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!

  • Recently, there has been an increased activity from spammers, which may result in you receiving unwanted private messages. We are working hard to limit this activity.

Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

algrove

Well-known member
It is true that I compose in a way that tries to utilize the full sensor as much as possible, be it 3:2 or 4:3 with different systems that I currently use. For me it is a mind set when using each system where I try to use 3:2 systems for street and 4:3 systems for landscape.

As for MF I seem to like the 4:3 ratio when I look back at images captured in the last year or so which were mostly landscape images I am referring to here. But then again I occasionally stitch those images to a very different aspect ratio. That said when I stitch I tend to often shoot landscapes in portrait mode.

Agree about the penalty of cropping to 3:2 from 4:3 images or cropping to 4:3 from 3:2 images.

As for sensor differences between 37.5 and 51MP, as you know I have only used the later.
 

bab

Member
Last night I happened to watch a western movie made from film in color on a65" screen, I could immediately see it was film and not video! It's the look to me I'm comfortable with or maybe it brought back memories? So even if you wanted me to watch a film shoot with 24K 1000MP it's not better it's different from film. Small sensors I've used are different than my MF 50MP not better different just kinda not as good feeling different....but printed fairly large small sensors don't do it for me.

Bab
 
M

mjr

Guest
Really ? You must be very good at working with smaller(lower MP ) files . If you ascribe to cropping as you mention ...your are by definition working with a subset of the file . Cropping a 4:3 aspect file to 2:3 and you lose 14MP (51Mp down to 37Mp) .

I would think if you frequently crop from a S file into 4:3 ,1:1 that you would not be as happy with the files dropping below 30MP . Add in a small amount of cropping for composition or clean up of the edges and you are down to middle of the market 24MP.


Your comments above are disappointing because they imply that optimizing the use of the MP available isn t a priority . Your work is better than that .
My comments are disappointing?! Roger, you and I will obviously never agree on certain things because indeed, for me, the concept of producing an image that is always at the maximum aspect ratio of the sensor or at the maximum available resolution is absurd. 36mp will allow me to crop whatever is required by my clients, I don't need a sensor big enough to allow me to crop to whatever ratio I need and still remain with a 36mp+ file.

I'm not sure what clients you have, in the last 2 weeks alone I have supplied images to clients in 5:4, 4:3, 2:3, 2:1, 1:1, and I have a client who has requested 30 different shots cropped to fit 2800px X 578px for a specific job they have. I have supplied all of those shots at the aspect ratios they have asked for, now of course I could just supply them at my sensors maximum resolution and aspect ratio and tell them to sort it out themselves, I could buy 2 cameras so I am getting the most out of 4:3 and 2:3 depending on the clients request or I can just get on with it and create compelling images, most of my clients will change their mind anyway after the image is taken and request it in a different format.

My point is that life isn't always simple, people want different things, I would never say to a client, I understand you want 1:1 images but my sensor isn't optimised for that, that would be madness. Now for personal work, I produced an exhibition last year that included 4 images printed at 60cm x 120cm, each cropped from a single S 006 file and they looked stunning, people were drawn to them because the aspect ratio worked well for the scene and they were dramatic scenes that worked for the audience, not one of the people viewing cared what I shot with, whether it was a single shot or stitched or any other technical aspect, they just said wow, they had never seen those scenes in that light. The images would not have had the impact had they simply been left in the original 2:3, I cropped not to remove unwanted things or to clean up, I cropped because that's how the image wanted to be.

We are focussed on different things, nothing wrong with that, the quality of the finished product for me has no relationship to the sensor aspect ratio, if you feel you need to use it all regardless of the final image then that's up to you. The camera for me is just a tool, it provides the image size it provides and I use that to create the image required, I am not restricted by it, I use it to my advantage.

