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!

S006/S007 ISO performance

M

mjr

Guest
Morning!

I've had the 006 over a year now and know exactly how to get what I want from a shot, superb camera! I've had the 007 for a few weeks and getting to know it better, I know a couple of people have asked about the differences at base ISO between the 2 cameras so as LR has now updated to include support for the 007 I thought I'd have a play and see what's what.

Please bare in mind I am a commercial photographer, I am not a professional tester, I don't care for it beyond getting to know a camera and how it fits to my own needs, my observations are based on how I work and what I want from a file, it may be helpful, it may not, please take anything I write as it is intended. You may not like what I like or work as I work so it's just what it is!

I have shown some high ISO shots, the 007 is the best camera I have used at ISO 800/1600 and has allowed me to get better aurora/night shots than any other camera I have tried. What I wanted to look at was what was happening at lower ISO's and whether that magic from the 006 has been lost in the move to CMOS.

I had a wander around my garden to take a few shots, what I am looking at here is the overall image, I'm not expecting any difference in sharpness, depth of field etc. just wanted to see if the "look" of the image would be similar. These are not controlled conditions, light changing etc. so the images are not captured in exactly the same light but they are same camera settings, same lens and mounted on a tripod. This is not art it's 10 mins in my garden at -2! Obviously nothing can be judged from a jpeg on the interweb so you'll have to take my word for the conclusions, I'm only adding the shots here as it would be boring just reading my text!

Dark shadow conditions..





Brighter backlit conditions and dark shadows.. focussed in different places but I'm looking at overall image feel not specifics!





Not very exciting I know but it's clear from the original files that there is very little difference, they do not process the same, white balance is different for one, you can't process one and copy to the other, wildly different if you do that. Printing 007 files at ISO 800 and they look completely amazing on my ipf6400 at 24 x 36, I can't print bigger here. I feel any differences are down to processing rather than what the camera is capturing.

I have taken to keeping wides on the 006, mainly because if I'm shooting landscapes I will tend top use a tripod, base ISO etc. and putting the 180 on the 007, walking around and portraits etc. the higher ISO is absolutely brilliant! A couple of portraits from last week (I haven't processed these in the updated LR so these are pre LR support) with the 007 at ISO 800..





And one at ISO 1600.



This may not give much info to most of you but maybe a few will find it interesting, nothing better than handling a camera and shooting what you like with it to help make your own mind up. For me, I will use either camera in normal conditions and the 007 in low light and be happy with files from both.

Cheers

Mat
 
M

mjr

Guest
Yup, the first of the 2 sets of images are 006. I will upload shots from the 24mm, 35mm and 70mm over the coming days if I can find anything interesting to shoot.

This is quite good, ISO 1600, 100% crop, no noise reduction in LR, very clean!

 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thank you for the images.
I did check out the S 007 2 weeks ago and did like it quite a bit.
In LR I found color profiles could use some improvement (greens seemed a little yellowish and oversaturated) but overall I found the color pretty good, and the higher ISO quality a real improvement...
But as a hobbyist at the moment I find the S006 prices too low and the Soo7 price too high that I will update now. I admit that I have been tempted. Specially since I can use ISO 400-1600 higher quite often.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, I heard that c1 works als well for S007 files.
 
M

mjr

Guest
If I had fewer contracts requiring low light work then I'd have no issue with staying with the 006 only, I have also found it quite lucrative to offer high quality video to my clients so for me there is a return.

I will keep both for sure, the 006 is just such a wonderful camera at what it does.

Mat
 
I will keep both for sure, the 006 is just such a wonderful camera at what it does.

Mat
Mat,

Would you mind expanding a little more on "just such a wonderful camera at what it does" versus buying the 007? I have an S2 that I could trade up for, but I'm still trying to figure out if the 007 is worth the difference in price, which is pretty substantial.

Thanks.
 

aDam007

New member
Mat,

Would you mind expanding a little more on "just such a wonderful camera at what it does" versus buying the 007? I have an S2 that I could trade up for, but I'm still trying to figure out if the 007 is worth the difference in price, which is pretty substantial.

Thanks.
I can sum it up in a few sentences. "The S2/S-006 feels/works like a MFD trapped in an SLR body. The S-007 is a HQ-DSLR"
To expand. It feels like you're using a Canon or Nikon. Rather then a Hassy or Phase. This is a good thing BTW.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Hi Photo lawyer

I didn't use the S2 for any great length of time, I borrowed one on a couple of occasions whilst trying to decide on how to spend my hard earned money!

The 006 functionally felt quite a bit ahead of the S2 which I found a pain for image review and things like that, the 006 also felt a lot faster. What I mean when I say "at what it does" is that at lower ISO or working on a tripod or especially for me, portraits, I think the smoothness and depth of the files is better than any other camera I have shot with, even the 007 at ISO 100 it is extremely close but as I have spent much more time with the 006 files they just have the edge and that is probably I feel down to processing.

Adam is right, the 007 is a different thing, it's a walk about, "high" ISO dream, I have been carrying it everywhere with auto ISO set to 3200 and can shoot in many more situations. For me it's a worthy upgrade in pretty much every aspect but it is in addition to the 006 expanding when I can shoot rather than replacing it.

Have you had chance to try one?

Mat
 
Thanks for the reply. I was able to pick up an 006 pretty cheaply earlier this year due to people jumping to the 007. But I have an S2, too, and have been wondering whether I basically create the same kit as you: an 006 and 007, by selling the S2. I have a few leftover M lenses that could probably make up the difference.

I don't have a Leica dealer anywhere near me so I usually need to just bite the bullet making Leica purchases. But they've all turned out well so that's not a real concern.

Given that the 006 is CCD and the 007 is CMOS, I've also wondered if I'd be doubling my post processing with the two different kinds of sensors. As you might have guessed, I'm just an enthusiast.
 
M

mjr

Guest
It's not the same processing but it seems better in the LR update. White balance is difference but easy to set, I'm growing to really like the 007 files.

Here's a quick edit from this afternoon, I've not used the 007 solely on a job before but turning up this afternoon I could see immediately that the 006 wasn't going to cut it without the tripod, I was carrying it but the client wasn't happy with me using it so I had to go for it with the 007, ISO800, 1/45th and f4 with the 24mm, it was very dark with bright yellow and blue tinted bulbs, thick smoke and dust and absolutely brilliant! I think the camera did really well and I'll be happy to show these to the client for sure.

 
Mat,

I really appreciate the pictures (this one and the number of others you've posted). It looks like Leica has done excellent work with the CMOS sensor; it doesn't appear to have the flatness or whatever you'd call it that you see in the other cameras. I might be doing an upcoming project in Haiti and the increased ISO would be extremely helpful. Now I've got to get somebody interested in a gently used S2.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I have an opinion on the "flatness" as with most things! I think people get carried away, just because cmos has loads of latitude in the shadows, doesn't mean you need to default to raising them all the time, I find that when the shadows come up the whole depth disappears and leads to that flat look, a lack of tonal difference throughout an image. The photograph above has masses of shadow detail, I can raise it a lot but it's not what I want from the scene, I like shadows to be shadows if that makes sense!

I think I can safely say that with a little processing these files are just as good as from the 006 but no way I could have taken this at ISO 800 on the 006 so it's a big win for me commercially. Obviously we all want different things from our cameras but for me it's pretty much perfect.

Good luck if you decide to go for it!

Mat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

anGy

Member
Impressive picture. The 24mm is a splendid lens too.
I'm not sure it's that simple regarding the CMOS files flatness. I never could get the same natural effect with the D810 or Sony A7r than with my S2. I could endlessly play with shadows, global contrast, clarity, curves combinations but never got the right midtones, too flat or starting to look coarse. This is the main reason why I'm very curiously with S2/S006 vs S007 comparisons.
 
M

mjr

Guest
You are right, the files do have more depth than my nikon files for sure but it's still possible to lose the tonal differences and depth by messing around with raising shadows and crushing highlights, we all process differently and like different things and it's entirely possible to overwork any file and make it look flat, very difficult to add depth to a file that doesn't have any to start with.

It's all good fun!

Mat
 

JMacD

New member
There were enough S users asking about ISO performance so I did a quick and dirty comparison.
ISO 1600 on the 006 vs ISO 6400 on the 007

I shot at night, not on a tripod with my 006 with 30-90 zoom and the 007 with the same lens.

To get the shot with the 006 I shot handheld 30mm at 1/15, 1600 iso, f3.5 hardly optimal.

With the 007 I shot 30mm at 1/60, 6400, f3.5.

Then I did adjustments to flavor in LR which can be seen before and after.
The "after" is noted on the photo, the before is on the left of the after.

Then I did a extreme crop on both the adjusted 006 and 007.

Not only does the 007 allow one to use the zoom at night, but the file is cleaner at 6400 on the 007 than at 1600 iso on the 006. Most 006 users would limit the iso to under 800

I hope the attached photo is understandable ?

Jack
 

Attachments

anGy

Member
The S007 @ 6400 looks way better than the 006 @ 1600. Looks like you could have made the 1600 vs 12800 iso comparison and still get comparable shots from the S007.
The S006 file also looks darker @ 1600 - f1/15 than the S007 @ 6400 - f1/60, another advantage for the newer body.

Curious to know if you can get the same beautiful files out of the S007 compared to those from the CCD at base iso, what's your take ?
 

JMacD

New member
The S007 @ 6400 looks way better than the 006 @ 1600. Looks like you could have made the 1600 vs 12800 iso comparison and still get comparable shots from the S007.
The S006 file also looks darker @ 1600 - f1/15 than the S007 @ 6400 - f1/60, another advantage for the newer body.

Curious to know if you can get the same beautiful files out of the S007 compared to those from the CCD at base iso, what's your take ?
AnGy,
At lower ISO levels both cameras provide fantastic files. As stated elsewhere, it would surprise me if you could tell the difference on a screen. I have not compared prints. There are others who could pick out the difference on the M9 vs the 240 in a Farkas test, but once you go through LR, I don't see a difference in normal shots. But the 007 does have more DR at all ISO if you need that, and for some shots, I do, as well as higher ISO as demonstrated here vs the 006. On the 006 above 600 ISO you are on a hope and a prayer. As a DMF the 006 is terrific. Most people would not think of a DMF for night shots hand held. Now they can with the 007. Of course most photographers would shoot that shot with the S35mm at 2.5, rather than the S zoom at 3.5. In fact, I think my next comparison will be using the 35mm on the 006 vs the zoom set at 35 on the 007.

BTW. I might to the comparison again using a tripod. I think there may have been just a bit of camera movement in both shots but that was pixel peeping. I was just doing a quick and dirty test for myself. It made me comfortable to shoot at 6400 from here on out, and it has real world usefulness. It means I can walk around with the zoom not only in the day, but at night too. I still wish I could take a 30 minute exposure, but for that I guess I would need a SL for that length of exposure.
 
M

mjr

Guest
I've shot a lot of aurora stuff with the 24mm at 3.5 and have found a marked improvement at ISO800 compared with higher, pushing in post is much better but these are up to 8 second shots rather than shorter handheld speeds. It's really excellent for that sort of thing.

At base ISO I still have a feeling that the 006 produces a better file, especially shooting in to the sun, smoother cleaner highlights but it is very close and in isolation I doubt there'd be anything to notice. The files at higher ISO's are really good, retaining loads of depth, rich colour and detail.

As said, I think it's a massive increase in performance if you want to shoot in lower light but for base ISO, tripod shots then I don't think there's very much in it at all. The 007 is much much faster in operation though and for landscape use the DOF scale is excellent.

Mat
 
Top