S Is For Show Us Your S2 Shots

[mjr]

I thought about buying the split screen with the initial purchase but decided to give the standard screen a go, coming from D800's, the difference in the viewfinder is incredible, I'm a huge manual focus fan, I use it 90% of the time and it is so easy with the standard screen that I haven't bothered to change.

With the firmware upgrade the focusing is excellent, very quick on the 70 and 100 although I don't use focus tracking, I have shot a couple of skiers doing tricks recently but went for pre-focussing on a point and hitting it at the right time, rather than a number of shots before and after from a faster camera, I end up with the single shot that I wanted, just a different way of working to the faster cameras. I don't do weddings so no idea how I would approach people moving towards me.

It sounds like you are ready to try it and see how it turns out, seems the best way to me, the prices on the 006 are really good at the moment so worth a punt in my opinion.

Mat

 

[Paratom]

I once had a split Screen in the S2 but sold it with the S2. I find Manual Focus works also quite good with the Standard Screen.
AF is very accurate but ist not nearly as fast as a fast Canon or Nikon camera.
Sometimes I miss a shot with the S which I could have nailed with a Canikon DSLR, but the rate of Special shots is higher with the S (in my experience).
I think the big viewfinder helps to really see what you photograph. I also really like how the lenses draw, inlcuding the out of Focus Areas.
If there wasnt that massive size Advantage (and low light advantage) of the M I would just allways use the S.
I think one other "davantage"of the S it forces me to use primes.
I seem to take better Images with primes.

 

[aDam007]

Paratom - "Davantage" indeed. I used zooms once a LONG LONG time ago.. I actually picked up a zoom the other weekend, a friends zoom. I was really weirded out by it. It was strange and foreign.

Good to hear. I guess I'll start with the standard screen and only buy the spilt if I'm not having a good time after about a month or so of usage.

BTW Mat, I love your "first picture shot with the S-system". Amazing animals, beautiful coloring!

 

[mjr]

Thanks Adam, it's not a shot I ever thought I'd get with the S, handheld as I jumped out of the car, ISO800, autofocus was spot on and I really like the rendition.

I think trying the standard screen is a good idea, it really works great and changing screens is easy if you go that route.

Looking forward to seeing some of your shots with it.

Mat

 

[Paratom]

Paratom - "Davantage" indeed. I used zooms once a LONG LONG time ago.. I actually picked up a zoom the other weekend, a friends zoom. I was really weirded out by it. It was strange and foreign.

Good to hear. I guess I'll start with the standard screen and only buy the spilt if I'm not having a good time after about a month or so of usage.

BTW Mat, I love your "first picture shot with the S-system". Amazing animals, beautiful coloring!

I use zooms with the Sony but I often make the big fault to zoom in instead of Walking a Little closer, and I sometimes Forget about the "effect" of a certain focal length.
When using primes I know These primes and choose the focal length according to my "Vision" of the shot.

 

[Ant58]

Since there is a small discussion on S (S2) and lenses... Here is one question. It has been treated already, also in this Forum/Thread , but here it is again.

I am a newcomer to the S world, using a (very lightly) used S2 for now and with the intention to upgrade to S (006) at some point. I am a Leica M user and was a Hasselblad H/V user, but sold all H stuff and kept some V lenses which I now use on the S2. I do landscapes and close-ups mainly in nature, mainly in the mountains, often with tripod/monopode. I started thinking of the 30 + 70 + 120 primes, but I am getting more and more convinced about the 30-90 zoom + 120... A little less weight (compared to the couple 30 + 70), a little less quality in the corners probably, but much more flexibility and - above all - more limited need of changing lenses in dusty, rainy and windy environments, reducing sensor exposure to all sorts of particles...

Is this a wise decision, or the primes would be - much - better than the zoom?

 

[erlingmm]

Is this a wise decision, or the primes would be - much - better than the zoom?

The zoom is good, not so sharp in the corners fully open, stepping down 1-2 stops helps. The main "problem" with this lens is aperture, it is a daylight lens, but a very good and versatile one. I sold my 30mm after I got this one, felt redundant. But later a bought the 24 (fantastic !)

 

[RVB]

Since there is a small discussion on S (S2) and lenses... Here is one question. It has been treated already, also in this Forum/Thread , but here it is again.

I am a newcomer to the S world, using a (very lightly) used S2 for now and with the intention to upgrade to S (006) at some point. I am a Leica M user and was a Hasselblad H/V user, but sold all H stuff and kept some V lenses which I now use on the S2. I do landscapes and close-ups mainly in nature, mainly in the mountains, often with tripod/monopode. I started thinking of the 30 + 70 + 120 primes, but I am getting more and more convinced about the 30-90 zoom + 120... A little less weight (compared to the couple 30 + 70), a little less quality in the corners probably, but much more flexibility and - above all - more limited need of changing lenses in dusty, rainy and windy environments, reducing sensor exposure to all sorts of particles...