Mat

Just to add, when I am shooting portrait I tend to prefer 4:3 or more often I crop to 4:5 as I like that, in landscape I tend to prefer 2:3, I wouldn't have different sensors depending on how I'm holding the camera, nothing is perfect, you have to use what you have in the way you want to.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Just to add, when I am shooting portrait I tend to prefer 4:3 or more often I crop to 4:5 as I like that, in landscape I tend to prefer 2:3, I wouldn't have different sensors depending on how I'm holding the camera, nothing is perfect, you have to use what you have in the way you want to.
This seems the same tendency I like (of course with exceptions).
 
M

mjr

Guest
There are always exceptions, I agree, this is the point for me, as photographers, we have creative control over every aspect of the exposure, for me, relinquishing control of the aspect ratio based on the sensor fabrication just doesn't fit with my creativity. Some feel that the boundaries of the sensor are fixed and control what is in the frame, nothing wrong with that of course, I happen to feel that the image content will dictate it and a less compelling image at the sensors full size is not even a consideration, if cropping it will make a better shot then who cares! I now have 60mp, complete overkill for my commercial work, massively flexible though, I have taken shots in portrait and cropped to a landscape after the fact because that's exactly what a client wanted, what am I going to do, refuse to deviate from what comes off the sensor? There have been plenty of times when I haven't cropped at all but that is my decision and only because the image works best uncropped.

Mat
 

JohnBrew

Active member
Roger, since you clarified that sensor aspect ratio is your subject, I have to say that whether to buy a 4:3 or a 3:2 was definitely on my mind before I purchased. I would prefer a 4:3 ratio myself. I frequently use the 5:4 ratio available in the D810. When I made a list of things I liked with the Hasselblad versus the S, what won out, after shooting both was the glass. I thought there were other things on which I would base my decision, but I was wrong. Just goes to show you that preconceptions can be dangerous ;).
 

vieri

Well-known member
On sensor ratio, as a landscape photographer I tend to use 3:2, 16:9 or 2:1 for horizontal images, and 4:3 or 5:4 for vertical images. So, no sensor on the market would do perfectly for me at the moment - as, I suppose, is true for anyone shooting any format... So, the question is, give me enough pixels to be able to get an usable image in both horizontal and vertical orientation. Adding to what people already said, let's consider 16:9 for a second. Starting with a 4:3 sensor you will loose 25% of your pixels, starting with a 3:2 sensor only 15%. In 16:9, you'll get:

Pentax 645z: 38.34 Mp
Leica S(007): 31.63 Mp

and, as an extra contestant:

Leica SL: 20.25 Mp

I'd argue that the difference between 38 and 31 Mp is negligible; of course, the gap between 38 and 20 is larger, but with 20 Mp in 16:9 ratio one can still print a 20" wide image at 300 dpi, and a 30" wide image at 200 dpi, which (while YMMV) is good enough for most of what I need.

Overall, I think the best average ratio to accommodate all crops might in fact be 3:2. My wished number of Mp to make me happy with a 3:2 sensor would be around 50, for what I do. On the other hand, as people said already, considering a camera without the rest of the system that comes with it doesn't make much sense. An example: I used Phase, Leaf, and Pentax MF; camera-wise, I used Phase cameras, Tech cameras, and of course the 645D and 645z. Now I moved to the SL - why? Easy: lenses. I wanted to be able to use really wide wideangle lenses, and no MF system offered me any. A long time M user, I had lots of M lenses which I could finally put to a good use with the SL when it came out. Now, I have only 24 Mp - but, I have the 24-90mm Vario-Elmarit which is an amazing lens, I can use all my M glass, and I can shoot with the 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar and the 12mm Voigtlander, which allows me to make images that I wouldn't be able to make with any of the MF offering out there. With Phase (albeit few years back, before the blue lenses) and Pentax I felt - and confirmed with compared tests - that the lenses weren't resolving all the Mp the sensor offered, so I didn't see the point in having 50 / 80 Mp without being able to use them. The 24-90mm is an amazing lens, I guess it could easily resolve 50 Mp; the Tri-Elmar is very good but not as good; the Voigtlander 12mm is not even close to that kind of performance, but has the unique characteristic of allowing to shoot at 12mm. So, sensor resolution - while important - is not the be-all-end-all when choosing a camera system.

