Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 75

Thread: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

  1. #1
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

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    You know I have a bias (as I own 2 S bodies and all the S lenses ) but I really don t see the handicap of an out of date and too small sensor .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

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,295
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    I think that if you are an existing user of the S system, then leaving it for another MF alternative probably does not make much sense, because while the S is lowest on the totem poll for megapixels at the moment, the other qualities of the system are very good, and it remains one of the very best camera systems that one could use from an overall perspective...the body is great to use, the lenses are all top quality and perform beautifully at all apertures while maintaining a lovely rendering and color. The camera is still fairly compact for medium format, the battery life is great, the color is great, it uses a commonly available and very useful processing software (while also being open source in its RAW files) and Leica's support is excellent (I know this always varies for different users, but for me it has been extremely good).

    Observing the camera from outside the system however, and it becomes a harder sell...the price to performance ratio in the body is now more difficult to justify, since other cheaper cameras surpass it in resolution, and the higher end competition is in some cases over 60mp greater in resolution. I think Leica decided they would focus on speed, ISO and video as opposed to resolution, which is a fair tactic, but I think it backfired a bit (at least it did for me), as many photographers are more likely to use a medium format camera in cases where they need resolution, rather than one in where they need the speed and ISO. It would be one thing if Leica had stayed with the lower end MF cameras in resolution by being at around 50mp while still doing great video and high ISO's etc, but they remained at 37.5mp where they have been for seven years. It is great that it can do these things, but video is better served by dedicated cinema cameras or video-centric cameras like those from Sony and Panasonic, while high ISO and high speed photography is better served by 35mm pro DSLR's. Meanwhile, cameras like the Sony A7Rii have higher resolution AND better video characteristics in a smaller sensor and a dramatically smaller and cheaper form factor. So the current 007 is a fantastic camera that can perform as a jack of all trades, but it is generally outdone by other cameras in any given aspect.

    Personally, I would have preferred if they had gone with a higher resolution and low to medium ISO image quality rather than focus on FPS, video and handling speed, they were already good enough for me in the S006...I would have rather had a 60-70mp 006 than the 007 as it is now. I think Leica is aware they cannot sell many of their cameras and lenses if they are being visibly outclassed in resolution while being more or less tied in ISO performance. My hope is that they surprise us with an update at Photokina, but I am not hopeful...I think Leica is usually fairly resistant to rushing things or making rash moves, so I would expect that the S will be a bit out of date for another year or two, when hopefully they will straighten things out in the 008.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  3. #3
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Thanks Stuart .....

    I am not trying to convince myself but rather to better understand the perspective of other MF shooters on the Sony 51MP alternatives .

    This Sony 51MP isn t the 60-80MP alternative we hoped that Leica would “stuff” into the S . Its only 51mp and the format you use matters . If you want 4 x 3 the difference is huge over the S sensor (at 4 X 3) ..end of discussion...however if you want 2x3 they are the same size . Is the consensus that the Sony sensor is significantly better than the Leica ? Is the 51mp sensor in the X1D the same one they introduced into the Phase system well over two years ago ?

    I keep hearing Leica s sensor is old and too small . Not sure its either .

    I think most using or considering MF alternatives can weigh the more obvious differences between the systems(price,size,viewing,flexibility,lens system etc ) . But the assumption on the superiority of the Sony sensor (which in general I have agreed with ) may not be as relevant ..when you consider that the 51MP alternatives are “cropped sensors” as well .

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,615
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    I wonder how much better IQ can get - how big differences between several MF can be?

    For me the S sensor is so good that I dont worry if other sensor are even slightly better.

    I think user interface, available lenses, handling make the bigger difference between systems.

    I find the x1d attractive for its small size.
    Phase backs offer the flexibility to be used with SLR and techcams.
    The S has the advantage of relativly small sized body, fast handling, fast lenses with very consistent IQ, weatherproof, and you can adapt many other lenses (which is not so important for me).

  5. #5
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    My totally subjective and biased view, not having used a 50MP CMOS sensor:

    What distinguishes the M are its rangefinder, its handling, and its lenses. What distinguishes the S are its viewfinder, its handling, and its lenses. In both systems, the sensors are good enough to support the main attractions , but aren't a main attraction. For me, that's as it should be. Sensors are easier to quantity, and so get more press and mine-is-better-than-yours, but assuming they're good enough, shouldn't be the first consideration.

