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!

Leica s Sensor Strategy ???

airfrogusmc

Well-known member
Intent and tool for the job and all that. I shoot mostly street with an original MM. It is really good for that type of work. If I were to be doing landscape, which I may return to at some point in my life depending on where I retire, I would shoot with an 8X10 view camera and I would return to the zone system. When I was in college studying photography I had a couple of semesters of the zone system and did the tests had access to a densitometer etc. If I were to retire to a place that would lend itself to that type of work I would get an old Deardorff and do the tests again.

I find the sensors now for Leica M and what most should probably use them for perfectly capable. In many ways the digital world has really brought out the one size fits all mind set driven by the big two.

And I shoot Leica because it is a TRUE rangefinder and I by far prefer that and all of this equipment today is perfectly capable to capture what you are seeing, as Ernst has once said, you just have to see. I shot some with fuji before i pulled the trigger on Leica M and I pulled the trigger on Leica M.
 
Last edited:
Intent and tool for the job and all that. I shoot mostly street with an original MM. It is really good for that type of work. If I were to be doing landscape, which I may return to at some point in my life depending on where I retire, I would shoot with an 8X10 view camera and I would return to the zone system. When I was in college studying photography I had a couple of semesters of the zone system and did the tests had access to a densitometer etc. If I were to retire to a place that would lend itself to that type of work I would get an old Deardorff and do the tests again.

I find the sensors now for Leica M and what most should probably use them for perfectly capable. In many ways the digital world has really brought out the one size fits all mind set driven by the big two.

And I shoot Leica because it is a TRUE rangefinder and I by far prefer that and all of this equipment today is perfectly capable to capture what you are seeing, as Ernst has once said, you just have to see. I shot some with fuji before i pulled the trigger on Leica M and I pulled the trigger on Leica M.
I can mirror a lot of what you say. I recently upgraded my scanners to some dedicated models for 35mm and 120. For my personal work, fine art, and some commercial projects I've basically returned to film and lost all interested in the digital horse race. I sold my M240 and bought an M4. I will shoot Nikon for my pro work because it's simply just fine. I always prefer my film output, process, and archival properties to working digitally.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
What is both interesting and consistent are the comments about the existing sensor sizes are enough for me . I would expect that they are for most everyone posting . The S 006 at 37.5 is MY MF solution and I think its best image quality I ve ever been able to produce . As my friends tell me ..spend more time on your lighting and skip the constant gear upgrading . I know they are correct . Certainly the M 240 has reached a point where image quality is more than sufficient for street and travel work .

Not sure where the SL fits ..it seems to be the multi purpose solution where both stills and video are requested by the client . They could be at the sweet spot of all the requirements ..more MPs might not be better for everything .

So what would prompt you to further invest in Leica gear ...surely that should be Leica s strategy ...

The best case scenario is that you don t need an upgrade ..in fact ...your gear is in demand on the used market ...but the new gear offers something you would like to add to your capabilities . I really enjoyed my M8 s like no other camera before ....but I fought for my place in line on the M9 s and they were better .
 

fotografz

Well-known member
What is both interesting and consistent are the comments about the existing sensor sizes are enough for me . I would expect that they are for most everyone posting . The S 006 at 37.5 is MY MF solution and I think its best image quality I ve ever been able to produce . As my friends tell me ..spend more time on your lighting and skip the constant gear upgrading . I know they are correct . Certainly the M 240 has reached a point where image quality is more than sufficient for street and travel work .

Not sure where the SL fits ..it seems to be the multi purpose solution where both stills and video are requested by the client . They could be at the sweet spot of all the requirements ..more MPs might not be better for everything .

So what would prompt you to further invest in Leica gear ...surely that should be Leica s strategy ...

The best case scenario is that you don t need an upgrade ..in fact ...your gear is in demand on the used market ...but the new gear offers something you would like to add to your capabilities . I really enjoyed my M8 s like no other camera before ....but I fought for my place in line on the M9 s and they were better .
At my point in life further investments in any camera gear are carefully thought through (compared to my more reckless days of experimentation and damned the cost).

My Leica investments have been made.

S(006); CS35, CS45, CS70, S100, CS120/Macro, CS180. In this set I would only consider selling the 35 to secure a 30mm.

M9MM; 21/1.4ASPH, 28/2ASPH, 35/1.4ASPH, 75/2ASPH, 90/2.8. In this set I would like to eventually re-add a 50/1.4ASPH which I love on the MM.

What I really hope is that Leica make further investments in me after 40+ years of unbroken loyalty.

Fix their mistakes, improve service, and keep the cameras current in terms of firmware (like tethered ability for the S2, SE, S(006) which is always at least an OS generation behind).