Me, until Leica makes a real wide angle for the S, I will keep using the SL hoping for a high-Mp version of it a-la Sony A7 series. Looking forward to Photokina though. Best,

Vieri
 

fotografz

Well-known member
My purpose in this posting is to get a better understanding of how to compare the Leica S 007 to the other (admittedly more popular ) MF alternatives . Lots of stuff I just don t follow ...so looking for perspectives ..

Lets start with a few of the specifications :

The Leica S 007 has a 30 x45 mm,37.5 MP sensor with a pixel pitch of 6 um..

The Sony 51MP sensor used in the Phase,HB and Pentax MF cameras is 32.8 x 43.8 mm with a pixel pitch of 5.3 um.

Is the Sony sensor newer technology .....it could be better but it doesn t appear to be newer . The LL report states that the Pentax 645Z for example had been out for a full year before the S 007 . Further they expected that the Leica would improve as LR caught up with the profiling and that the differences in noise would be too close to call. This was last summer and I haven t seem any new comparisons since ????

The other issue that is infrequently mentioned was recently raised by Digilloyd ..the crop factor . The Sony applications produce a 4 x 3 format and the Leica is 2 x 3 . If you want 4 x 3 from the Leica you will lose a lot but what if you want 2 x 3 . Using 2 x 3 the Sony sensor would be a 43.9 x 29.3. Essentially the same as the S sensor .

There are plenty of other relevant differences for and against the Leica S 007 . Its form is different ...its not small like the newer X1D ,its not as flexible as the HB H6D or the Phase XF /50 and its not as cheap as the Pentax 645Z . But it does handle like a large SLR ,its built like a tank and it has a full range of matched Leica S lenses available .

You know I have a bias (as I own 2 S bodies and all the S lenses ) but I really don t see the handicap of an out of date and too small sensor . What am I missing ?

(Plus I know that in the right hands any of these alternatives can produce “best in class” renderings ).

One request ...no comparing to the Sony cameras ..totally different discussion .
We all sure love anal-izing stuff:ROTFL:

IMO:

Despite all counter-point discussions, in the end the only analysis that matters is the one we have with ourselves … which tool to use to best express ourselves. That differs widely for most of us, but from many debates, you'd think there was some universal truth where one perspective over-rides another.

So, one person's handicap can be another's sweet-spot, and visa-versa.

It also means we all form biases along the way … which by definition are usually unfair. However, bias can also be thought of as a foundation for selectivity. As a grizzled old pro once quipped to me "The problem with making a decision is that it eliminates all the other possibilities".

At some point we MUST make decisions and believe in them … with the tools we use, how we use them, right down to what images are kept and which are discarded. Creativity is a process of expansive thinking, eventually disciplined by prejudical choice.

Some of us evangelize our photographic prejudices … which, IMO, sometimes can reach a crescendo point that starts feeling more like lack of confidence in the decisions being made.

Raging technology doesn't help matters. Modern photographic marketing survives by creating indecision, doubt, and by extension, peer pressure. Small increments are heralded as significant … even though many of us don't need more, we are made to believe we do.

The root of all that is the thought that with this new thing we will be better photographers … which in some cases is true. If we want to shoot MFD in lower light, then switching to CMOS may be a significant choice. However, in just as many cases, the user may rarely use the new highly touted feature, and it is relegated to a justification in debates more than it has made any difference in the photographer's work. Meanwhile, that photographer is out a lot more money.

Fact is, digital has left its infancy behind. For most of us, we could stop now and be just fine for many, many years. But where's the fun in that?:rolleyes:

My own bias is pretty firm, but I recognize it is mine based on a criteria that may not line up with anyone else's.