    What I'm getting at is - before the image hits the sensor, the camera has to be used by the photographer and the light has to pass through the lens. If the first two steps don't make a great image, the sensor can't save it. A gross oversimplification, but that's the idea.

    Obviously if you need something that only sensor X can do, you get sensor X. And if you don't use a camera in a way that fits with the S's strengths, then those qualities are wasted on you. but I think Leica's priorities make for a good balance. (Of course I'd be happy with a better sensor, but not at the expense of the S's more appealing and unique characteristics. )

    Not answering your question, I'm afraid,

    Matt
    Last edited by MGrayson; 9th July 2016 at 15:46.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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 ..
    I have a number of friends who moved from larger sensors and technical cameras to the S.


    The reason was partly the sensor but to a major extent was related to the glass. Nothing
    came close with regards to the final image quality ... no not the sharpest not the most contrast
    but a irreducible quality of depth and bokeh that defied description ... yet was visible.

    Micro contrast subtle tonality and emotive presence in excess ...

    Yes you can get more pixels ... sharper pictures ... but none ... none of them have the
    window on reality that the S brings to the table.

    Loved my H3D 39 II on the Alpa ... but, forgive the comparison ... the S is akin to listening to Yo Yo Ma
    so subtle and nuanced that you are transported to a different level of contemplation.

    Michelangelo and Leonardo could do it with graphite ... or chalk ...

    You know it when you see it ... rationalization and to a certain extent justification is unwarranted as the
    pictures speak for themselves.

    Okay ... a bit off the normal disputation and confrontation mode of most post these days.

    Just saying ... Leica needs a 120Mp sensor that is a sensitive and evocative as the present one.

    Bob
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Good points ...what got me thinking was preparing my strategy for this years Photokina (almost an Olympic Sport here at GetDpi ) .

    When the S 006 was introduced at a mere 40MP ..it looked small compared to other MF systems . HB and Phase were at 60MPs going to 80MPs with their CCD backs . Certainly serious landscape photographers (not me ) would be underwhelmed by the Leica IQ even withe the uber Leica S lenses . Pentax came thru with the 654D and made the prices of all three big MF systems look crazy .

    But then a transition to CMOS started first with Phase then with HB and Pentax ...all adopting a cropped sensor 51MP CMOS sensor . Leica countered with a 40MP CMOS sensor and everyone balked ...too small get with the program Leica ..missing the boat . The new X1D is a prime example ..image quality of the H6D ...must be terrific (I agree) . But these aren’t the 60-80MP sensors we had when making comparisons a few years back.

    I know that you should t pick your system based on the sensor performance ..it has to be taken in the context of a total system . Preferences and evaluations will often reflect preferred subject matter and finances .

    What if the S 007 costs $12K ?

  8. #8
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post

    I know that you should t pick your system based on the sensor performance ..it has to be taken in the context of a total system . Preferences and evaluations will often reflect preferred subject matter and finances .

    What if the S 007 costs $12K ?
    The S 007 is down to 13.5 most places ... a negligible difference over a few years ... but a number of very prescient photographers have gone back to the S 006 ... color palate not
    to their preference.

    The X1D ticks a lot of boxes ... but no S 100 S 45 S 70 ... the S has a little more weight and at present a huge increase in MOJO.

    JMHO

    Bob
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    259
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    I've owned and/or shot with all the MF solutions. The Sony 50mp chip is quantifiably "better" than the 007, but it's a difference that for me is negligible in actual photographs produced. The S system overall is still compelling and for my high MP needs have gone down (hence my scaling back from an IQ 180 and tech cam solution). In particular I like the shooting experience of the S, the mirror slap is well damped and generally I feel the files require less work in post to get the colors and tones to feel right.

    The S is right now a steal of a system today if you buy used (and can be satisfied with a CCD sensor). I couldn't sell my 006 for 5k for months and I've picked up a bunch of the lenses for a fraction of their cost new.

    The new Hassy looks rather compelling, keeping my on it.