Historically, part of the Leica mystique was that their products were long term investments. For the most part, they historically never were on the cutting edge of technology. Optical and mechanical precision with attendant longevity were their hallmarks.

Now that sensor tech has reached a point where many experienced photographers understand that it is enough, perhaps it is conceivable to once again keep a Leica longer.

Perhaps there are technological improvements that can enhance current products without forcing obsolescence?

- Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
As a someone who shoors handhold mostly (because I prefer it and feel more "free") and without "artificial" light it has been worth to go to the s007 cmos sensor. It has been an advantage to shoot inside handhold, and I also can have exposure times short, or extend the DOF a little if I feel I want to.
So this technical step did indeed have a benefit for my photography, I now can use the S where I had to use a different camera before.

Interestingly I also rebought a M9 and a S006 (my own which I had sold but for a lower price ;) ) because at some point I thought to remember that my CCD files were more beautiful. However today I am not sure any more if the difference is allways in favor for ccd, I even think in certain light the cmos handles colors better (but I agree in certain light the M9 and S006 give colors and a look which are hard to beat). But in the end I prefer the handling, speed flexibility and DR of the M262 and the S007. So here is another important factor besides sensor: handling speed and responsiveness.

But saying resolution is enough and that our todays cameras are all we need I do know that for many it will be hard when the next version comes out.
 

algrove

Well-known member
What I really hope is that Leica make further investments in me after 40+ years of unbroken loyalty.

Fix their mistakes, improve service, and keep the cameras current in terms of firmware (like tethered ability for the S2, SE, S(006) which is always at least an OS generation behind).- Marc
Hope seldom works to one's advantage with Leica. I gave up on them (as just about every friend shooting Leica that I know) and decided an XT-2 was going to be just fine for my street, portrait work. My Landscape work is still in the hands of MF and I do not mean a small sized sensor either. Loved my 645Z sensor, but decided to move up.

I now believe that too many put too much stock in the Leica lens advantage. That was the case years ago, but now one does not have to look far to find Leica M lens equals or even S lens comparables for that matter.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hope seldom works to one's advantage with Leica. I gave up on them (as just about every friend shooting Leica that I know) and decided an XT-2 was going to be just fine for my street, portrait work. My Landscape work is still in the hands of MF and I do not mean a small sized sensor either. Loved my 645Z sensor, but decided to move up.

I now believe that too many put too much stock in the Leica lens advantage. That was the case years ago, but now one does not have to look far to find Leica M lens equals or even S lens comparables for that matter.
For my eyes I still like a lot what I see from Leica lenses (and sensors/color) compared to other options.
In the end everybody makes his own conclusions and I think its great that we have such nice options today.
 

Bernard

Member
I will second that. Having moved from competitive lens systems (Zeiss/Hasselblad and Mamiya/Phase), the S lenses are a cut above. It's not a subtle difference, it jumps-out at you when reviewing files.

The downside is that it's stepped-up my schedule to get more S lenses. It's hard to run a mix-and-match set when the new lenses are so much better.
 

vieri

Well-known member
... the S lenses are a cut above. It's not a subtle difference, it jumps-out at you when reviewing files. ...
This is very true, and I think it's evident to everyone who is using the S system, and even more to people such as Bernard (or myself, and many others here, such as Marc, etc.) that compared them with competitor systems' lenses. True: Leica S glass is fantastic, period. True: the S's sensor is great for most applications, and it's Mp count is enough for most user.

There is a danger in this situation, though, and it's that Leica knows all the above as well. I am sure they are aware about how good their lenses are, and I am sure that a simple market analysis will tell them that 37.5 Mp is pretty much Ok for the vast majority of users. The danger is simply that they'll sit on this for too long, delaying development of the next S FW or of the next S body for too long. You'll say, if the existent is enough, why should they ever bother? Well, for one because it's enough for MOST users but not ALL; second, because traveling on horses was fast enough before the car appeared, and the car was fast enough before planes, etc. Third, because competitors are not asleep, see X1D, Fuji, etc. and market shares can be lost much quicker than they can be regained. There is room for improvement in the S body / sensor. Areas lacking:

- Real long exposures are missing, add them to make the S a true landscape camera (it has everything else needed, weather sealing, small size / weight for MF, lenses, etc);
- Some simple UI fixes / improvements, such as direct exposure compensation on the top wheel when in A mode, and the like; I guess making the SL and the S user interfaces as similar and consistent as possible;
- A higher Mp count version, keeping the 007 as the "speed" version (a-la Nikon s and x different versions of the same body, one built for speed / one for resolution);
- Cleaner files, no banding, no artefacts, at high ISO and in long exposures;
- Working with Profoto or Elinchrom or both on better flash integration;
- Better design / production control to avoid issues such as the AF motor one;

and more. Just off the top of my head. Some require hardware changes, some just a FW update, some involve partnering with other players in the photo gear arena, but they will indicate a strong commitment on Leica's part to the S system, and the will to stay ahead of the pack in the MF arena. Oh yes, and more sales, too... ;)

Just m 0.2, as always. best,

Vieri
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I will second that. Having moved from competitive lens systems (Zeiss/Hasselblad and Mamiya/Phase), the S lenses are a cut above. It's not a subtle difference, it jumps-out at you when reviewing files.

