The New Leica S (Typ 007) and Leica S-E (Typ 006)

[Nick Rains]

Indeed - I meant 30 microns. The lens scales are based on this but a CoC of 10 microns would give a better representation of DoF at bigger print sizes.

[Manoli]

Also the A7s is a 8 bit video file vs. 10 bit of the Leica, 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 which is twice the colors, easier to grade.

Not quite.

SONY A7s
The camera records at up to 1080/60p internally with 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling.
When recording to an external 4K recorder output is 8-bit 4:2:2 video over HDMI at up to 30p, without the need for line skipping or pixel binning.

PANA GH4
When recording to the internal card the GH4 shoots in 8 bit mode with 4:2:0 colour sampling.
When recording to an external 4K capable recorder, records 10 bit 4:2:2 video from the camera's HDMI output.

[bcooter]

Thought the specs were 10 bit and if it's not I stand corrected, but I don't know how much it matters with this camera, because I haven't seen any video from it yet.

I do know I have gh3's, tested gh4's,  the whole line of A7 series and four times passed.

I like the gh3's, though now for small hand held motion imagery went with the Canon 70d due to the autofocus, the look of the file and a true touch screen focus lcd.  

I stick with the quote that  FF 35mm still frame with a global shutter is jello cam, (A7s of 5d2/3, D800).

For motion imagery super 35mm which is close to APS c is the perfect motion format, unless something changes drastically. (and btw even a apsc will slide if jerked around too fast, just not as bad as a ff still format.

But once again I don't think Leica is concerned with what Sony, or Nikon or Canon do.   Actually Sony has a long way to go in the still area to catch Canon and Nikon and that's where their market is.

In fact if your really serious about motion, there are a lot of dedicated motion cameras that will out perform any dslr that shoots digital motion, the new 4k Sony for one, or for me I use REDs,  but that's another conversation.

You know since the start of the D800, every time something new comes out in a more expensive camera, from a 1dx to medium format, there is a group that says for a fraction of a cost you can buy a d800 and it will  ___fill in the blanks____.

That's fine because the d800 is a good camera and I've got no knock on it  other than it's not for me, though for other's I hope it works well for them, because I might like some cameras better than others but am truly brand agnostic.

Still, Leica is going for a different market and seems to have found it.

I think the number of views of this thread show the interest in what Leica is doing.

IMO

BC

[MrSmith]

i have no interest in Leica, it’s something i am unlikely to ever own but i can see the S (all versions) would be a really nice tool to shoot with, few foibles, nice files and great lenses. with careful purchasing it’s a system you can probably shoot for years with (those lens mounts help too) it’s good to see they are not chasing the super high mpixel dollar.
if i was at a dealer i would like to pick one up, they look like they will sit in the hands nicely unlike some MFD, if i was a people shooter i would probably be be all over it

[JV]

I think Leica is the big overall winner of this Photokina no question. They keep updating their product line from the point and shoots to their M body and lens line and their flagship SLR models. Impressive.

A small overview by the Red Dot Forum.  Quite impressive indeed.  I saw quite a few things I would like…:
http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2014/09/photokina-2014-video-interview-with-stefan-daniel-leica-director-of-product-management/

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What I would say would be nice if DoF scale was based on both CoC and diffraction. Regarding CoC, I would say using CoC on twice pixel pitch may be reasonable, that would be 12 micron for the S(Typ 007).

Stopping down to f/16, the Airy disc is something like 16 micron, at f/22 it is 22 and so on.

Best regards
Erik

[synn]

I am sorry, as long as Leica is insisting on the silly 3:2 ratio, they would get no business from me.

I can't remember the last time I shot something on my Nikon that wasn't cropped to something other than 3:2. Especially portraits, which often gets cropped down to 4:3.

It's curious how the 44x33 sensor size gets a lot of flak from all quarters for not being "Quite medium format", but the even smaller Leica sensor is considered to be one. BC's incredible work notwithstanding, I have a feeling that if he was handed a "Full size" 60MP back (Whatever brand), he'd have made the same pictures with higher technical perfection. With less cropping to boot.

