What niche does Leica typ 007 fill?

[Rdmax]

With releases such as the GFX and X1D, what advantage does Leica S's system offer in the MF competition?

[hasselbladfan]

Not very fair to compare a camera that is 2-3 years old with the latest releases. But anyway .....

What the Leica S is great at :

Great for portrait / fashion / action shots in MF.
Great files despite lower pixel count.
Weather and dust-sealed.

... and my favorite : an optical TTL viewfinder vs a slower reacting light-sensitive electronic viewfinder.

[erlingmmoe]

I recently wrote this on another thread:

Let's go back to what one might assume were some of the hypotheses by Leica when they created the S system:
- DSLR format is compact and functional. The Hblad and P1 "digital backs" are reminiscent of the film days, and are not functional in a digital world
- Let's take MF out of the studio, through DSLR form factor and weather sealing
- MF gives a new dimension to photography, but 30*45mm will suffice for most
- Let's make the best OVF ever
- Chip design is more important than megapixels, 37,5 is a good compromise (50 is more, and the chosen format of the new Sony sensors, but can someone document the advantage, please?) - not excluding that S will be 50-60 mpix in its next version
- Optics is the real differentiator, let's make the best lenses for 30*45mm available
- Let's make lenses in the true Leica tradition: Top performance at open apertures, every S lens will be a "Noctilux" at full aperture
- Let's offer leaf shutter as a option built in to the lenses
- Let's open up towards other systems' and create bridges through adapters to other lenses
- <possibly more >

In my book, they were right on all assumptions. If you want to do 100 mpix and carry a P1, feel free, but swallow and justify the cost, and carry the load.

Not sure this is a "niche", in my opinion it is a great general-purpose MF system, with superb optics.

[Bo_Dez]

I recently wrote this on another thread:

Let's go back to what one might assume were some of the hypotheses by Leica when they created the S system:
- DSLR format is compact and functional. The Hblad and P1 "digital backs" are reminiscent of the film days, and are not functional in a digital world
- Let's take MF out of the studio, through DSLR form factor and weather sealing
- MF gives a new dimension to photography, but 30*45mm will suffice for most
- Let's make the best OVF ever
- Chip design is more important than megapixels, 37,5 is a good compromise (50 is more, and the chosen format of the new Sony sensors, but can someone document the advantage, please?) - not excluding that S will be 50-60 mpix in its next version
- Optics is the real differentiator, let's make the best lenses for 30*45mm available
- Let's make lenses in the true Leica tradition: Top performance at open apertures, every S lens will be a "Noctilux" at full aperture
- Let's offer leaf shutter as a option built in to the lenses
- Let's open up towards other systems' and create bridges through adapters to other lenses
- <possibly more >

In my book, they were right on all assumptions. If you want to do 100 mpix and carry a P1, feel free, but swallow and justify the cost, and carry the load.

Not sure this is a "niche", in my opinion it is a great general-purpose MF system, with superb optics.

I agree that the S is a great camera but most of this is exaggerated, skewed or biased. Have you used other systems long term?

-Digital Backs ARE very functional in a digital world. This is silly to suggest otherwise.
-P1/Hass goes out of the studio just fine.
-30x45 is the smallest MF sensor, smaller when cropped to standard page sizes.
-Hasseblad OVF destroys the S. Much brighter, much bigger.
-No. Chip design AND megapixels makes the difference. Phase One 50,60,80,100 and Hasselblad 50c, 60, 100c all affirm this.
-The best lenses for 30x40, sure. But Leica is the only 30x40. To say they are the best medium format lenses across the board is untrue. They are very good, sure.
-No, not every lens is a Noctilux at full aperture. Even the 100-S f2 is not. It's f1.6 equivalent. Most others are f2 equiv.
-Leaf shutters are no built in to all lenses. The are optional and much more expensive. Phase One is more viable in this way. All blad lenses are leaf.
-Adaptability because of smaller flange distance is certainly a plus.

The S is a very good camera with exceptional image quality but it is behind in terms or resolution by a very long margin and it is yet to be seen if there will even be another S 008.

[cgarnerhome]

It has been a while since I have owned one but at the time you could only do exposures up to 2 minutes.  Also, the higher ISO performance was behind the competition.  Loved the build, the lenses and the viewfinder but not much else.

[algrove]

This type of question illicites all kinds of diverse responses. My 2 cents is that most have probably never called a P1 dealer with serious questions about switching to P1 from another MF system and asked what kind of trade in is possible. When I bought my IQ3100 the trade in for a Pentax 645Z was $17500 or about $10k more than the price of the 645Z body. 

