functioning as designed and (2) the best practices in techniques to get the most out of the system . Doesn t appear that any of this input has been accepted by the original poster .

I have empathy for the frustration after a major investment when things don t appear to be working ...this has happened to me many times ...sometimes its the gear ....most of the time its me .

Hi Roger

I also stated in a previous post that Leica now believe there is in fact a problem with my system and we are discussing how to proceed from this point. So it's not in fact a matter of technique. My technique has served me well for every other camera system I have ever owned.

Justin

 

[justalexander]

For everyone who just thinks it's my bad focussing technique. This is a battery issue I've been having...

I tried to upload an mp4 of this but for some reason was unable to so I've done 2 screenshots of the mp4. The rear screen says the battery is flat and the camera won't allow me to fire another frame, but the LCD shows almost full charge.

Justin

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Justin,

I hope that your problems will be resolved, now that Leica acknowledges the problem and you will live a happy life with your system for many years ahead.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Roger

I also stated in a previous post that Leica now believe there is in fact a problem with my system and we are discussing how to proceed from this point. So it's not in fact a matter of technique. My technique has served me well for every other camera system I have ever owned.

Justin

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have something like 90000 exposures in my digital age and I have essentially had zero problems with Japanese stuff, except lenses.

Here are all my repairs (*) since 1970:

• Bayonet replacement on Minolta 80-200/2.8, around 200$US
• Tamron 17-50/2.8 skew focal plane on delivery. Returned to manufacturer, replacement still works fine
• Konica-Minolta 17-35/2.8, partial unsharpness. Repair center says it's OK… Well it is not…
• Konica-Minolta A2, macro switch non functional, repaired on warranty
• Hasselblad 120/4 CF, aperture does not open up. Replaced with a 120/4 CFi. Something like 200-300 $US.

So my experience is that the mostly Japanese stuff I use is reliable. I did have a lot of stuff. Minolta's starting with an SR_T 101 that is still working fine, quite a few Minoltas and followed by a lot of Sonys. Pentax 67 with six lenses. With Hasselblad I have been trough a lot of lenses,
2 Sonnars 150/4, Sonnar 180/4, 2 Planars 120/4, Planar 80/2.8 CFE, Distagon 50/3.5 CFE, Distagon 40/4 CF, Distagon 60/35 CF and Planar 100/3.5CF.

In general, I always carry some kind of backup and that is worth consideration. If you do something important, you need to cope with equipment failure. When I am on travel I have at least two camera bodies and two lenses covering to 24-135 mm range.

It is essential that focusing is reliable. If focusing fails, it is sort of OK. You can resort to manual focus, if your camera supports it. But, if you don't know that your images are not critically sharp, it is just bad.

It is far more OK to fail than to deliver almost acceptable results.

Because when you know that your equipment fails, you can use a fallback strategy. But, you cannot do that if you don't know you have a problem. There is nothing worse than a system yielding non consistent results.

Best regards
Erik

(*) Just to say, I have skipped over Minolta XD 7 I had once. That camera had multiple failures, I had it repaired on warranty once and I have fixed some problems myself. It didn't cost me repairs just frustrations. That camera was base for the Leica R4.

I could say that I never had a problem with any of my Nikon equipment even though I have an SB-900 (some overheated often) and had a D600 (dust issue). But I don't tell people that their problems are irrelevant and I will always expect the best from Nikon. If my 58mm 1.4G required months of service (which would deny me it's use for whole wedding seasons) I'd be seriously considering Canon, Pentax, or Sony. Luckily this is not the case! But still, Nikon deserved every bad piece of press for their early handling of the D600 sensor issue. Leica is no different. Every issue that they have can be addressed, they just don't want to because it would effect the bottom line. A company with 70+ worldwide boutiques and a brand new "Leitz Park" featuring a luxury hotel can no longer hide behind the "we are a small company" line. Hasselblad is a small company, but they don't do this to their even smaller user base who is in many cases investing LESS than the cost of an S kit. I'm not saying no-one should use Leica cameras, some of them are fabulous and I love that they make the M line. I'm just saying we should be honest about them when they're not delivering on their promises.

Also, 25k exposures is like 1 year in business for my "prosumer" D750.

 

[fotografz]

This thread has probably run its course. The OP seems to be on his way to some sort of resolution.

