£20k of Camera Equipment

[Mike Farley]

The workshop I recently attended in Scotland was ostensibly about using Leica equipment, although my purpose was rather different as I wanted to take the opportunity of reviewing my approach to photography under the tutelage of Eddie Ephraums and Joe Cornish. Nevertheless, various items of Leica equipment was provided for use by the participants, a facility of which I took advantage and for a few days I was wandering around with a Billingham bag stuffed with more than £20k's worth of gear.

So what does that much money buy you? Well, it is Leica so less than you might think unless you opt for one of the lower end compacts which are basically rebadged Panasonics. How about a body and two lenses? Yes, that's what I had. I reasoned that I would be unlikely to have another opportunity to shoot extensively on digital medium format, so I was using a Leica S (006) mainly with either 45 or 180 lenses. The latter was the CS version, which has a built in leaf shutter for flash synchronisation at any shutter speed. That's a useful option given that the Leica S sync speed is a relatively slow 1/125 and one of the camera's natural habitats will be in the studio. With the body retailing at £10k, the lenses made up the rest. There is a new version of the S coming out shortly, the Typ 007 which has a CMOS rather than CCS sensor, although resolution remains the same at 37.5 MP. Going for that boosts the body price to £13k.

The Leica S sensor is larger than 35 mm full frame, so it has a negative crop factor of 0.8, thus the 45 became the equivalent of 36 mm and the 180 a slightly odd 144. As a combo, it worked surprisingly well and generally I was able to get the shots I wanted. On one occasion, I needed to get in closer to the subject than the 180's minimum focussing distance, when with astonishingly good timing Joe Cornish appeared and lent me a macro lens out of his Tardis like camera bag. That's another £5k. I do not know if it was that particular copy or a more general trait, but the AF did not work at short focussing distances.

The results, as you would imagine and/or hope, were superb. As to whether they justify the high cost compared to more ordinary gear is really a subjective opinion. It can be argued, as Luminous Landscape did recently, that the Pentax 645Z offers better value if you want medium format and there are full frame cameras which offer similar resolution or better at even lower cost. The Leica S, like the Pentax 645Z, is essentially a large DSLR, but it has no image stabilisation and the high resolution magnifies any camera movement. With practice and by adopting almost meditation like techniques, it is possible to handhold at lower shutter speeds, but unless you a Zen master really it demands a tripod for best results. I found as well that the 180 needs to be stopped well down or hyperfocal focussing employed to increase DOF even at comparatively long lens to subject distances.

https://luminous-landscape.com/leica-s0 ... ns-review/

The viewfinder on the S is very bright, which makes it relatively easy to focus the lenses. There are interchangeable screens and my camera had one with microprism and split screen aids, but even the ground glass option was useable. While the S has a single point AF, frankly it is a camera which demands considered use, which includes setting focus manually.

Overall, it was fun for a few days, but the Leica S does not suit my style of photography and I tend to prefer more compact cameras. I am not in a situation where I need the high resolution and even at A3 print sizes there will be little, if any, discernible difference. There is some satisfaction to be had in knowing that a shot was taken with the best equipment available, but I can think of better uses for the money.

[Mike Farley]

One other thing to mention is that the rear screen of the Leica S does not give a realistic representation of images in playback and they look washed out. The histogram is the only way to determine the accuracy of the exposure, which is the only way to do it of course. It's a tad disappointing for such an expensive camera, but not a deal breaker.

[Peter Boughton]

but not a deal breaker

Of course not - the deal breaker for most people would be the price.

Anyone sane with £20k to spare would get a D810 and lenses for a fraction of the cost, then maybe spend the change on ... I dunno, maybe a new car.

[davidc]

Or perhaps towards a house deposit

Do you have any results to share?

I would be interested to see if spending considerably more on the gear produces considerably better equivalent results. Or if there ARE improvements are they only visible when pixel peeping perhaps.