Is this a wise decision, or the primes would be - much - better than the zoom?

I have the Zoom,it's no match for the primes..and no CS option..but its handy in certain situations.

Rob

 

[GMB]

I have the Zoom,it's no match for the primes..and no CS option..but its handy in certain situations.

Rob

I think the zoom is fantastic, in particular for travel of nature work where you carry your gear on a hike. I would like to see examples where the zoom is no match for the primes--and an explanation what "no match" means in this context. The primes are faster, but for most situations this does not make a huge difference, certainly not for any landscape work.

 

[anGy]

Primes are fast, the zoom isn't. The CCD sensors are not really great at iso higher than 320 (IMO). So if I see great interest for the zoom with the next CMOS 007 generation, I don't really see how it can be optimally used with the CCD bodies ?
Jump to iso 800 and higher for enough speed ? then a D810/A7r could possibly do the trick (better ?). Use a tripod to fight the speed problem and you lose the 'easy for travel' aspect.
Considering the climate of the region where I live I often have to use iso 320 and F4 or faster.
Are you guys using your zoom with high iso and with satisfaction or only in bright daylight time ?

 

[RVB]

I think the zoom is fantastic, in particular for travel of nature work where you carry your gear on a hike. I would like to see examples where the zoom is no match for the primes--and an explanation what "no match" means in this context. The primes are faster, but for most situations this does not make a huge difference, certainly not for any landscape work.

Georg,the edges and corners are not even close to the primes,I'll post examples tomorrow.It's not bad at the wider end but past 55mm the difference is quite clear.

Rob

 

[Ant58]

Thank you very much for all the comments, and I will eagerly follow what comes next, as can still decide between the 30+70 and the 30-90.

Corner sharpness can be an issue, but very rough sample shots I took with the various lenses did not display such a huge difference at f/6.8 or f/8. However, it was nothing scientific, so I am curious about more refined tests in controlled situations.

The zoom is slower, yes, and that worries me - also for the pleasure of looking into the finder. But in practice, I tend to close to at least f/6.8 for landscapes, and prefer to carry a light tripod, and when hiking, I did not find that using it makes things "much" more cumbersome. A bit yes, but it is not street photography anyway... While it would be nicer, as I mentioned, not to change lens all the time when the wind is blowing around leaves and dust... Right now I use ISO 160 and 320 with Hassy V lenses (50 CFE, 120 macro and 180) while waiting to make up my mind about the Leica ones...

So, waiting for more input!! Thanks again.

 

[aDam007]

Ant58 - I have no idea how good or bad the zoom is. But if the way you shoot suggests that the zooms limitations wouldn't bother you, then I'd say go for it.

However, is it really that much more troublesome to carry two lenses in a small camera bag along with your body and tripod? Because if it isn't, you get the flexibility of speedy lenses and you know the IQ is at least a touch better then from the zoom.

And at the end of the day, you seem more worried about IQ then anything else. Or else you would run around with a D810 and lenses.

---------------

Another question set from me.
Would a Gitzo traveller tripod be sufficient for the S? Asking because I'm trying to figure out which tripod to pack for the odd time I want to do some tripod work. Would love to get away with using a lighter easier to fold up and carry tripod.

I read somewhere that the 70s has a built in filter. As in, the front element is covered by glass. Should I not attach a filter to the lens then? I usually put filters on my lenses when walking around as it's easier to clean the filter, and if damaged easier to replace.

Is the sensor on the S similar to work with when compared to the M9. In the color sense, and also in the sense where it's better for me to shoot a black frame at iso 320 then punch it up to 1250 then it is to shoot straight 1250?
Because I find with both the M9 and M240 it's better to underexpose and bring it up a stop or two. Turns out cleaner and with better colors.

 

[Paratom]

I think the Zoom is specially interesting for the wider range, where you do not loose much Speed compared to the primes.
I sometimes can decide if I should bring 30 or 35 or even 45mm.
If I bring 30 or 35 I think the gap to 180mm is so big I want to also bring 70mm.
So for bright conditions, or for People who do landscape and do use a tripod, the Zoom could probably make life easier and the luggage lighter.
For example bring the zoom + 180mm, or the zoom and the 45/2.8 if you are not sure if you run into a "dark" Environment.
On the other side I use the S a lot for Family and Portrait where I want a certain short exposure time to freeze movements, and there I often do use the f2.0-4.0 f-stops.

 

[Ant58]

However, is it really that much more troublesome to carry two lenses in a small camera bag along with your body and tripod? Because if it isn't, you get the flexibility of speedy lenses and you know the IQ is at least a touch better then from the zoom.