I'm fine with the S system. I stepped back from Dante's Inferno when I passed on a 200 meg H5D I was set to buy, sold all H gear and concentrated on the S. That decision point made me evaluate what resolution I really needed, not what I was drooling over and wanted to fool around with … because what I shoot had changed dramatically. I also passed on the S CMOS upgrade because I have a prejudice favoring CCD.

My real criteria for selecting the S kit was, and remains, the lenses and the camera's dual shutter. I like fast apertures, and I like Leica's philosophy regarding how optics render. The S lenses are consistent (probably because they didn't have to contend with legacy glass working on a new camera and then try to update each focal length). While other super lenses have come on-line for other cameras, they tend to be "one of" rather the a system of "like kinds". The dual shutter allows me to shoot with high sync lighting one minute, and wide open ambient the next with the same lenses.

Aspect ratio may be more a throw back to film days and antiquated print sizes. 3:2 verses 4:3 is less important than in past days. Neither fit the Golden Ratio notion.

Besides, I think that ratio aesthetics have changed in the modern era. TV and computer screens are ubiquitous, and have altered because the round cropped tube became a rectangle that's more a 3:2 aspect ratio than a 4:3. Personally, I like either a square or the 3:2 … in recent years I've had aesthetic issues composing within an 8X10 print format … it has become a bit visually awkward to my eye.

It seems to me that anyone who needs the ultimate resolution in their work keeps that in mind while composing. Other's like myself may be more interested in spontaneous interaction where extra resolution allows more compositional choices after the fact. Either is easy to calculate based on the end needs and ultimate objective of the imagery.

- Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
We all sure love anal-izing stuff:ROTFL:

IMO:

Despite all counter-point discussions, in the end the only analysis that matters is the one we have with ourselves … which tool to use to best express ourselves. That differs widely for most of us, but from many debates, you'd think there was some universal truth where one perspective over-rides another.

So, one person's handicap can be another's sweet-spot, and visa-versa.

It also means we all form biases along the way … which by definition are usually unfair. However, bias can also be thought of as a foundation for selectivity. As a grizzled old pro once quipped to me "The problem with making a decision is that it eliminates all the other possibilities".

At some point we MUST make decisions and believe in them … with the tools we use, how we use them, right down to what images are kept and which are discarded. Creativity is a process of expansive thinking, eventually disciplined by prejudical choice.

Some of us evangelize our photographic prejudices … which, IMO, sometimes can reach a crescendo point that starts feeling more like lack of confidence in the decisions being made.

Raging technology doesn't help matters. Modern photographic marketing survives by creating indecision, doubt, and by extension, peer pressure. Small increments are heralded as significant … even though many of us don't need more, we are made to believe we do.

The root of all that is the thought that with this new thing we will be better photographers … which in some cases is true. If we want to shoot MFD in lower light, then switching to CMOS may be a significant choice. However, in just as many cases, the user may rarely use the new highly touted feature, and it is relegated to a justification in debates more than it has made any difference in the photographer's work. Meanwhile, that photographer is out a lot more money.

Fact is, digital has left its infancy behind. For most of us, we could stop now and be just fine for many, many years. But where's the fun in that?:rolleyes:

My own bias is pretty firm, but I recognize it is mine based on a criteria that may not line up with anyone else's.

I'm fine with the S system. I stepped back from Dante's Inferno when I passed on a 200 meg H5D I was set to buy, sold all H gear and concentrated on the S. That decision point made me evaluate what resolution I really needed, not what I was drooling over and wanted to fool around with … because what I shoot had changed dramatically. I also passed on the S CMOS upgrade because I have a prejudice favoring CCD.

My real criteria for selecting the S kit was, and remains, the lenses and the camera's dual shutter. I like fast apertures, and I like Leica's philosophy regarding how optics render. The S lenses are consistent (probably because they didn't have to contend with legacy glass working on a new camera and then try to update each focal length). While other super lenses have come on-line for other cameras, they tend to be "one of" rather the a system of "like kinds". The dual shutter allows me to shoot with high sync lighting one minute, and wide open ambient the next with the same lenses.