No use bashing Leica more, and hopefully this, and the "Leica Service Thread", has served to alert the company that it needs to pay attention to some very serious issues.

The thing I find most odd about the S system reliability are not the electronic failures, especially early on in the S infancy ... something that seems less pervasive (although just as distressing when they happen) ... but instead the obvious epidemic AF failures because they appear to be of a mechanical nature.

If anything, Leica has made some pretty solid mechanical cameras and lenses in past, so it is all the more surprising that this issue has plagued its premiere system designed for professional use and marketed that way.

Of all the things I would have been wary of regarding moving to the S kit, to be honest, a mechanical AF failure would not have even occurred to me.

Hope Leica straightens this out soon.

- Marc

 

[erlingmm]

This thread has probably run its course. The OP seems to be on his way to some sort of resolution.

No use bashing Leica more, and hopefully this, and the "Leica Service Thread", has served to alert the company that it needs to pay attention to some very serious issues.

The thing I find most odd about the S system reliability are not the electronic failures, especially early on in the S infancy ... something that seems less pervasive (although just as distressing when they happen) ... but instead the obvious epidemic AF failures because they appear to be of a mechanical nature.

If anything, Leica has made some pretty solid mechanical cameras and lenses in past, so it is all the more surprising that this issue has plagued its premiere system designed for professional use and marketed that way.

Of all the things I would have been wary of regarding moving to the S kit, to be honest, a mechanical AF failure would not have even occurred to me.

Hope Leica straightens this out soon.

- Marc

I hear from my Leica rep. that Leica Professional is very aware of the AF problem, and that a statement from HQ is expected with a permanent solution.

It is a fantastic system when it works, as it has done for me, in deserts, cold&wet weather and travels. I may be lucky, but going through S2, S006 and now S007, and 6 lenses, I have had the AF problem only on 2 lenses, with swift and free service from Leica.

I really hope the S system will survive this storm.

 

[algrove]

So let me understand, all is well with your S system even though 33% of your lenses have failed.

 

[erlingmm]

So let me understand, all is well with your S system even though 33% of your lenses have failed.

Yes, I am actually very happy. The S body is ergonomically perfect, weather-sealed and extremely versatile. For me, traveling in challenging areas (Masai Mara, Northern Norway winter, Havana, New York, Yosemite...) it is just perfect. With the right lens (24, 70, 100mm) it becomes a walk around, the H and P1s are too clumsy.

With my technique (AF focus on back button, manual override) I have had no focusing problems (except on the 180mm near infinity, which I find challenging). My only gripe would be that I wish I could take longer exposures (starry nights).

Yes, I have had 2 AF failures over 5 years , but they have been handled OK by Leica, and I always have a backup lens.

Just bought the Canon Pro-2000 printer to be able to print really large format from the S...

 

[Bernard]

So let me understand, all is well with your S system even though 33% of your lenses have failed.

Maybe we should distinguish between failure and "requiring service."

I've only ever had one camera fail me, and that was a Pentax 6x7. I found out the hard way that it would keep shooting even if the battery died in the middle of a job, resulting in a lot of blank film. Thankfully there was a keeper in the first few shots before it failed. That camera did not get a second chance, it's the one and only time that I've dumped a system overnight.

Every other system I've used has required service. Hasselblad, Mamiya, Canon, Rollei, Leica. That's not the problem, the problem is when a service department fails by turning a day of workbench time into a three month black hole.

 

[algrove]

Bernard

Agree, but a failure can require service as is evident on the "Leica Service" thread. When serice fails for me that is the beginning of the end and 3-6 month black holes have lead a many Leica affectionados to move elsewhere.

I understand the financial side of the problem where switching can cause one to loose more than the appearent fun one had creating the images. Believe me, I have been there.

One way of looking at the Leica issue (in the US anyway), is if a restuarant is so very good that patrons wait outside for it to open every evening. The food and atmosphere are suburb to all that eat there. So then the owner decides to take on the adjoining building so that he he has the potenetial to double his business. He even doubles his kitchen size and hires new cooks/chiefs for the kitchen and also new waiters for the additional tables. Then once the new business plan is underway he sees his business flatline or even drop. He wonders what happened, but it is too late because by the time he realized his mistake many old customers had moved on.