And at the end of the day, you seem more worried about IQ then anything else. Or else you would run around with a D810 and lenses.

aDam007,

thanks fort the comments!

Right, I am using the Leica S for IQ... I was using the Hasselblad H4D before, excellent IQ but I found the camera system a bit too heavy for my knees and shoulder to carry around for few-hours hikes (getting old, and carried too many weights in the past...). Also, I was won by the beauty and ergonomics of the Leica S... And one needs to change from time to time...

What worries me in having the primes is not so much to carry two of them, but the need for changing lenses in dirty environments... When you change lens it seems that a stove mouth opens in the camera!!

Another question set from me.
Would a Gitzo traveller tripod be sufficient for the S? Asking because I'm trying to figure out which tripod to pack for the odd time I want to do some tripod work. Would love to get away with using a lighter easier to fold up and carry tripod.

I use a big Gitzo when I do some wildlife telephoto shots (not with the Leica...),
a smaller Manfrotto for the MF and a super-small plastic, ridicoulous tripod for the Leica M. This latter is something that any serious photographer would laugh at, but... it is perfect for the little Leica even for rather long exposure times.

When I looked at the Gitzo model you indicated, it did not really excite me for the 4-section leg structure (I prefer 3) and for the central column... But I was unable to find, till now, a similar model with 3 sections and no central column.
Any suggestion is very welcome in this sense. But for stability, I was happy with my Manfrotto for MF, so I think that size would be good.

Is the sensor on the S similar to work with when compared to the M9. In the color sense, and also in the sense where it's better for me to shoot a black frame at iso 320 then punch it up to 1250 then it is to shoot straight 1250?
Because I find with both the M9 and M240 it's better to underexpose and bring it up a stop or two. Turns out cleaner and with better colors.

This is my experience with the M240 too (underexpose and bring it up a stop), but less so with the M9 I had before. Since the S2/S sensor is similar (but different processor/software I believe) to the M9, I am not sure with the S. Will try!

 

[Ant58]

I think the Zoom is specially interesting for the wider range, where you do not loose much Speed compared to the primes.
I sometimes can decide if I should bring 30 or 35 or even 45mm.
If I bring 30 or 35 I think the gap to 180mm is so big I want to also bring 70mm.
So for bright conditions, or for People who do landscape and do use a tripod, the Zoom could probably make life easier and the luggage lighter.
For example bring the zoom + 180mm, or the zoom and the 45/2.8 if you are not sure if you run into a "dark" Environment.
On the other side I use the S a lot for Family and Portrait where I want a certain short exposure time to freeze movements, and there I often do use the f2.0-4.0 f-stops.

Paratom, thanks!

Yes, one solution could be the zoom (mainly for wides) and the 120 macro - for close-ups and longer reach... Or the zoom plus a 70 for low-light conditions (I was really struck by the quality of the 70, more mixed feelings about the 30 - but just superficial impressions!).

Mmmmh. Food for thought...

 

[aDam007]

I'm considering buying this as an alternative to bringing my traveler tripod: Gitzo GT1532
I'm also not one for so many sections (but the small size of the traveler is hard to beat.)
The only other tripod I have is heavy, because of the centre column is off centre and can rotate for macro shooting.

Anyway sorry for the off topic post.

 

[RVB]

Take a look at the RRS TQC-14 tripod..very light and really sturdy for its small size..

 

[Paratom]

I use a GT2542L and feel it works fine. I avoid to use the center extension though.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I would also say that the zoom does not come close to the primes for edge to edge performance, at least at longer range and at longer focal lengths. I kept thinking it was my lens, and brought it to Leica in person. They checked it at the factory while I was there and adjusted it to their best ability, but it still is occasionally soft on the edges. In some photos it does not make a big difference, in others a very clear one. I have posted threads about it before, but am on a trip so not in the position to go find them. That said, at 30-50mm it is mostly very very good, and extremely good on center and over much of the image. The edges suffer, however, particularly in the 70-90mm range. If you look at the MTF, you can see the pattern clearly. The performance is very good, and then takes a dive as you get towards the outer edges. I have not found aperture to help all that much. Perhaps a bit if you compare wide open to f/8 or f/11, but it does not improve very significantly.

I live in a country which is characterized by long vistas with very little atmospheric haze, so clear detail at long distances is very often visible. For this kind of work, I think the prime lenses, in particular the 35mm, 45mm and 120mm are superb. The 70mm is also great, but has a bit of curvature of field that sometimes shows up. Those others are generally perfect all the time.
Again, just my experience...but if you are primarily into the S system for the high resolution and image quality in highly demanding situations, I would say the primes will be better. The zoom is superb for portraits, events, travel and reportage, and is spectacular in every way other than absolute edge performance.