I look at the huge size and cost of the Leica SL
then I look at the low used Leica S & Hassy lens prices.
Does it makes more sense to shoot a used Leica S with adapted used Hasssy lenses
than the more expensive and smaller sensored Leica SL ?
then I look at the low used Leica S & Hassy lens prices.
Does it makes more sense to shoot a used Leica S with adapted used Hasssy lenses
than the more expensive and smaller sensored Leica SL ?
I would think it would depend on what you'd like to photograph most...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I'd expect the Leica S (with whatever medium format lenses) to have better results, in terms of absolute image quality. But not that many people will want to use such a bulky, slow combination outside the studio (or at least team assisted location photography).
f16sunshine
Moderator
It's sort of what I daydreamed about after learning of available Contax 645 AF adapters.
A reflex viewfinder of the size the SL offers must be fantastic to work with!
Not to mention the gorgeous IQ.
Maybe some day if I ever get a project that warrants such enlargeable files.
It's been going the other direction in that regard so probably never
YYV_146
Well-known
Why would you take an S for Hassy lenses over a good, used H3 or H4 (or CFV backs with the V system if we're talking about older optics)? You won't get either the great S system optics or the ergonomics and modular versatility of the H system. Seems like the worst of both worlds.
I don't need AF in medium format.
I'm looking for the most bang for the buck.
Used Hassy lenses are much less costly than SL or S lenses.
Likewise a used S body is low cost compared to a new SL body.
It does not matter to me that the S & SL lenses will outperform the Hassy lenses
(if that is true) because the difference is likely so slight compared to substantial $ savings
Yes. A good friend of mine shoots S and Contax 645 lenses, which are cheap, but Zeiss. AF works great too
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
At the recent photoplus expo in NYC I played with the new SL side by side with the S. My sense was that I liked the SL and was impressed with it, but that the S is a step up in every way. While the S body is bigger than the SL, with their native lenses on, the difference is marginal (considering how large the SL zoom is). To me the S body is more comfortable to hold, and not bigger than the largest Canon/Nikon pro-cameras. While the SL finder is great in evf land, the S has a big luxurious slr finder. To me there is no comparison.
For the same money I would definitely get an S, provided it suits your shooting style and lens choice etc.
For the same money I would definitely get an S, provided it suits your shooting style and lens choice etc.
Much rather have a fuller frame sensor.
vytasn
Established
Why not a pentax 645z, cheaper still and better sensor?
JP Owens
Well-known
The S and SL are completely different cameras intended for completely different purposes. I just don't see the S with adapted lenses as the poor man's SL, if that is what you are trying to achieve. If you just want to shoot with old Zeiss lenses on a digital camera, I guess either would work with the right adapters. But it seems kind of kludgy to me. I'm probably missing the point.
YYV_146
Well-known
The absolute best bang for buck in medium format digital is the 645Z. For under $10,000, you can build a respectable three-lens kit (with one really sharp modern 40mm and two more 645AF lenses). $10,000 is the starter price for an H4D or S. The CCD bodies lag behind on color depth and high ISO performance. We're talking about at least two stops' DR at ISO 100 and a usable 12,800 versus 640. Huge difference.
Old Hasselblad lenses are good, but not all great. You can also put them on a 645Z (I've heard that focus confirmation works - haven't tried this myself).
S optics are unbeatable as far as my experience goes. Beautiful pieces that perform at peak of optics design. But they're also uber-expensive. The S system has other shortcomings so I really don't see how the price is justifiable if you don't buy into the S lens system.
uhoh7
Mentor
I'm seeing 006 for around 5K. I hear its incredible except you need light Better handling than pentax.
This also interests me more than SL, though i admire that camera.
However since most of my shooting is candid or on the fly, M is easier to carry and more versatile, with A7.mod as backup and for non-rf glass.
Better handling than pentax. This also interests me more than SL, though i admire that camera.
However since most of my shooting is candid or on the fly, M is easier to carry and more versatile, with A7.mod as backup and for non-rf glass.
The S is indeed quite large. Add the grip for improved holding security for vertical shots, making it even bulkier. Hasselblad and Contax 645 lenses work very well on the S from what I understand, and I can only say Pentax 67 lenses work fine too but of course manual focus and manual stop-down. These same lenses should work very much the same way adapted to the SL.
I would think a big factor in this S vs SL issue is one's preference for EVF viewing or the traditional SLR viewing. Controls and ergonomics otherwise not so different...
On the basis of having Pentax 645NII film cameras, I'd agree with uhoh7 that the S has better handling than the Pentax 645Z (insofar as it's similar to the film cameras). That was a major issue in my decision to go with the S2. (At that time both the S2 and P645D used similar Kodak CCD sensors; both have since moved on to CMOS.) I also prefer the handling of the P67 over the P645, FWIW...
I would think a big factor in this S vs SL issue is one's preference for EVF viewing or the traditional SLR viewing. Controls and ergonomics otherwise not so different...
On the basis of having Pentax 645NII film cameras, I'd agree with uhoh7 that the S has better handling than the Pentax 645Z (insofar as it's similar to the film cameras). That was a major issue in my decision to go with the S2. (At that time both the S2 and P645D used similar Kodak CCD sensors; both have since moved on to CMOS.) I also prefer the handling of the P67 over the P645, FWIW...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Depends on the size of your biceps...
aoresteen
Well-known
How much film could you shoot & scan for the cost of an S kit?
lonemantis
Well-known
The most cost-effective solution by far would be a used first-gen Pentax 645D. They're going for around $2500 USD now for the body, but use the exact same Kodak CCD sensor tech as the S2 and Typ 006. (albeit different aspect ratios - but you can crop the Pentax to 3:2 and lose 0 pixels)
In my opinion, the Pentax has better ergonomics and firmware, and the Leica offers nothing that justifies it costing ~$5k more. Both cameras are almost exactly the same size and weight, just in different dimensions. (Pentax is longer, Leica is taller) If you're not shelling out for the superb but mind-bogglingly expensive S lenses, I don't see the point.
In my opinion, the Pentax has better ergonomics and firmware, and the Leica offers nothing that justifies it costing ~$5k more. Both cameras are almost exactly the same size and weight, just in different dimensions. (Pentax is longer, Leica is taller) If you're not shelling out for the superb but mind-bogglingly expensive S lenses, I don't see the point.
How much can you shoot and SCAN with the same results as a S? You need quite a great scanner to be in this range.
the cost of the hassy or contax adapters is something to keep in mind. $1700.
redsky
Established
Shooting 6x9, it costs about $3.5 per frame (film + development + high res scans).
Used S typ 006 + Zeiss lens = ~$7000
That's the cost of 2k film frames, assuming you already have a 6x9 kit.
I think the S will last longer than that.
Used S typ 006 + Zeiss lens = ~$7000
That's the cost of 2k film frames, assuming you already have a 6x9 kit.
I think the S will last longer than that.