I also wonder how much of the excitement, fun & appreciation of the images comes from the fact it's taken with expensive, relatively uncommon and perceived-better gear? I don't mean that in a bad way, I think it would be perfectly natural to do that. On a smaller scale/similar story I was really excited about using the 5DS and while it is certainly very good, afterwards I realised that despite enjoying the shooting process with it and getting some images, I had to be careful not to let my excitement of using a camera I'll likely never own mask the flaws. It's not for everyone and has many "challenges".

Do you have a link to the course too?

[Mike Farley]

but not a deal breaker

Of course not - the deal breaker for most people would be the price.

I am guessing that the S has not been a big seller for Leica. It is still possible to buy "ex demo" copies of the original S2, which was superseded a while back, with a 70 mm lens for £7.5k. Now that's a bargain.

Anyone sane with £20k to spare would get a D810 and lenses for a fraction of the cost, then maybe spend the change on ... I dunno, maybe a new car.

What we are talking about is pro spec gear, of course, and wealthy enthusiasts. Even the far side of a lottery win I am still not sure I would buy the kit as it does not fit in with the way I shoot. On the other hand, I would be able to employ a sherpa and load them up with every possible camera and lens which I might want to use.

[Mike Farley]

Do you have any results to share?

I would be interested to see if spending considerably more on the gear produces considerably better equivalent results. Or if there ARE improvements are they only visible when pixel peeping perhaps.

While on the course, we processed and printed one of the shots we had taken on an Epson 7900 and 24" roll paper. The prints had to be left behind as the organiser did not have any cardboard tubes to transport them; he has promised to send them on, although mine has not arrived yet. Last week I printed my shot on my Epson 3800 on the same paper and mounted it, then took it to the club for the SLF panel selection meeting. The result did not look exactly the same as I remembered it, which might be the reason why no one thought it worthy of further consideration.

The shot was taken on a Leica S and 120 macro lens which Joe Cornish had been using and had me for the purpose. That's £15k of gear breathed on by one of the world's top photographers, yet even with that pedigree I managed to fail.

I have a forum post in mind to discuss the issue, but have been too busy since returning from Scotland to go through my images and put fingers to keyboard. Watch out for a thread entitled "Being Joe Cornish".

I also wonder how much of the excitement, fun & appreciation of the images comes from the fact it's taken with expensive, relatively uncommon and perceived-better gear? I don't mean that in a bad way, I think it would be perfectly natural to do that. On a smaller scale/similar story I was really excited about using the 5DS and while it is certainly very good, afterwards I realised that despite enjoying the shooting process with it and getting some images, I had to be careful not to let my excitement of using a camera I'll likely never own mask the flaws. It's not for everyone and has many "challenges".

It's just camera gear, a tool to do the job. My rule is that the equipment should not get in the way of getting the shot. Outside of landscape and studio work, both of which I rarely do, the S is simply too inconvenient to use. Especially without the aforementioned sherpa.

Do you have a link to the course too?

I have already psoted a specific thread on the forum. Search for "Leica" and I am sure that you will quickly find it.

[Peter Boughton]

On the other hand, I would be able to employ a sherpa and load them up with every possible camera and lens which I might want to use.

Yep, and then probably proceed to miss every other shot whilst trying to decide which combination is the most suitable.


David, is this the type of thing you're after: http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an ... eica-s2-p/

Ming's conclusion being:

You’ve probably read all the way to the end of this review hoping I’ll pronounce one better than the other; the reality isn’t that clear cut. The Leica S2 wins on lens quality (by a large margin), resolution (by a hair), dynamic range (though this may be debatable) and build; the D800E wins on color, practical usability (ISO 6,400 at medium format resolutions, anybody?), lens selection, speed and portability.

I honestly like both cameras and systems very much; I don’t think I could pick between the two if money weren’t an issue. The reality is that unless you’re going to torture your files and print them at enormous sizes, the D800E does deliver much better value for money.

[davidc]

Yep that's great thanks Peter