The downside is that it's stepped-up my schedule to get more S lenses. It's hard to run a mix-and-match set when the new lenses are so much better.
I will triple that.

Leica doesn't make it easy to love them, but the images from Leica M & S glass speak for themselves.

Interestingly, I've begun to take more kindly to the Sony A7R-II since I got the adapter thingy that allows AF with Leica M lenses. Even though I've used the M lenses with an adapter, this thingy nails focus pretty quickly (so far), making it easy to spontaneously shoot Lux lenses wide open, or my 75/2 AA @ f/2. In the aggregate, the difference from my native FE Zeiss lenses is apparent. Plus, the adapter is really small and combined with M lenses keeps the whole package tiny compared to lenses that continue to increase in size in an attempt to equal IQ with fast aperture optics.

- Marc
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
People can sit there and tell me all day long that 37mp is enough and that 24mp is enough (and back in the day they would tell you 12mp is enough or 35mm and Tmax was enough etc). People can tell you that a 2040dpi scan from an X5 of a 4x5 is enough compared to a 5000 dpi scan on a iQsmart or drum scanner. I am a printer. I print large on a regular basis. I do not always print large. These people are correct in saying that these prints are "enough" in many cases. Resolution is not everything, but I can also tell you that resolution DOES make a difference, lenses DO make a difference, scanning dpi DOES make a difference. Striving for higher and higher fidelity does not inhibit art...it IS art. If you are an artist trying to evoke a feeling, part of your goal is to remove as many barriers to that experience as you can. In my own work, print quality is a barrier that I do my best to minimize...every extra bit of image quality is appreciated. I print (and sell) works that are 1x1.5m and at that size the S is only at 120dpi...visibly soft at close inspection. It is better than nearly all other cameras, but it can still be improved.
I use the M9, S 006, 4x5 and the Mamiya 7II. All are capable in producing great works of art, not that they have done so in my hands. That said, If Leica produced a higher resolution S body I would welcome it and use it. It would make a difference even at fairly moderate print sizes. The same goes for film...I use Tmax 400 and Neopan Acros, but I would happily use something better if Kodak or Fuji improved upon them. I would much prefer if Leica focused on improving resolution and color fidelity rather than focus on frames per second, GPS and wifi, video integration and high ISO. I shoot video and I even work a lot at night so high ISO is nice, but the real reason I use the S is for absolute image quality in a robust, weather sealed, portable package. If I need video, there are more appropriate cameras, if I need high ISO, there are also cameras better for that. There are, however, few cameras that can compete with the S for lens quality and image quality at base ISO. If Leica would just concentrate on improving that and leaving the rest to cameras like the SL or Sony, I would be happier.
 

ZHNL

New member
People can sit there and tell me all day long that 37mp is enough and that 24mp is enough (and back in the day they would tell you 12mp is enough or 35mm and Tmax was enough etc). People can tell you that a 2040dpi scan from an X5 of a 4x5 is enough compared to a 5000 dpi scan on a iQsmart or drum scanner. I am a printer. I print large on a regular basis. I do not always print large. These people are correct in saying that these prints are "enough" in many cases. Resolution is not everything, but I can also tell you that resolution DOES make a difference, lenses DO make a difference, scanning dpi DOES make a difference. Striving for higher and higher fidelity does not inhibit art...it IS art. If you are an artist trying to evoke a feeling, part of your goal is to remove as many barriers to that experience as you can. In my own work, print quality is a barrier that I do my best to minimize...every extra bit of image quality is appreciated. I print (and sell) works that are 1x1.5m and at that size the S is only at 120dpi...visibly soft at close inspection. It is better than nearly all other cameras, but it can still be improved.
I use the M9, S 006, 4x5 and the Mamiya 7II. All are capable in producing great works of art, not that they have done so in my hands. That said, If Leica produced a higher resolution S body I would welcome it and use it. It would make a difference even at fairly moderate print sizes. The same goes for film...I use Tmax 400 and Neopan Acros, but I would happily use something better if Kodak or Fuji improved upon them. I would much prefer if Leica focused on improving resolution and color fidelity rather than focus on frames per second, GPS and wifi, video integration and high ISO. I shoot video and I even work a lot at night so high ISO is nice, but the real reason I use the S is for absolute image quality in a robust, weather sealed, portable package. If I need video, there are more appropriate cameras, if I need high ISO, there are also cameras better for that. There are, however, few cameras that can compete with the S for lens quality and image quality at base ISO. If Leica would just concentrate on improving that and leaving the rest to cameras like the SL or Sony, I would be happier.
Well said. I agree. Leica really need rethink how they want position S system. It was OK 6 year ago.