The lines from before were part of what made eating at the old restaurant so enjoyable and the new waiters became starngers to the old customers who liked a certain waiter from the past. The food seemed to change due to having new cooks. He was having more old patrons send food back to the kitchen only to have the new chefs make the dishes just like they did with the patrons first dish. Soon the business plan did not work because he did not satisfy the old patrons like they were used to over many years before. Then many of the old patrons moved on after finding other restaurants that had equal if not better and more satisfying meals and waiters, while some old patrons just keep eating the less than perfect meals cooked by new chiefs and served by new waiters. They weren't as happy as before, but felt compelled to still eat there even if less often and less satisfying to them.

I am sure you get the parallel and my points.

 

[erlingmm]

Algrove is a bit too metaphorical for me.
Let's go back to what one might assume were some of the hypotheses by Leica when they created the S system:
- DSLR format is compact and functional. The Hblad and P1 "digital backs" are reminiscent of the film days, and are not functional in a digital world
- Let's take MF out of the studio, through DSLR form factor and weather sealing
- MF gives a new dimension to photography, but 30*45mm will suffice for most
- Let's make the best OVF ever
- Chip design is more important than megapixels, 37,5 is a good compromise (50 is more, and the chosen format of the new Sony sensors, but can someone document the advantage, please?) - not excluding that S will be 50-60 mpix in its next version
- Optics is the real differentiator, let's make the best lenses for 30*45mm available
- Let's make lenses in the true Leica tradition: Top performance at open apertures, every S lens will be a "Noctilux" at full aperture
- Let's offer leaf shutter as a option built in to the lenses
- Let's open up towards other systems' and create bridges through adapters to other lenses
- <possibly more >

In my book, they were right on all assumptions. If you want to do 100 mpix and carry a P1, feel free, but swallow and justify the cost, and carry the load.

On execution, however, I agree, it could have been better, a lot better actually, where the AF issue is the elephant in the room, hopefully to be resolved soon.

 

[algrove]

- Chip design is more important than megapixels, 37,5 is a good compromise (50 is more, and the chosen format of the new Sony sensors, but can someone document the advantage, please?) - not excluding that S will be 50-60 mpix in its next version
- Optics is the real differentiator, let's make the best lenses for 30*45mm available
.

The next S, no matter what the MP count, is not the subject here. It's the S007.

If this is the best they can do on lenses, where many are failing and continue to fail after a Leica "fix" then no matter the glass, if it is inoperable it is NOT the best.

 

[erlingmm]

If this is the best they can do on lenses, where many are failing and continue to fail after a Leica "fix" then no matter the glass, if it is inoperable it is NOT the best.

Contrary from the impression in this and some other threads, S lenses mostly work, and are amazing.

 

[Paratom]

I assume if I add all threads in various forums about AF failure of S lenses I might have 10 people posting about AF failures.
On the other side I havent had any S lens fail in many years, and the other 2 persons I know in person who own a S also didnt have any AF failure with their lenses.
I have had 1 Nikon 70-200VR fail and a Pentax lens where AF failed.

I am not denying there are some people who do have such problems, and I understand this is disappointing, and long repair times are even more disappointing,
But we really do not know how high is the percentage, and IMO its speculation to generalize that S lenses show more problems than lenses from other brands.

 

[algrove]

If there are not problems with S lenses, then why have they announced via dealers that there is now a permanent fix available for S lenses if lenses are sent in to Germany. This means other fixes did not fix the problem.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Algrove is a bit too metaphorical for me.
Let's go back to what one might assume were some of the hypotheses by Leica when they created the S system:
...
- Chip design is more important than megapixels, 37,5 is a good compromise (50 is more, and the chosen format of the new Sony sensors, but can someone document the advantage, please?) - not excluding that S will be 50-60 mpix in its next version
- Optics is the real differentiator, let's make the best lenses for 30*45mm available
...
- <possibly more >

Hi,

Here is a small example that illustrates the advantage of more pixels, or more correctly smaller pixels. The images below were shot on my P45+ that has relatively large pixels (39MP) and my Sony A7rII that has relatively small pixels (42 MP), the same lens was used on each Zeiss Planar 100/3.5. The Sony image was a part of three image shift-stich around 36x48 mm and yielding around 85MP. The Sony image was downscaled
to P45+ dimensions so short edges matched. So, the downscaled Sony Image is around 39 MP.