    One more thing I'll add is that IMO, feels like Leica is asleep at the wheel with the S system. No significant lens releases in a while and it took them forever to bring the 007 to market. I know the SL has its fans but I wish Leica had devoted those resources to the S. A mirror less S companion to the 006 and 007 would be fantastic. Maybe with competition it will get spurred.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Morning!

    I have an opinion based on being an ex-S (sounds a lot like excess!) user of the 006 and the 007, I had to make a change from the system to a tech camera for a specific contract that I wanted to win so went to P1 but not a cmos sensor, the IQ260. I take a lot of time and effort to understand exactly what I need and more importantly what my clients need and can say categorically that resolution over 37mp is not a necessity for my clients or my personal work, it may well be for others but it's not for me, I have display stands printed at 6m+ wide from 007 files that look superb, they aren't art but that's not what the clients want, they just want eye catching images that tell their story.

    I am not personally interested in how much "better" a camera is, whatever that means if what it is better at doesn't impact on what I want to do, I shoot 95% at base ISO, that's just a fact for me, I shot a few events with the 007 at ISO800 and loved the output, my shots were used over other photographers there at the time, not because they were cleaner in the shadows or any other technical reasons but because I delivered a fraction of the shots of other photographers but they all looked in the same style and all captured the key points in the evening and they looked good. I don't have clients who say, the shot was great but when I pushed the shadows 100% they were noisier than these other shots, they want me to deliver a finished article that they can just use.

    I loved the form factor of the S, coming from the Nikons, the body was hardly any bigger but felt lovely and chunky in my hand, it felt great to use it, the XF I have now is a beast in comparison and not as easy to carry about all day for sure, for me the S is the perfect size, others would disagree I'm sure. Output wise, now I have 60mp I have a lot more flexibility for sure, the files from the IQ260 are lovely and I haven't once taken it off base ISO having shot lots of jobs with it, I have bigger files but I don't rate the output as better than the S in any other way. I don't have the new blue ring lenses from Phase but the previous generation schneider and phase lenses are not even in the same ball park build wise, they are nasty compared with the S but honestly, the 80mm LS lens is superb and I tend to use that the most, the quality of the files with that lens is superb. I now have 35mm, 55mm, 80mm and 210mm, all were very very cheap and all work well enough, cheaper kit than the S but there isn't the consistency I loved across the S range.

    The biggest thing for me is the optical viewfinder and that is the reason I am not interested in the new Hasselblad, regardless of cost, it is just a personal thing but the S and XF both have stunning viewfinders, I shoot day and night and have never once felt the need to have an evf, it is just not something I understand, if the optical viewfinder shows me my shutter speed, aperture and ISO and a big bright view of what I am looking at then that is all I need, I don't want a compromised view of the scene just so I can zoom in to 100% when manual focussing, it doesn't make sense for me personally. Sure it is always nicer to get the same image quality in a smaller package but I never felt the S was too big anyway so it's solving a problem that didn't exist for me and at the same time compromising on the viewfinder, I appreciate others feel the opposite. The XF is a big camera for sure but it has the flexibility of using the back on a tech cam so I am making calculated compromises on size for flexibility so that works for me.

    Ultimately only the individual can decide what suits them best, I have my checklist, optical viewfinder, hand holdable for long periods of time, great base ISO, same image look over wide focal range, reliable and allows me to get on with it. Shutter speed, ISO and aperture all changeable without moving camera from my eye, an easy way to lock up the mirror and quick card formatting, that's all I want, the XF is the simplest camera I have ever used and does everything I want without fuss, it's easier to use than the S even but if the opportunity arose, I would definitely go back to an S kit. We all want different things, if I wanted slightly bigger files and the ability to shoot at high ISO then I'd look at the 'blad or more likely a IQ150 so I could keep an optical viewfinder but as I know what my clients need, I can just get on with shooting with what I have!

    There's no right or wrong, the hardest thing is to understand what you need and then buy to that, not all the bells and whistles that don't impact your work.

    Have a nice Sunday!

    Mat
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,615
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    What I would like to add is that going from CCD to CMOS in regards of S006 to S007 was a sensor advantage which made it worth to upgrade (for my use, a lot of handhold and also inside and in lower light sometimes). Even though I upgraded at a point of time when one could get better prices for the S006 than today.
    I have use a Leica M9 and M type 240 over months side by side to make my personal conclusion about CCD vs CMOS and for me the benefits of CMOS are more than the eventual disadvantages.