Does anyone know the trade in value for a Leica Sxxx for the IQ310?

Also many do not know how flexible the XF cost was where I got $2k off the retail price and then was offered a 5 year warranty for the entire system including all lenses purchased with the XF and IQ3100 for $2k. Five years is unheard of in the photo industry. That means if something should happen anywhere in the world Phase will swap your DB out with a loaner until such time as your DB or any other product can be repaired.  Now that is service most other camera companies only wish they could offer. Leica S owners are you listening?

[erlingmmoe]

I agree that the S is a great camera but most of this is exaggerated, skewed or biased. Have you used other systems long term?

-Digital Backs ARE very functional in a digital world. This is silly to suggest otherwise.
-P1/Hass goes out of the studio just fine.
-30x45 is the smallest MF sensor, smaller when cropped to standard page sizes.
-Hasseblad OVF destroys the S. Much brighter, much bigger.
-No. Chip design AND megapixels makes the difference. Phase One 50,60,80,100 and Hasselblad 50c, 60, 100c all affirm this.
-The best lenses for 30x40, sure. But Leica is the only 30x40. To say they are the best medium format lenses across the board is untrue. They are very good, sure.
-No, not every lens is a Noctilux at full aperture. Even the 100-S f2 is not. It's f1.6 equivalent. Most others are f2 equiv.
-Leaf shutters are no built in to all lenses. The are optional and much more expensive. Phase One is more viable in this way. All blad lenses are leaf.
-Adaptability because of smaller flange distance is certainly a plus.

The S is a very good camera with exceptional image quality but it is behind in terms or resolution by a very long margin and it is yet to be seen if there will even be another S 008.

Please note my first line in the post: "Let's go back to what one might assume were some of the hypotheses by Leica when they created the S system:...."

Yes, a lot has happened since the launch of the S, I still think these assumptions were brave and largely correct, and that the system holds its position well and represents great value.

Of course there are now systems that are more advanced, more expensive and more specialised.

Leica has never lead the megapixel race, but I hope they will come up with a 50 mix system which seems to be the "floor" for this sensor size, at least from a marketing perspective.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

When the Leica lenses for the S were introduced the engineers said that they were designed for at least twice the resolution of the S2-system. Quite a few years passed but the S-system is still stuck at 37 MPix with a sensor that cannot match the competition in anything measurable. Sure, the Leica can make great images, but so can every camera produced in the last five years.

The simple fact is that Leica has the smallest format, the lowest resolution sensor and the sensor having most noise and lowest DR in the MFD playing field. They may have the best lenses, although I have a bit of doubt as a have seen a lot of axial chroma from those lenses. But, lens quality is worth little if there is no sensor making it justice.

On the other hand, all that may matter little. Almost any system is good enough. Put a good lens on the cheapest Canon APS-C camera and it will deliver excellent images.

Does the Leica S have a special niche? Hard to say. It is weather sealed, quiet compact, good lenses. Much of that also can apply to the competition.

Best regards
Erik

Please note my first line in the post: "Let's go back to what one might assume were some of the hypotheses by Leica when they created the S system:...."

Yes, a lot has happened since the launch of the S, I still think these assumptions were brave and largely correct, and that the system holds its position well and represents great value.

Of course there are now systems that are more advanced, more expensive and more specialised.

Leica has never lead the megapixel race, but I hope they will come up with a 50 mix system which seems to be the "floor" for this sensor size, at least from a marketing perspective.

[eronald]

Indeed their niche got a lot smaller the day the Nikon D800 got released.

But it's still a high quality no-fuss camera with better form factor than any other MF SLR, an excellent viewfinder and wonderful lenses, let's not get too reverse snobbish here.

Edmund

Hi,

When the Leica lenses for the S were introduced the engineers said that they were designed for at least twice the resolution of the S2-system. Quite a few years passed but the S-system is still stuck at 37 MPix with a sensor that cannot match the competition in anything measurable. ussSure, the Leica can make great images, but so can every camera produced in the last five years.

The simple fact is that Leica has the smallest format, the lowest resolution sensor and the sensor having most noise and lowest DR in the MFD playing field. They may have the best lenses, although I have a bit of doubt as a have seen a lot of axial chroma from those lenses. But, lens quality is worth little if there is no sensor making it justice.

On the other hand, all that may matter little. Almost any system is good enough. Put a good lens on the cheapest Canon APS-C camera and it will deliver excellent images.

Does the Leica S have a special niche? Hard to say. It is weather sealed, quiet compact, good lenses. Much of that also can apply to the competition.

Best regards
Erik

[Gigi]

One could separate the critique between those who have used the camera and those who haven't.