P45+	Sony A7rII

As you can see, the P45+ image is heavily pixelated and has a lot of colour artefacts. The road sign saying "Centralstationen" is barely readable. The image from the Sony is smooth and perfectly readable.

The issue with the P45+ image is that the lens outresolves the sensor and there is detail the sensor cannot resolve. So the sensor creates fake detail. Technically, this would be called that the lens has modulation above Nyquist.

The combination of subject and lens with the A7rII does not produce modulation above Nyquist. So the image is much cleaner, even if it is downscaled to 39 MP.

Now, this demo was done on the P45+ which has 6.8 micron pixels and the Leica S has smaller pixels, around 6 micron that reduces the problem, but the Leica S has sharper lenses which would exacerbate the aliasing issue.

By and large, the S (typ 006) would behave like the left image while an S model using a 65 MP CMOS sensor would yield the image on the right.

Just to say, stopping down lenses to f/16 with the P45+ causes enough diffraction to virtually eliminate aliasing.

Best regards
Erik

 

[erlingmm]

Hi,

Here is a small example that illustrates the advantage of more pixels, or more correctly smaller pixels. The images below were shot on my P45+ that has relatively large pixels (39MP) and my Sony A7rII that has relatively small pixels (42 MP), the same lens was used on each Zeiss Planar 100/3.5. The Sony image was a part of three image shift-stich around 36x48 mm and yielding around 85MP. The Sony image was downscaled
to P45+ dimensions so short edge matched. So, the downscaled Sony Image is around 39 MP.
[/table]

Of course I am not denying that more pixels can give more resolution. I am talking about a reasonable compromise/optimal resolution, and that there are more parameters to consider than the number of pixels, see for example David Farkas' article here:
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2014/11/why-leica-is-staying-at-37-5mp-for-the-s-typ-007/

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The intent with my posting was to demonstrate the benefits of reduced pixel size regarding proper and artefact free rendition.

I read the article you refer to when it was published, but I it has some issues.

As you probably are aware of, many Leica M lenses have large beam angles, so they don't play well with sensor cover glass and traditional pixel designs.

So, Leica tasked CMOSIS with the development of the MAX CMOS sensor that had a design taking large beam angles into account. The sensor is said have a shallow well design compared to traditional CMOS pixel designs. That made perfectly sense. So when Leica needed a CMOS sensor in 30x45 mm size they simply made a larger version of the MAX CMOS design.

But, the S system is a DSLR and the lens is not close to the sensor, as it has a mirror box. So beam angles are moderate. So, the S doesn't benefit from the shallow sensor pixels or the special microlens design.

The MAX CMOS design has some disadvantages compared to the Sony sensor used in other MF cameras.

Let's check DxO-os SNR data and compare the Leica M (typ 240) with Nikon D750 and Nikon D810.

Two things we can note are:

• Minimum measured ISO on the Leica M is 134 while while Nikon D810 measures 47 ISO.
• Leica reaches 42 dB in SNR while Nikon D810 reaches 46.3 dB

What this says us is essentially that the Nikon has higher full well capacity and can therefore produce significantly cleaner images.

Now let's check DR instead. DR says how long down from saturated sensor the noise floor is:

Here you can note that the Nikon sensor reaches 14.76 EV while the Leica M reaches 13.13 EV albeit at higher ISO.

Unfortunately, DxO mark doesn't produce data for modern MFD. We can check Bill Claff's data instead.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M Typ 240,Leica S Typ 007,Nikon D810,Pentax 645Z

Bill Claff's data is based on nominal ISOs but it is quite clear that both Nikon D810 and Pentax 645Z pull clear of the Leica S (typ 007).

So, from the standpoint of image quality it seems that the Leica S would lag behind.

Just to say, the 33x44 mm Sony sensor has issues with non retrofocus ultrawides on technical cameras. Since last Photokina the Leica 30x45 mm sensor is also used on Sinar. On a technical camera, with non retrofocus wide angles, the MAX CMOS sensor makes a lot of sense. Less so on the Leica S.

Best regards
Erik

Of course I am not denying that more pixels can give more resolution. I am talking about a reasonable compromise/optimal resolution, and that there are more parameters to consider than the number of pixels, see for example David Farkas' article here:
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2014/11/why-leica-is-staying-at-37-5mp-for-the-s-typ-007/