I don't need my MF kit to replace a 35mm kit. I don't need that horse to do more than one trick.

And if we're talking price, I am pretty sure my current MF and 35mm kits together costs less than a full fledged Leica S kit and is actually a bit more versatile.

[telyt]

BC's incredible work notwithstanding, I have a feeling that if he was handed a "Full size" 60MP back (Whatever brand), he'd have made the same pictures with higher technical perfection. With less cropping to boot.

What you don't see in his photos is how the camera's handling enables the pictures.  I'd expect that with a different camera the pictures would be different.  I make no claims w.r.t. which would be 'better' but I'd bet they'd be different.

[synn]

I don't disagree, how a camera handles is definitely a personal and subjective thing.
Personally speaking, I prefer the traditional MF form factor as the back acts as a nice counterweight to any substantial lenses attached to the body. The ol' 35mm form factor has always been uncomfortable to me; especially without a vertical grip.

[Ken R]

I am sorry, as long as Leica is insisting on the silly 3:2 ratio, they would get no business from me.

I can't remember the last time I shot something on my Nikon that wasn't cropped to something other than 3:2. Especially portraits, which often gets cropped down to 4:3.

It's curious how the 44x33 sensor size gets a lot of flak from all quarters for not being "Quite medium format", but the even smaller Leica sensor is considered to be one. BC's incredible work notwithstanding, I have a feeling that if he was handed a "Full size" 60MP back (Whatever brand), he'd have made the same pictures with higher technical perfection. With less cropping to boot.

I don't need my MF kit to replace a 35mm kit. I don't need that horse to do more than one trick.

And if we're talking price, I am pretty sure my current MF and 35mm kits together costs less than a full fledged Leica S kit and is actually a bit more versatile.

Synn: While I absolutely love my IQ160 and really prefer the 4:3 sensor ratio and specially the larger size sensor (I had the 645D and the difference in sensor size is VERY noticeable to me) I checked out the Leica S a while back and found it superb in terms of body feel, handling and focusing. It makes the Hasselblad H and Phase DF cameras seem like ancient clunkers.

[JV]

I checked out the Leica S a while back and found it superb in terms of body feel, handling and focusing. It makes the Hasselblad H and Phase DF cameras seem like ancient clunkers.

+1.

I have a Hasselblad H4X body and recently acquired a Leica S2.

As much as I love the H4X the ergonomics of the Leica, the build quality and the viewfinder put it in a different league.

I am not even going to compare it to a DF+ body...

[orc73]

Big Pro: I did hold a Leica S in my hands and it was just the best feeling to shoot I ever experience with a camera.
-It's the way a camera should be build.
-Great viewfinder.

The cons:
-Software:
Owning a H4d-40 I doubt, they get as nice looking files out of the box like Phocus Software does.
-Focus:
Then I feel the truefocus is a must for MF(or having 100% accurate focus points distributed all over the sensor).
As far as I know Leica only has the center focus point as well and you will loose the focal plane while recomposing with shallow depth of field.
P1 and Pentax(even 100 points would not help if they are all in the center!) fail on that as well.
-Sensor size/format:
And then it is 3x4.
-Price:
And then the price of the camera, heck the price of the lens, even more so if you want the finally announced leaf shutters.

[Theodoros]

Synn: While I absolutely love my IQ160 and really prefer the 4:3 sensor ratio and specially the larger size sensor (I had the 645D and the difference in sensor size is VERY noticeable to me) I checked out the Leica S a while back and found it superb in terms of body feel, handling and focusing. It makes the Hasselblad H and Phase DF cameras seem like ancient clunkers.

It much resembles the Contax 645 if ergonomically judged, while it feels much as a D700 in size and handling... doesn't it? To many this is the perfect combination... others may look for whatever is an excuse (with respect to their choices) to them....

[bcooter]

7 years ago I would have somewhat agreed that a 4:3 format and a box with camera back was a nice way to work.

Today we shoot 70% horizontal 30% vertical and with horizontal a 2:3 format is more ideal.