Aspect ratio may be more a throw back to film days and antiquated print sizes. 3:2 verses 4:3 is less important than in past days. Neither fit the Golden Ratio notion.

Besides, I think that ratio aesthetics have changed in the modern era. TV and computer screens are ubiquitous, and have altered because the round cropped tube became a rectangle that's more a 3:2 aspect ratio than a 4:3. Personally, I like either a square or the 3:2 … in recent years I've had aesthetic issues composing within an 8X10 print format … it has become a bit visually awkward to my eye.

It seems to me that anyone who needs the ultimate resolution in their work keeps that in mind while composing. Other's like myself may be more interested in spontaneous interaction where extra resolution allows more compositional choices after the fact. Either is easy to calculate based on the end needs and ultimate objective of the imagery.

- Marc
Great post Marc.:thumbup:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
One thing I am certain of is that long posts just aren t read on this forum . In my initial post I pointed out that ...when discussing MF alternatives....two key issues are almost always mentioned as limitations of the Leica S systems .

(1) Cost

(2) Sensor

Thats about it .....general consensus is that the camera viewfinder is terrific , the lenses are best in class and a complete set , the dual shutter is relevant . Most photographers that try the system like the ergonomics and so on . All good reasons in themselves to favor the s system.

The two disadvantages are on every wish list ....I wish it had more MP(and a modern sensor) and I wish it was less expensive . I assume each photographer is capable of evaluating the cost aspect .........

In my initial post I pointed out that I ve made my decision ....I own two S bodies and every lens they make except the T/S....I prefer shooting 2:3 (and I try to compose in the camera and keep cropping to minor adjustments ) . I outlined my thinking on the sensor and asked am I missing something .

My objective was to discuss the sensor .

Thanks for all the feedback ....its a tough crowd ...but it goes with the territory here at GETdpi . :clap:
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Roger,

Of course we read your posts. Has anyone talked about Sony cameras? And it IS a modern sensor.

:D

--Matt
 

Paratom

Well-known member
One thing I am certain of is that long posts just aren t read on this forum . In my initial post I pointed out that ...when discussing MF alternatives....two key issues are almost always mentioned as limitations of the Leica S systems .

(1) Cost

(2) Sensor

Thats about it .....general consensus is that the camera viewfinder is terrific , the lenses are best in class and a complete set , the dual shutter is relevant . Most photographers that try the system like the ergonomics and so on . All good reasons in themselves to favor the s system.

The two disadvantages are on every wish list ....I wish it had more MP(and a modern sensor) and I wish it was less expensive . I assume each photographer is capable of evaluating the cost aspect .........

In my initial post I pointed out that I ve made my decision ....I own two S bodies and every lens they make except the T/S....I prefer shooting 2:3 (and I try to compose in the camera and keep cropping to minor adjustments ) . I outlined my thinking on the sensor and asked am I missing something .

My objective was to discuss the sensor .

Thanks for all the feedback ....its a tough crowd ...but it goes with the territory here at GETdpi . :clap:
Since you own the S allready cost shouldnt be an issue any more ;)

In regards of sensor...I dont miss anything but understand there seem some people wishing for more pixels.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
OK OK ...I surrender . I am not coming out of my corner for another round . Please excuse my frustration at times is too stringent ..Not intended . Apologizes to anyone that I offended .


But if I hear of any of you talking up the S 008 because it has a few more MPs ...well this thread will still be here to quote ! :ROTFL:
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Roger,

Heck, I'd love a 60MP S(008). I like the (006) files more than the (007), but the (007) does enough other things better that I'd take it *at the same price*. But it's 3 times the price, so I have an (006). I'm just saying that I won't move from the S unless factors other than the sensor are comparably good. Is that in opposition to your viewpoint? I don't feel like I'm disagreeing with you about anything important.

Best,

Matt
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Fair enough Roger. The sensor.