When I first held the S, I quickly put it down. I was committed to a different camera and back solution, and did not want to change. As a package, it was that seductive.

Mb aren't everything, although it's likely time for a bigger sensor.

[algrove]

One could separate the critique between those who have used the camera and those who haven't.

When I first held the S, I quickly put it down. I was committed to a different camera and back solution, and did not want to change. As a package, it was that seductive.

Mb aren't everything, although it's likely time for a bigger sensor.

Well put. I did try the S and found it just too much for what I wanted and needed. I owned a P1 DB at the time and did not find the switch enticing enough with even back a number of years ago the S CCD images did not excite over the P1 CCD images. Glad I held fast for if I had gone for the S and its expensive lenses at that time I would not own a P1 3100 now with S-K lenses producing images better than anything else. 

[bcooter]

Indeed their niche got a lot smaller the day the Nikon D800 got released.

But it's still a high quality no-fuss camera with better form factor than any other MF SLR, an excellent viewfinder and wonderful lenses, let's not get too reverse snobbish here.

Edmund

All three points I agree upon.

A Nikon will allow you to shoot about anything you want, probably easier and faster than anything with a larger sensor.

Know nothing of the new Fuji, or for that matter the new Hasselblad.   In fact the only reason to go to tradtional medium format system is for the sensor ratio of 4:3 or if you really need 100mpx.

I think the point that most people miss is you don't buy a Leica S or M, because they are less expensive or easier cameras to work.

I bought an S2 because I liked it, could mix and match Leica and Contax lenses and it runs dng which means I don't have to constantly change out processing suites, plus I like the lemo connectors, the build quality the ability to easily manually focus if you so wish.

It's funny every company has a set dna and Leica seems to continue with the same.  It was a bold move to make the S series and i you start fresh with Leica glass, it get's expensive, so does the M and Leica has always been set on the 3:2 format.  They could have desinged 4:3 or any format but went with their standard.

But the main reason to buy a Leica is because you want to.   You like it.

IMO

BC

[algrove]

All three points I agree upon.

A Nikon will allow you to shoot about anything you want, probably easier and faster than anything with a larger sensor.

Know nothing of the new Fuji, or for that matter the new Hasselblad.   In fact the only reason to go to tradtional medium format system is for the sensor ratio of 4:3 or if you really need 100mpx.

I think the point that most people miss is you don't buy a Leica S or M, because they are less expensive or easier cameras to work.

I bought an S2 because I liked it, could mix and match Leica and Contax lenses and it runs dng which means I don't have to constantly change out processing suites, plus I like the lemo connectors, the build quality the ability to easily manually focus if you so wish.

It's funny every company has a set dna and Leica seems to continue with the same.  It was a bold move to make the S series and i you start fresh with Leica glass, it get's expensive, so does the M and Leica has always been set on the 3:2 format.  They could have desinged 4:3 or any format but went with their standard.

But the main reason to buy a Leica is because you want to.   You like it.

IMO

BC

The main reason to buy into any system is first because you like it and can afford it, not due to the legend.
I have owned at oen time over 85 Leica lenses M & R, but now realize that the company for me is history.
Most do not realize that the 100MP and XF with 5 lenses (assuming any competing camera trade-in) costs less than an S system with 5 lenses, especially now with S lens trade in value at about an all-time low. Call any Phase dealer and you might be pleasantly surprised especially when you can get the 5 year warranty on the entire system purchased at the same time.

[BJL]

When the Leica lenses for the S were introduced the engineers said that they were designed for at least twice the resolution of the S2-system. Quite a few years passed but the S-system is still stuck at 37 MPix with a sensor that cannot match the competition in anything measurable. . . . The simple fact is that Leica has the smallest format, the lowest resolution sensor and the sensor having most noise and lowest DR in the MFD playing field. . . .

In hindsight, Leica's decision to stay with the "Barnack format" 3:2 aspect ratio in a new, larger 45x30mm size has become a handicap when it comes to sensors.  The "S system" originated back in the CCD era, when Leica could get a custom 45x30mm CCD from one of the big-two medium format sensor suppliers, Kodak.  But in the CMOS era, the new dominant sensor designers (Sony, Canon, Panasonic?, Toshiba?) are apparently not interested in small-run custom jobs, so Leica is stuck with a second-teir supplier, CMOSIS, whose technology lags behind in both dynamic range and resolution.  Even if 37MP is plenty for many users, having competitors with at least as much resolution and better dynamic range is a bit of a problem.

On the other hand, I have no reason to dispute with those for whom the S system has advantages in lenses, ergonomics, and such which outweigh that.