I will say that Leica just met "my" list of what I wanted from a still camera.  I wanted a larger than 35mm format, a camera that was less modular, slightly faster to use than most medium format and when Leica offered true full functionality of multiple lens mounts it was an easy choice.

Also I wanted something that I didn't see 35 times a minute in Times Square.

The build quality, the way a leica feels in the hand is a very enjoyable plus.   Leica sweats the details in their own way, some with common sense, some leica sense.

I'm not going to compare dirt vs. spit because that conversation goes nowhere and as illustrated by Chris B, just a silly bunch of fanboy talk.

I will admit though I am so bored with the talk that medium format, especially Leica is a luxury toy for the 1%.    Just the mention of one of the higher end brands brings out a chorus of bias, usually based on conjecture, not use.

This was shot with the S2, 1k quartz light, screened down, shot through a frosted window, hand held.  I guess dslr territory.



And it's from a small crop



Not saying it can't be done with another camera (once again dirt and spit) but it can be done with the first generation S2.

I won't hide that I am biased to leica because to me they epitomize photography, old an new, but at least I can appreciate it next to other brands and formats I use.

If you've ever have to the opportunity to walk into a Leica store or better yet one of the Leica galleries, I don't know how you can't be inspired by the experience.  
No other maker I know goes so far to elevate the respect of the still photograph regardless of your camera of choice.


IMO

BC

[Theodoros]

7 years ago I would have somewhat agreed that a 4:3 format and a box with camera back was a nice way to work.

Today we shoot 70% horizontal 30% vertical and with horizontal a 2:3 format is more ideal.

I will say that Leica just met "my" list of what I wanted from a still camera.  I wanted a larger than 35mm format, a camera that was less modular, slightly faster to use than most medium format and when Leica offered true full functionality of multiple lens mounts it was an easy choice.

Also I wanted something that I didn't see 35 times a minute in Times Square.

The build quality, the way a leica feels in the hand is a very enjoyable plus.   Leica sweats the details in their own way, some with common sense, some leica sense.

I'm not going to compare dirt vs. spit because that conversation goes nowhere and as illustrated by Chris B, just a silly bunch of fanboy talk.

I will admit though I am so bored with the talk that medium format, especially Leica is a luxury toy for the 1%.    Just the mention of one of the higher end brands brings out a chorus of bias, usually based on conjecture, not use.

This was shot with the S2, 1k quartz light, screened down, shot through a frosted window, hand held.  I guess dslr territory.



And it's from a small crop



Not saying it can't be done with another camera (once again dirt and spit) but it can be done with the first generation S2.

I won't hide that I am biased to leica because to me they epitomize photography, old an new, but at least I can appreciate it next to other brands and formats I use.

If you've ever have to the opportunity to walk into a Leica store or better yet one of the Leica galleries, I don't know how you can't be inspired by the experience.  
No other maker I know goes so far to elevate the respect of the still photograph regardless of your camera of choice.


IMO

BC
)

I don't mind cropping down to 34mp (out of a 37.5mp 3:2 original ) neither to crop down to 45mp (out of a 50mp 4:3 original), this all is trivial nonsense for me... In fact I wouldn't mind printing any file of 20mp at 3 yards for its minor side whatever its analogy or size is, if I was sure of the "pixel definition" (my term) I have out of the file... The rest is "mp trolling" IMO.

[eronald]

J,

 Those shots of yours just show me carefully done styling and hair, nicely placed model pose prep, very nice lighting, choice of color look, crop  and retouch. But none of the above can be bought in the Leica shop; if it could be I'd be there in a minute

 As for the actual file quality, after all that rework, I see little of the original color or texture here, and in fact my color consultant intuition tells me - you know, that part which I have between *my* ears and which other people actually think *I* am good at, that a Nikon D800 is technically equivalent to what you're showing. I think the S, like the low-end Hassy (H50C) and its cousin the Phase IQ250 s mainly now a workflow and esthetic choice, like buying a BMW or a Mercedes limo instead of a Lexus. Of course the S2 is economically fully justified in your case by your already owning the lenses.