    In regards of not seeing fast enough new products in the S System...I dont agree. If you see what a nearly complete system of lenses Leica developped in just a few years I find it impressive. I just miss 2 nice T/S lenses.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    I cannot compare directly, as I have not had other digital MF systems. But when I print 50*70 cm and compare with others, I have nothing to complain about.

    I am another happy S user, started with S2, then 006 (which would have loved to keep, maybe I buy one cheap now ;-), then 007. Main reason to upgrade was high ISO which extends the usage envelope of the camera because I can stay at sufficient shutter speed even in lower light situations.

    I read the news a about the Hblad, great for innovation and pushing all manufacturers, but not a camera for me. Light is great, but inferior EVF, no weather sealing (?), another lens system

    My main arguments for staying put is:
    - mpix, for my type of shooting don't think I would see much difference at 50
    - optics, great, all lenses close to "Noctilux" at full aperture (except the zoom)
    - zoom makes it very versatile, walk-around (used in Havana old town for a full week)
    - perfect ergonomics
    - very versatile, a true general purpose camera
    - love the OVF, best finder I have ever had
    - weather sealing - my camera was drenched in wet snow only a week ago in Norwegian mountains
    - generally fast and responsive, better than 006
    - fast and precise AF (after latest FW update)

    That said, I expect Leica to move to 50-60 mpix, just for the competition in the market, few people can compare actual IQ, they read specs.
    - ErlingMM
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  13. #13
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    No one has mentioned the 4 : 3 aspect format of the Sony 51MP sensor . The S 007 has the 2:3 aspect common to FF systems. I ve never used 4:3 but spent many years with the HB V system 1:1. If you have a preference for 4:3 or even plan on cropping to square 1:1 ....the Sony is materially larger .

    But...if you plan on cropping to 2:3 ..the Sony and Leica sensors are the same size. The Leica has larger pixels 6um verse 5.3um for the Sony .

    Is this a legitimate perspective ? How can the Leica sensor not be competitive ...at least on paper ....with the 51MP Sony cropped sensor ?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    A reminder about David Farkas' discussion of why Leica stayed with 37,5 mpx, with some interesting points about sensor design:

    » Why Leica is staying at 37.5MP for the S (Typ 007)
    Last edited by erlingmm; 10th July 2016 at 09:33.
    - ErlingMM

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Cropping

    For me, I can only decide on the final crop size once back home with my large monitor or sometimes on the road with my MBP.

    So I crop for each unique image and that is never a static size for me. I start with the biggest image possible (for me and my budget) and then crop from there, although sometimes I do not crop at all from a 4:3.

    I am sure others will have differing opinions as we are all unique like each image we produce.

  16. #16
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    I can't help feeling that this discussion is like trying to decide what car to buy based on what tires it has. Heck, even the engine - I've driven very fast cars that felt like elephants and slower cars that felt like eager puppies.

    Fun reading, though.

    --Matt

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    I agree it's a weird discussion, I am not actually sure of the point, buy what you want. I don't see the world in 4:3, 2:3, 1:1 or any other multiple, each image tells me what it wants to be, I don't care what the sensor ratio is, makes no difference to me, matters about as much as the resolution above 36mp.

    Mat

  18. #18
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Roger, I shot several MF systems (CCD & CMOS) before I settled on the S(006). I think it comes down to three things: 1) form factor - the S is really a large DSLR therefore it feels good in the hand immediately, 2) 6 micron pixel pitch - yeah, I can make CMOS match CCD color, but it takes more work and there is still that little bit of "something" missing, 3) S glass. I also have a D810 w/numerous good lenses including Otus and I have listened to those extolling the virtues of stitching, blah, blah, blah. The only lens I had shot which bettered an Otus was Rodenstock (barely). That was before I shot the S. I'm not even sure where my D810 is at the moment .

    I think the viewfinder is nice, but the Hasselblad H series is very similar.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I agree it's a weird discussion, I am not actually sure of the point, buy what you want. I don't see the world in 4:3, 2:3, 1:1 or any other multiple, each image tells me what it wants to be, I don't care what the sensor ratio is, makes no difference to me, matters about as much as the resolution above 36mp.