In my case, I was working with a Hasselblad H4D/40 and H4D/60 when the opportunity came up to get a S2P.

In terms of pure resolution, the S2P was a virtual tie with the H4D/40, so other evaluation criteria was considered. Since I could temporarily use my HC and HCD lenses on the new Leica, it made considering the transition easier.

If I were considering a MFD CMOS system today … I suspect that 38 meg 3:2 verses 50 meg 4:3 would not be a tipping point. Experience has taught me that in terms of pure resolution there has to be a significant difference to make a real world one. Plus, the aspect ratio arguement carries less weight with me.

So, despite all the hype for the 50 meg X1D, I would not expect an IQ difference over a S(007) based on just pixel count. If that new Hasselblad camera made it to my shopping list, it'd be for its other obvious features.

I'm not familiar enough with how Leica implemented their CMOS sensor, but that could be a comparison criteria with the Sony sensor showing up in various MFD cameras. Trouble is, it circles around back to the lenses available for each system …. and I sure as hell don't want to give up the S optics.

IF Leica were to make a S(008) CMOS at 60 meg+, I'd consider it for the added resolution IF I seriously thought I would make good use of it. I gave up a H4D/60 to work exclusively with the S, so that remains to be seen, even if Leica did do it.

- Marc
 

kimyeesan

Member
If you can live with lower resolution, questionable quality control, high fail rate of the focus motor in the lens, friendly customer service, exquisite colour, perfect handling, top notch build quality (I think it's different from QC), excellent optics, then I think S007 is perfect. The CMOS sensor is abit old tech, but does shine better than CCD. The color is very nice still. and the speed at which this camera can be setup and use is top notch. I love the weather sealing of this machine, it gives me confident everytime except the stupid cracked AF motor gear.

S007+S24
 

Phocus

New member
I own both PhaseOne IQ350 and S007 ( also I used to shoot with H4D-50 for 3 years). For pro studio work, I prefer P1. In addition, I can use P1 digital back with my Alpa MAX/TC system for Architecture and Landscape. The modular platform has its own advantages. You mainly upgrade the back and hold on to the body and lenses for a longer time.I prefer 4x3 crop and CaptureOne's tight integration (color/lens profiles) with P1 system. Easier to clean the sensor is a huge plus.

On the other hand, you can take S007 to places that P1 or Hassy hardly can survive. S lenses are amazing! but Hassy and P1 are catching up quickly and renewing their lens lineup for higher megapixel sensors. Last month I traveled to Oregon and used new P1 55 LS blue ring lens and the quality is outstanding. I'm not a bit fan of crop mode on Leica S but for landscape is totally fine. For upgrade you need to let the entire camera body go (rather than just upgrading the digital back) which you loose more money on that. S006 can be purchased around $4k or $5k!

But the biggest concern for the professional work is the customer service which Leica is nowhere close to P1 or Hassy. I sent my Leica S007 and 30-90 lens for cleanup/maintenance and it has been at Leica Germany for more than 4 months which is not acceptable and while it is sitting there, I'm paying premium for the insurance and also not having my system to shoot with. P1 sends overnight replacement and offers loaner while my equipment getting fixed.

Here is my overall feedback on S007 which is posted here on my blog: http://www.faran.gallery/blog/2016/7/15/the-harsh-winter-of-iceland
 

aDam007

New member
One of the reasons I'm leaving Leica is the disgusting customer service and repair times. But I will say this, I haven't used a better sensor/lens/ovf combo then the S-006. It checks all the boxes for me.

I owned the S-007 briefly two times. And I had a terrible experience both times. Not only problematic, but just didn't have the look I wanted out of my shots. Sure I could edit till I was blue in the face, but why not just use the less problematic S-006? I also have had ample opportunities to buy or trade into an S-007, but wouldn't bother. Nor would I bother buying a P645Z now that I've used the S-system. Not saying the P645Z isn't a great camera, all current and a lot of past MFD cameras are quite excellent, but not really the same as the S-006 w/S-lenses.