But to be honest, the AF is struggle even at current sensor density. It would be a hard sell for photography other than landscape if they can't improve their AF tech.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
In my opinion, that line says it all. Great works of art are created by people, not cameras.
Well Keith, I think you are reading it in a way I did not intend it. I am not trying to say the cameras are more important than the artist, I am trying to say that they are a means to an end. I phrased it that way because I do not believe I am a great artist, though I still aspire to make works that people can appreciate as art. Choosing the right gear for the job will allow the artist to best express their art. My goal IS the art more than the camera. I only talk about gear here...I don't mention it on my site (I don't think) and I am not mentioning to my clients unless they ask.
That said, I think too often people are completely polarized about this issue -- either gear does not matter, or gear matters a huge amount. The reality is that it doesn't matter up until the point it does. The gear matters because it might make the artists life easier and more pleasant, or it might matter because it literally allows the artist to do things they could not technically do before.
The gear, of course, is dead until it is given life by the artist's hands.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Stuart, my position is simple, equipment matters but great works of art are created by people :)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
IMO.

Any tool in the hands of an artist can produce Art.

Be it animal hair tied or glued to a stick using ground earth or plant pigments ... or chisels and mallet and a nice piece of rock or marble.

All that photography "needs" is a light sensitized media, a dark box to hold it, and a hole in the box with a cap.

However, need and want are two different things.

Wanting more is the source of invention in the service of imagination.

The art I try to pursue is of the moment type photography. A pin hole camera doesn't cut it for my artistic intent. I want more.

Some tools I've tried, while sophisticated modern technical developments, were actually steps backwards in my pursuit.

Case in point, the Sony A7R ... a major tech step forward by many accounts. Not for me.

Despite its demure size, the loud shutter shock and snail like lag made the A7R the antithesis of stealth and decisive moment capture.

Tools can matter depending on the intent of your Art.

- Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
the problem with using a word like 'art' is that one person's 'art' is another persons nothing to look at here folks or nothing of interest...

my experience is that different people are interested in different forms of art and in fact tend to be quite specific about their interests...'


the more specialised the art genre -hte more important the tools and other associated paraphernalia might be to its very existance
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I am no Leica user, but I am a real world photographer with some understanding of the basics of image processing.

My take would essentially be that it is almost always better to have more pixels, within the realm of reality.

I have posted some observations here: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...07-warning-potential-buyers-2.html#post713939

But the short context is that you can check the images below:
Screen Shot 2017-01-03 at 19.00.50.jpg

The image on the left was shot on a Phase One P45+ using Zeiss Planar 100/3.5 lens. The image on the right was shot with the same lens, but it was an 85 MP shift-stitch using the Sony A7rII. The P45+ image covered 49x37 mm while the Sony image covered 48x36 mm. Quite close…

The Sony image shown on the right was downscaled to 39 MP resolution like the P45+.

I have very little doubt that the high resolution image is better, although most of the resolution advantage have been thrown away by downscaling.

39 MP is simply not good enough to sample a decently good lens at 49x37 mm.The better the lens the better sampling you need to make it justice…

Best regards
Erik


For the few Leica fan boys left .....whats up with Leica s sensor strategy ? Rumors about a new Leica M10 all point to using the same 24MP sensor as the SL and Q . While this may be great in getting higher volume purchases of sensors .....it doesn t seem a compelling (to upgrade) improvement.

Much was expressed about Leica s choice of 24MP for the SL which was a often speculated as “necessary to avoid competition with the S “. Don t get me wrong I have the M240,SL,Q and they all produce terrific image quality at 24MP but they are not better than my Nikon D810 and probably my Nikon D5 (20MP) .

The S 007 was a disappointment to most all my friends that use the S system. How could they not increase the MP ?

I do appreciate that its not all about how many pixels the sensor has ......fat pixels can produce very special results . But you only have to look at the files from the new Phase 100MP system to see the advantage . (I do realize that the physical size of the sensor also plays into the image quality ).

Leica appears to have created a “log jam” in there sensor progression ......S (37.5) ,SL,Q,M (24) .

Before its asked (Do you really need more megapixels ? ) yes if they can improve the image quality ,allow greater flexibility in cropping and support printing large . AND Leica needs a bigger better story to convince photographers to upgrade .

Maybe this is a RANT and not so much of a question .......
 
Last edited:
Top