  I'd like to own a Leica S, I will eventually get one or a Hassy, but I'm going to get it as a matter of choice, you know, like buying an everyday-use all year leather jacket - you get it for feel, style and fun as much as function. The D810, the Phamiya  or even the Pentax are about as much fun to me as a gray synthetic anorak, but if you live in Alaska there is probably a good argument to be made for buying something that is "only" warm.

 Last, not least, of all the current CCD cameras I've seen samples from, the Leica has the body I like most, but it has "the look" the least, the H4D40 I really like, the H50 should be like the 40 but I think it isn't and don't, and the H60 I like the most. I don't know what that means, probably it just means I'm a snob. When I had a P45+ it shot nowhere as clean as the P30 or H3D31, but it had "the look".

 Anyway - whatever you or anyone else here chooses to use ... - I've noticed a lot of us take interesting pictures.

Edmund

7 years ago I would have somewhat agreed that a 4:3 format and a box with camera back was a nice way to work.

Today we shoot 70% horizontal 30% vertical and with horizontal a 2:3 format is more ideal.

I will say that Leica just met "my" list of what I wanted from a still camera.  I wanted a larger than 35mm format, a camera that was less modular, slightly faster to use than most medium format and when Leica offered true full functionality of multiple lens mounts it was an easy choice.

Also I wanted something that I didn't see 35 times a minute in Times Square.

The build quality, the way a leica feels in the hand is a very enjoyable plus.   Leica sweats the details in their own way, some with common sense, some leica sense.

I'm not going to compare dirt vs. spit because that conversation goes nowhere and as illustrated by Chris B, just a silly bunch of fanboy talk.

I will admit though I am so bored with the talk that medium format, especially Leica is a luxury toy for the 1%.    Just the mention of one of the higher end brands brings out a chorus of bias, usually based on conjecture, not use.

This was shot with the S2, 1k quartz light, screened down, shot through a frosted window, hand held.  I guess dslr territory.



And it's from a small crop



Not saying it can't be done with another camera (once again dirt and spit) but it can be done with the first generation S2.

I won't hide that I am biased to leica because to me they epitomize photography, old an new, but at least I can appreciate it next to other brands and formats I use.

If you've ever have to the opportunity to walk into a Leica store or better yet one of the Leica galleries, I don't know how you can't be inspired by the experience.  
No other maker I know goes so far to elevate the respect of the still photograph regardless of your camera of choice.


IMO

BC

[synn]

BC: I totally get it that the S2 is a great fit for your work. I also understand that since you work mostly with continuous lights, using the contax lenses at a lower sync speed is a non issue for you as well.

The one thing I will agree to disagree though, is the experience in a Leica boutique. Call it the cynical marketing professional's PoV if you may, but all I see there is a hard sell of the "Experience" of owning a Leica. Hell, I see more sincere passion for photography in a Fujifilm boutique here.

Does that make them bad products, just because the marketing is a bit over the top? Absolutely not. My point was that underneath all that marketing, they still offer a solution that does not fit my needs. 

[TMARK]

The one thing I will agree to disagree though, is the experience in a Leica boutique. Call it the cynical marketing professional's PoV if you may, but all I see there is a hard sell of the "Experience" of owning a Leica. Hell, I see more sincere passion for photography in a Fujifilm boutique here.

Does that make them bad products, just because the marketing is a bit over the top? Absolutely not. My point was that underneath all that marketing, they still offer a solution that does not fit my needs. 

Their marketing is over the top, but it doesn't ring false, just overblown.

[bcooter]

I should have known that showing a crop would open up a dirt vs. spit  debate, though I never meant that to happen.

What I tried to show was that, at least for ME, a different form factor medium format camera makes it easier to shoot spontaneity.   Also to ME mpx aren't that important.

Some will disagree, that's their right, I'm just not one of them.

Now in regards to color, I find that interesting.   I haven't used every camera in the world, but I do know that digital is very subject, lighting, scene specific.

It's interesting when I bought my Phase backs I thought the color was awful and now feel it's nice.  Either Phase upped their game on processing, or I got better at roll your own.