If Leica upper management weren't unethical, and the CS/Repair times were reasonable, I'd keep my Leica gear no question.


Price wise, Leica can be had for cheap new, if you know where to look **AHEM**HK**COUGH.


The X1D is enticing due to it's size. But only if it had a shutter and could adapt all MF lenses. Also if the native lenses were a bit quicker, F/2 would be nice :p (spoiled by the 100S)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
One of the reasons I'm leaving Leica is the disgusting customer service and repair times. But I will say this, I haven't used a better sensor/lens/ovf combo then the S-006. It checks all the boxes for me.

I owned the S-007 briefly two times. And I had a terrible experience both times. Not only problematic, but just didn't have the look I wanted out of my shots. Sure I could edit till I was blue in the face, but why not just use the less problematic S-006? I also have had ample opportunities to buy or trade into an S-007, but wouldn't bother. Nor would I bother buying a P645Z now that I've used the S-system. Not saying the P645Z isn't a great camera, all current and a lot of past MFD cameras are quite excellent, but not really the same as the S-006 w/S-lenses.

If Leica upper management weren't unethical, and the CS/Repair times were reasonable, I'd keep my Leica gear no question.


Price wise, Leica can be had for cheap new, if you know where to look **AHEM**HK**COUGH.


The X1D is enticing due to it's size. But only if it had a shutter and could adapt all MF lenses. Also if the native lenses were a bit quicker, F/2 would be nice :p (spoiled by the 100S)
No one has been more bludgeoned by Leica's QC and snail like service than me. That I persist in favoring the S(006) and lenses is testimony to my preference and belief in the results from this camera, lenses and sensor.

There have been very few camera/sensor/optic combinations that all came together to consistently make images I prefer over results from other combinations. Moving to the latest/greatest has rarely improved much and often produces those editing struggles you mentioned ... (Which is the reason I do not own a M240 and regret selling my M9P in anticipation of the M240 ... but thankfully, am very satisfied with the MM for rangefinder work).

When you find the right combo for your aesthetic opinion, it is sometimes hard to stick with it given that we are inundated with new launch marketing speak, vocal user opinions from technonerds, peer pressure, and in some cases like Leica, service that would try the patience of a Saint.

Despite all that, I'm sticking with the S(006), and since everything in future will be CMOS, do not foresee anything new for me.

- Marc
 

Kolor-Pikker

New member
One of the reasons I'm leaving Leica is the disgusting customer service and repair times. But I will say this, I haven't used a better sensor/lens/ovf combo then the S-006. It checks all the boxes for me.

I owned the S-007 briefly two times. And I had a terrible experience both times. Not only problematic, but just didn't have the look I wanted out of my shots. Sure I could edit till I was blue in the face, but why not just use the less problematic S-006? I also have had ample opportunities to buy or trade into an S-007, but wouldn't bother. Nor would I bother buying a P645Z now that I've used the S-system. Not saying the P645Z isn't a great camera, all current and a lot of past MFD cameras are quite excellent, but not really the same as the S-006 w/S-lenses.

If Leica upper management weren't unethical, and the CS/Repair times were reasonable, I'd keep my Leica gear no question.
That's a shame. As an owner of a P645Z I still hotly desire Leica if only for the lenses and nothing else; the character, the sharpness, the contrast - godlike. The Z's body had a lot more features I wanted and was cheaper, but it's proven to be a reliable beast, in the 1.5 years I've owned it there were no issues, even though I'm pretty rough on my gear.

The Pentax lenses are good starting from f/5.6... it's not the end of the world, but any wider and I'm usually shooting portraits anyway. If there was a camera that was the combination of the Z's body and the S lenses, I think that would be the end-all solution for me and many people. For people having remorse about their S I say don't worry about it, because I think about what if I had gotten an S those years ago too. The grass is always greener...

Besides, what else is there? The big and chunky Phase/Blads? Going back to 35mm SLR?
 
Top