    Mat
    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 .

  20. #20
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Cropping

    For me, I can only decide on the final crop size once back home with my large monitor or sometimes on the road with my MBP.

    So I crop for each unique image and that is never a static size for me. I start with the biggest image possible (for me and my budget) and then crop from there, although sometimes I do not crop at all from a 4:3.

    I am sure others will have differing opinions as we are all unique like each image we produce.
    Let me speak to the importance of aspect ratio..in your experience . Would you agree that you want to compose in a manner that optimizes the use of the frame ? Cropping to a different aspect ratio would then involve cutting down the file to a new dimension and losing the pixels outside your crop.

    If you are happy composing and capturing using the more common MF 4:3 then you should be getting all that your system can deliver (to work with). If you had a Leica S or most any FF system ..you would be working with 2:3 . Again composition and capture at the dimensions that maximize the use of the pixels .

    But the penalty in usable MP can be great if you frequently crop a 4:3 to a 2:3 or a 2:3 to a 4:3.
    In fact its enough to make the 51Mp sensor file much much larger than the 2:3 or essentially the same . How can that not be relevant in a market where we parse the difference between 50 and 40 .

    For the record ......of course its not the only thing considered but to be honest ..until I saw Diglloyds blog post on aspect ratios ...I had t considered it a factor .

    2nd for the record ....not in any way asking advice on what to buy rather just trying to understand if I missed something in comparing the sensors .

    - - - Updated - - -

    My apology for not making it clear in the initial post that my focus was on the sensors .

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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.

  22. #22
    Member bab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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.
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,615
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    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).

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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
    http://matrichardson.com/
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member JohnBrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    466
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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 .
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  27. #27
    Senior Member vieri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Ginesio, Italy
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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
    Vieri Bottazzini | Leica Ambassador | ABIPP EP
    VIERI BOTTAZZINI PHOTOGRAPHER
    VIERI BOTTAZZINI WORKSHOPS
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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

    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?

    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
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,298
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Thumbs up Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    We all sure love anal-izing stuff

    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?

    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  30. #30
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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 .
    Roger Dunham
    http://rogerdunham.com/
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  31. #31
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Roger,

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



    --Matt
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,615
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    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 .
    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.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  33. #33
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Jupiter FL/Atlanta GA
    Posts
    2,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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 !
    Roger Dunham
    http://rogerdunham.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Shanghai
    Posts
    157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    San Francisco / California
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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...ter-of-iceland

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    643
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    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)
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    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
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    453
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    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?

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Marc
    A bit off topic, but which Monochrom do you have? MM1 or MM2? TIA

  42. #42
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by Phocus View Post
    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 sent my M to repair twice and got it back 4 or 5 days later
    Leica M

  43. #43
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Marc
    A bit off topic, but which Monochrom do you have? MM1 or MM2? TIA
    The M9 MM, which is the CCD version. High ISO is fine.

  44. #44
    Member Seascape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    The M9 MM, which is the CCD version. High ISO is fine.
    Love my Monochrom V1, I was recently offered a mint 246 at a very attractive price as a trade up.
    I said to the salesman (that I bought the mint V1 from just a year ago at a clear out price) "why would I do that, the V1 is the closest thing to my M4 (bought in 1970) and Plus X"…..it's perfect just the way it is for my type of shooting
    Last edited by Seascape; 29th July 2016 at 16:59.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by erick.boileau View Post
    I sent my M to repair twice and got it back 4 or 5 days later
    I sent my R 280/4 APO for repair almost four months ago and have not yet received an estimate for the repair cost. Today I spoke with Kevin at Leica USA and he acknowledged receiving the lens and told me it had to be sent to Germany for repair. And I thought four months' turnaround (for the lens' initial service some years ago) was slow. I expect that after I approve the estimate the lens will return six months later (like the most recent "service") and that I'll either have to re-connect the aperture linkage myself or complain of missing caps. Leica's service is terrible.