The Leica, dunno, I guess I know how to roll my own with lightroom, so what ever is considered out of camera doesn't matter to me as along as the camera sees a lot of colors.

It's easier to disregard a color than make one and lightroom is very malleable.  With a little experience making presets for "your' personal film is easy.

The one thing I love about the dng file is I don't have to upgrade to a newer version of  LR, PS, C1 and a new operating system just to process the files.

The rest . . . it's just personal preference.  

The Leica store in London was very nice to us, even though I was clear I would buy in the U.S.  Over the top or not, it's nice to walk into a camera store that only sells cameras.  No big screen TV's, not phones, no plastic gizmos, just beautiful cameras for making photographs.

I personally enjoy that.

The Leica gallery on broadway is very different than a camera boutique  and I've been there two dozen times, nearly alway lifts my spirits and suggest anyone visiting NY go.  It's a very old school, very low key gallery with interesting to historic work.

But once again, I'm not into  spit and dirt, costs vs. perceived value, brand loyalty-loathe conversations because they go nowhere.

I think people should use what they like and disregard the noise.

It's funny when our bought our first REDs I was told and read that they were unreliable, broke, overheated, etc. etc. and in 3 1/2 years have spun those cameras around the work in every condition and never had an issue except for the evf and those cameras have been very profitable for our studio and our work.

So I guess personal use is the only real way to know what works.

IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am no fan of Leica, but I would say that the interviews I see create a lot of sympathy. Generally, it is great to see the men behind the cameras.

Same with the open and honest presentations by Zeiss and the nice articles by Dr. Nasse on different aspects of lenses and lens designs.

Now, Leica has been in economic troubles for a long, long time. But, now they are moving forwards, designing a great system with a new format and developing their own sensors. I am impressed and I really wish them well.

Will I ever buy their products? No, I cannot afford them. Would I buy if I could afford them? I would check against my perceived needs, quite possibly I would. Or, I would buy a Panasonic GH4, or stay with Sony or something else.

Considerations may be:

Image quality may be the premium aspect
Availability of lenses
Weight and packing size (that would speak for Panasonic)

Best regards
Erik

I should have known that showing a crop would open up a dirt vs. spit  debate, though I never meant that to happen.

What I tried to show was that, at least for ME, a different form factor medium format camera makes it easier to shoot spontaneity.   Also to ME mpx aren't that important.

Some will disagree, that's their right, I'm just not one of them.

Now in regards to color, I find that interesting.   I haven't used every camera in the world, but I do know that digital is very subject, lighting, scene specific.

It's interesting when I bought my Phase backs I thought the color was awful and now feel it's nice.  Either Phase upped their game on processing, or I got better at roll your own.

The Leica, dunno, I guess I know how to roll my own with lightroom, so what ever is considered out of camera doesn't matter to me as along as the camera sees a lot of colors.

It's easier to disregard a color than make one and lightroom is very malleable.  With a little experience making presets for "your' personal film is easy.

The one thing I love about the dng file is I don't have to upgrade to a newer version of  LR, PS, C1 and a new operating system just to process the files.

The rest . . . it's just personal preference.  

The Leica store in London was very nice to us, even though I was clear I would buy in the U.S.  Over the top or not, it's nice to walk into a camera store that only sells cameras.  No big screen TV's, not phones, no plastic gizmos, just beautiful cameras for making photographs.

I personally enjoy that.

The Leica gallery on broadway is very different than a camera boutique  and I've been there two dozen times, nearly alway lifts my spirits and suggest anyone visiting NY go.  It's a very old school, very low key gallery with interesting to historic work.

But once again, I'm not into  spit and dirt, costs vs. perceived value, brand loyalty-loathe conversations because they go nowhere.

I think people should use what they like and disregard the noise.

It's funny when our bought our first REDs I was told and read that they were unreliable, broke, overheated, etc. etc. and in 3 1/2 years have spun those cameras around the work in every condition and never had an issue except for the evf and those cameras have been very profitable for our studio and our work.

So I guess personal use is the only real way to know what works.

IMO

BC