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    North Sweden
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Morning

    I'm not sure if being in the EU helps but I had my fair share of issues with S kit and found the service to be excellent. Even though I live in the middle of nowhere by the Arctic circle, every time I had a problem I got a loan body sent to me within 48 hours for the duration of repairs, I had a problem with a 24mm I bought with poor performance, they sent me a new body, lens and also sent me loaners of all my other lenses so they could check whether it was my camera or the lens and check all the others too. Sure, it shouldn't be necessary for kit that costs as much as it does but I can't complain. The guy in charge of my area was rubbish and he even had the nerve to tell me that I shouldn't check up on my kit because the guys at HQ where doing more than could reasonably be expected, I pointed out that I don't expect anything beyond paying for a piece of equipment and it working, anything they had to do beyond that was their issue not mine, he apologised.

    Having a good dealer really helps, I also found that marking the box of kit I was sending in with a big red "P" for professional meant that it got dealt with quicker. It's a shame to read about such poor service, not on at all.

    Mat

  47. #47
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Apparently Leica service is extremely inconsistent. I've had issues with my S2P, and subsequently almost all of my CS lenses. A failure rate that caused trepidation every time I went to use the S on a job.

    Other than travel distance, it should not make any difference where you are located.

    I just received an e-mail blast titled ... "Leica SL and S: The Perfect Professional Tools" ... So, Leica is touting some of its products as professional choices, but seem unable to grasp what that means for professional after purchase service.

    In the USA Kelsey Haines used to be the S specialist, now John Kreidler is her replacement ... sort of ... it isn't clear if he works for Leica or is a sub-contracted ombudsman. Both Kelsey and John have been very helpful, but it has proven to be of no avail when it comes to getting defective products fixed in a reasonably timely manner.

    In past, I availed myself of Leica's S loaner policy IF they had the product in question available, which did help to be sure.

    Not everything I own is critical need, the body and a few key lenses are essential but I can manage without some things. So, for example, I sent in a CS180 for the failed AF issue and didn't press for a loaner after I was supposedly fast tracked on that repair. That lens went off to Leica USA mid-May with an official repair request attached, and was signed for at the Leica loading dock according to UPS Tracking. Not one peep since. No acknowledgement from Leica USA or Germany. No e-mail, no letter, nothing. My $7,000+ lens is God knows where and will be returned God knows when. Frankly, it is unnerving.

    I had an issue with the S charger, they sent me a demo replacement until a new one could be had ... that was 3 months ago and the new one never arrived, and not one word of communication. BTW, while the S(006) is warrantied for 3 years, the accessories are not, including the charger. That fact must be buried in fine print somewhere.

    Sigh.

    - Marc

  48. #48
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by mjr View Post
    I was sending in with a big red "P" for professional meant that it got dealt with quicker.
    Exactly ! you have to prove that your are professional , I gave my VAT number, and asked before how long it will take and which day I should send it
    but first of all I have asked to Wetzlar directly by email or phone (generally to Gabriele Arnold) ... and I live in Germany (130km from Wetzlar)
    (on my experience only of course !) I find Leica's support very good and friendly, they have coded my 135 APO for free in one week when the date for coding without charge was one month over
    Last edited by erick.boileau; 30th July 2016 at 03:28.
    Leica M

  49. #49
    Member erick.boileau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Germany / France
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    I sent my R 280/4 APO for repair almost four months ago and have not yet received an estimate for the repair cost. Today I spoke with Kevin at Leica USA and he acknowledged receiving the lens and told me it had to be sent to Germany for repair. And I thought four months' turnaround (for the lens' initial service some years ago) was slow. I expect that after I approve the estimate the lens will return six months later (like the most recent "service") and that I'll either have to re-connect the aperture linkage myself or complain of missing caps. Leica's service is terrible.
    If I had such a bad experience with Leica I shall sell all my gear at once I think
    Last edited by erick.boileau; 30th July 2016 at 03:27.
    Leica M

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    453
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Comparing the Leica S 007 to other MF alternatives

    Quote Originally Posted by erick.boileau View Post
    If I had such a bad experience with Leica I shall sell all my gear at once I think
    This thread is getting me concerned since the MF community is far too small for this to be an anecdote of "people only talk about their gear online when there's a problem with it".
    For something made by a German company that supposedly prides itself on making immaculately crafted devices, you'd think that your gear shouldn't break at all, right? or is this really just the horror stories thread?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •