Reading mode: Light Dark

Leica S-series discontinued?

Go to last post
N

NAwlins Contrarian

Forum Pro
Messages
11,583
Solutions
44
Reaction score
8,672
Location
New Orleans, LA, US
Looking at Jim K.'s post in another thread about the Leica S3, I got a little curious about its status. Although the Leica website still lists it present-tense:

https://leica-camera.com/en-US/photography/cameras/s/s3-black

B&H shows it as discontinued:

602f7163564f4eeba2b8e66898b4d654.jpg

Obvious if the Leica S3 camera body has been discontinued without a replacement being announced, then there's probably a very good chance that the entire S-system of 30x45mm-sensor cameras and lenses to cover them is being phased out.
 
Last edited:
S3 was discontinued a while back, but no S4 or anything new announced. We'll wait and see. But S3 wasn't popular, and I don't think it could compete with Hasselblad and Fujifilm.
 
There are photographers who have talked with Peter Karbe who says that there will be a mirrorless S in 2025. This is variously reported on the Leica Users Forum.

I am about to buy a digital Hasselblad (though I shoot almost exclusively film). But the Leica S, in all its versions, is superior, to my eye, in image quality to the Hasselblad and Fuji. It has a magnificent filmic quality to it, like the DP2-Merrill, that flatters subjects and landscapes. Leica S users are small in number but generally fanatically loyal, despite the camera's and lenses' weight and some limitations.
 
Last edited:
Manzur Fahim said:
S3 was discontinued a while back, but no S4 or anything new announced. We'll wait and see. But S3 wasn't popular, and I don't think it could compete with Hasselblad and Fujifilm.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that although there were multiple reasons why (as you say) the S3 wasn't very popular, but more generally I think that there are not many cases where medium format is a better choice than FF (or an even-smaller format) but an SLR (like the S3) is a better choice than mirrorless. In other words, the kinds of photography that benefit much from medium format would tend to benefit more from a mirrorless than an SLR.
 
When a camera body is retailed at $19k US and the lenses from $3-6k, it's not going to be very popular. Its primary market was professional photographers and, with its very heavy weight, professional studio photographers. That was its market. Witness the second generation of CS lenses, priced higher because they were designed to be superbly effective with flash.

The S will be reborn and continue to chart its own course, Just like the M body and M lenses are priced absurdly high and effectively have no competition.
 
Last edited:
Bags27 said:
There are photographers who have talked with Peter Karbe who says that there will be a mirrorless S in 2025. This is variously reported on the Leica Users Forum.

I am about to buy a digital Hasselblad (though I shoot almost exclusively film).

But the Leica S, in all its versions, is superior, to my eye, in image quality to the Hasselblad and Fuji. I
Click to expand...
A mate bought Leica S 006 - same Kodak CCD as 645D - awhile back and asked if I wanted it but I said No.

I have seen some of the Jpeg images it produced with expensive native Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5 ASPH CS too but honestly - I don't think the IQ is in any way more superior (and flexible) than my GFX 50s + GF 35-70mm or Canon 85mm f.2 L USM from my eyes of a hobbyist.

I believe Canon 85/1.2 L is much superior in many ways when adapted to GFX or Hass. MF cameras. or Pentax 645 FA 75mm f2.8 is excellent lens too.

Bags27 said:
t has a magnificent filmic quality to it, like the DP2-Merrill, that flatters subjects and landscapes. Leica S users are small in number but generally fanatically loyal, despite the camera's and lenses' weight and some limitations.
Click to expand...
 
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
S3 was discontinued a while back, but no S4 or anything new announced. We'll wait and see. But S3 wasn't popular, and I don't think it could compete with Hasselblad and Fujifilm.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that although there were multiple reasons why (as you say) the S3 wasn't very popular, but more generally I think that there are not many cases where medium format is a better choice than FF (or an even-smaller format) but an SLR (like the S3) is a better choice than mirrorless. In other words, the kinds of photography that benefit much from medium format would tend to benefit more from a mirrorless than an SLR.
Click to expand...
I would think that GFX 100S and XD 100 would do the job better at lower costs.

Best regards

Erik
 
themediocreenthusiast said:
Bags27 said:
There are photographers who have talked with Peter Karbe who says that there will be a mirrorless S in 2025. This is variously reported on the Leica Users Forum.

I am about to buy a digital Hasselblad (though I shoot almost exclusively film).

But the Leica S, in all its versions, is superior, to my eye, in image quality to the Hasselblad and Fuji. I
Click to expand...
A mate bought Leica S 006 - same Kodak CCD as 645D - awhile back and asked if I wanted it but I said No.
Click to expand...
Apologies , Leica S2 and S006 used a slightly different Kodak sensor to 645D and native 3:2 format?

"The S2 uses the KAF-37500 and the Pentax uses the KAF-40000"

Ref* https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=63670.0

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/63627-leica-s2s-kodak-ccd-sensor/

I have no chance to try S3 but I know ill be lying if I say im not interested in Leica S3 64mp sensor ~ made by TowerJazz? not sure if Towerjazz, Onsemi (ex kodak sensor) STmicro or ams CMOSiS. https://ams.com/chr71000

Nice images with the review below but I still don't feel Leica S3 64mp is way more superior than Hass or Fuji 51mp / 100mp Sony sensor.

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/03/leica-s3-64mp-medium-format-camera-now-shipping/
themediocreenthusiast said:
I have seen some of the Jpeg images it produced with expensive native Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5 ASPH CS too but honestly - I don't think the IQ is in any way more superior (and flexible) than my GFX 50s + GF 35-70mm or Canon 85mm f.2 L USM from my eyes of a hobbyist.

I believe Canon 85/1.2 L is much superior in many ways when adapted to GFX or Hass. MF cameras. or Pentax 645 FA 75mm f2.8 is excellent lens too.
themediocreenthusiast said:
t has a magnificent filmic quality to it, like the DP2-Merrill, that flatters subjects and landscapes. Leica S users are small in number but generally fanatically loyal, despite the camera's and lenses' weight and some limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
S3 was discontinued a while back, but no S4 or anything new announced. We'll wait and see. But S3 wasn't popular, and I don't think it could compete with Hasselblad and Fujifilm.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that although there were multiple reasons why (as you say) the S3 wasn't very popular, but more generally I think that there are not many cases where medium format is a better choice than FF (or an even-smaller format) but an SLR (like the S3) is a better choice than mirrorless. In other words, the kinds of photography that benefit much from medium format would tend to benefit more from a mirrorless than an SLR.
Click to expand...
The S3 aspect ratio is a problem for me. And maybe for Leica, since it means a bespoke sensor.
 
Last edited:
themediocreenthusiast said:
Bags27 said:
There are photographers who have talked with Peter Karbe who says that there will be a mirrorless S in 2025. This is variously reported on the Leica Users Forum.

I am about to buy a digital Hasselblad (though I shoot almost exclusively film).

But the Leica S, in all its versions, is superior, to my eye, in image quality to the Hasselblad and Fuji. I
Click to expand...
A mate bought Leica S 006 - same Kodak CCD as 645D - awhile back and asked if I wanted it but I said No.

I have seen some of the Jpeg images it produced with expensive native Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5 ASPH CS too but honestly - I don't think the IQ is in any way more superior (and flexible) than my GFX 50s + GF 35-70mm or Canon 85mm f.2 L USM from my eyes of a hobbyist.

I believe Canon 85/1.2 L is much superior in many ways when adapted to GFX or Hass. MF cameras. or Pentax 645 FA 75mm f2.8 is excellent lens too.
themediocreenthusiast said:
t has a magnificent filmic quality to it, like the DP2-Merrill, that flatters subjects and landscapes. Leica S users are small in number but generally fanatically loyal, despite the camera's and lenses' weight and some limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Lucky you! You saved a ton of money and shoulder surgery! :-)
 
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:
S3 was discontinued a while back, but no S4 or anything new announced. We'll wait and see. But S3 wasn't popular, and I don't think it could compete with Hasselblad and Fujifilm.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that although there were multiple reasons why (as you say) the S3 wasn't very popular, but more generally I think that there are not many cases where medium format is a better choice than FF (or an even-smaller format) but an SLR (like the S3) is a better choice than mirrorless. In other words, the kinds of photography that benefit much from medium format would tend to benefit more from a mirrorless than an SLR.
Click to expand...
The S3 aspect ratio is a problem for me. And maybe for Leica, since it means a bespoke sensor.
Click to expand...
Agreed that most medium format shooters don't seem to want that more-rectangular aspect ratio, and that the 45x30mm sensor size requires either a custom sensor, or else wasting space on a larger sensor (presumably Leica could buy an off-the-shelf 54x40mm sensor and just read / use a 45x30mm region).

But the current S system size requires the lenses to illuminate well a circle of 54.1mm, versus 54.8 with the common '44x33' sensors--in other words, a trivial difference. If Leica really intends to produce a mirrorless camera intended for use with these same lenses, then presumably it could* use a 44x33mm sensor and offer a conversion service that replaces the lenses' rear baffles or gates, which are appropriate for the 45x30mm sensor, with ones appropriate for a 44x33mm sensor. Rehousing the lenses' optics in a longer barrel to accommodate the presumably-shorter flange distance of the mirrorless body would be an even more-elegant solution, albeit probably not (can I use this in a sentence about Leica?) a very cost-effective one.

*Let me stress "could"--I'm not saying "probably will", "might well", or even "should".
 
Last edited:
Bags27 said:
There are photographers who have talked with Peter Karbe who says that there will be a mirrorless S in 2025. This is variously reported on the Leica Users Forum.
Click to expand...
The notion that anyone can accurately predict what a small and apparently modestly-resourced company like Leica will bring to market one-and-a-half or two years from now strikes me as very doubtful. Leica may have a plan, but the fact that even they expect to take that long to bring it to fruition is strong evidence that there are serious obstacles, unresolved issues, and significant doubts. I'm pulling for Leica, but my expectations are very vague.
Bags27 said:
I am about to buy a digital Hasselblad (though I shoot almost exclusively film). But the Leica S, in all its versions, is superior, to my eye, in image quality to the Hasselblad and Fuji. It has a magnificent filmic quality to it, like the DP2-Merrill, that flatters subjects and landscapes. Leica S users are small in number but generally fanatically loyal, despite the camera's and lenses' weight and some limitations.
Click to expand...
Leica users and fans are certainly something of an atypical group, and not only in terms of their financial resources.

As for "a magnificent filmic quality to it, like the DP2-Merrill, that flatters subjects and landscapes", call me skeptical. Certainly some lenses are better (by definable, objective measures) and/or more subjectively-pleasing (according to personal taste) than others, and by all accounts Leica has produced many excellent lenses. But IMO the rest is probably either a function of raw processing, or else praise for the emperor's new clothes.
 
Last edited:
themediocreenthusiast said:
I have no chance to try S3 but I know ill be lying if I say im not interested in Leica S3 64mp sensor ~ made by TowerJazz? not sure if Towerjazz, Onsemi (ex kodak sensor) STmicro or ams CMOSiS. https://ams.com/chr71000

Nice images with the review below but I still don't feel Leica S3 64mp is way more superior than Hass or Fuji 51mp / 100mp Sony sensor.

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/03/leica-s3-64mp-medium-format-camera-now-shipping/
Click to expand...
Real data and direct photographic comparisons are scarce, but Photons to Photos has evaluated the Leica S3 sensor, and found its dynamic range 1.33 EV behind the Fujis with the 102 MP sensor, and also behind current FF state-of-the art. The respective maximum dynamic ranges are 12.33 EV for the GFX 100S, 12.32 EV for the Hasselblad X2D, from 11.77 to 11.90 EV for the various GFX 50 models (omitted from the chart for legibility), 11.70 EV for the Sony A7R-V, and 11.00 for the S3:

47cc195ed53e46c2bd15ffe28dfcbc12.jpg.png



Note the curious-to-me finding that although the GFX 100S and X2D are widely understood to have the same, or at least essentially the same, sensor, their measured dynamic ranges differ substantially above ISO 400, suggesting that the GFX 100S has dual-conversion gain but the X2D does not. If this has been widely discussed, I missed it.
 
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
I have no chance to try S3 but I know ill be lying if I say im not interested in Leica S3 64mp sensor ~ made by TowerJazz? not sure if Towerjazz, Onsemi (ex kodak sensor) STmicro or ams CMOSiS. https://ams.com/chr71000

Nice images with the review below but I still don't feel Leica S3 64mp is way more superior than Hass or Fuji 51mp / 100mp Sony sensor.

https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2020/03/leica-s3-64mp-medium-format-camera-now-shipping/
Click to expand...
Real data and direct photographic comparisons are scarce, but Photons to Photos has evaluated the Leica S3 sensor, and found its dynamic range 1.33 EV behind the Fujis with the 102 MP sensor, and also behind current FF state-of-the art. The respective maximum dynamic ranges are 12.33 EV for the GFX 100S, 12.32 EV for the Hasselblad X2D, from 11.77 to 11.90 EV for the various GFX 50 models (omitted from the chart for legibility), 11.70 EV for the Sony A7R-V, and 11.00 for the S3:

47cc195ed53e46c2bd15ffe28dfcbc12.jpg.png

Note the curious-to-me finding that although the GFX 100S and X2D are widely understood to have the same, or at least essentially the same, sensor, their measured dynamic ranges differ substantially above ISO 400, suggesting that the GFX 100S has dual-conversion gain but the X2D does not. If this has been widely discussed, I missed it.
Click to expand...
The X2D does have dual conversion gain, but it occurs at a putative iso below the GFX 100x, and it’s harder to see because the iso intervals in the Hassy are whole stops.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
The S3 aspect ratio is a problem for me. And maybe for Leica, since it means a bespoke sensor.
Click to expand...
Agreed that most medium format shooters don't seem to want that more-rectangular aspect ratio,
Click to expand...
I've never noticed a tendency for medium format shooters to think as a group. Why would a photographer care what aspect ratio other photographers prefer when creating an image? Medium format cameras have used a variety of aspect ratios 1:1 (6x6), 4:3 (645), 5:4 (6x7), and 3:2 (6x9) along with panoramic formats like 6x12 and 6x17.

Image aspect ratio is a personal, subjective, creative decision which often varies depending on subject matter. I've enjoyed images from medium format in everything from square to very rectangular panoramic aspect ratios and everything in between.

Personally, I started with a 35 mm full-frame film camera with 3:2 aspect ratio, moved to medium format film with a 1:1 aspect ratio camera, and then to large format film with a 5:4 aspect ratio. The digital backs I used started with a 31 x 31 mm (1:1) square sensor and progressed in chronological order to: 36 x 24 (3:2), 37 x 37 (1:1), 49 x 37 (4:3), 44 x 33 (4:3), and 53.4 x 40.0 (4:3).

Out of all of the above, the aspect ratio which I found to be problematic was none of them. All of them could be cropped to fit whatever was required.

My personal preference for capture is square format as it seems the most logical and convenient to use, requiring no rotation of camera position and it's easily cropped to any desired rectangular aspect ratio. I'd be happier with the 40 mm square format of this concept camera than either 33 x 44 or 30 x 45, but that's just me. Who knows? New "XCD-V" lenses, "V1D" concept camera; maybe us squares have a future — or maybe not.
 
TechTalk2 said:
My personal preference for capture is square format as it seems the most logical and convenient to use, requiring no rotation of camera position and it's easily cropped to any desired rectangular aspect ratio. I'd be happier with the 40 mm square format of this concept camera than either 33 x 44 or 30 x 45, but that's just me. Who knows? New "XCD-V" lenses, "V1D" concept camera; maybe us squares have a future — or maybe not.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons that I prefer 4:3 to 3:2 is that I like to make square images.
 
TechTalk2 said:
TechTalk2 said:
TechTalk2 said:
The S3 aspect ratio is a problem for me. And maybe for Leica, since it means a bespoke sensor.
Click to expand...
Agreed that most medium format shooters don't seem to want that more-rectangular aspect ratio,
Click to expand...
I've never noticed a tendency for medium format shooters to think as a group. Why would a photographer care what aspect ratio other photographers prefer when creating an image? Medium format cameras have used a variety of aspect ratios 1:1 (6x6), 4:3 (645), 5:4 (6x7), and 3:2 (6x9) along with panoramic formats like 6x12 and 6x17.
Click to expand...
I was merely reporting my observation, that is, my sense that, on the whole, medium format photographers do want 4:3 over 3:2. I base that on my sense of having seen many posts to the effect of, 'One of the reasons I switched to / prefer my MF rig is the 4:3 aspect ratio, versus 3:2 on FF.' Were those genuine preferences, or merely made-up justifications?

I am not saying 4:3 is what they should want. It is at least curious that most movies are 2.39:1 or 1.85:1, and most modern video is 1.78:1 (chosen as the equal-ratio midpoint between 4:3 and 2.39:1), and this is a development of video that was for a half-century 1.33:1--but many photographers think 1.50:1 is too wide.
TechTalk2 said:
Image aspect ratio is a personal, subjective, creative decision which often varies depending on subject matter. I've enjoyed images from medium format in everything from square to very rectangular panoramic aspect ratios and everything in between.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely.
TechTalk2 said:
Personally, I started with a 35 mm full-frame film camera with 3:2 aspect ratio, moved to medium format film with a 1:1 aspect ratio camera, and then to large format film with a 5:4 aspect ratio. The digital backs I used started with a 31 x 31 mm (1:1) square sensor and progressed in chronological order to: 36 x 24 (3:2), 37 x 37 (1:1), 49 x 37 (4:3), 44 x 33 (4:3), and 53.4 x 40.0 (4:3).
Click to expand...
I've used film of 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, and 1:1, and digital of 3:2 and 4:3.
TechTalk2 said:
Out of all of the above, the aspect ratio which I found to be problematic was none of them. All of them could be cropped to fit whatever was required.
Click to expand...
Sometimes one adjusts the composition to the capture aspect ratio, and sometimes one captures extra and crops for the composition, and sometimes they're a perfect fit. All of that is possible, and indeed a normal part of the process, IMO.
TechTalk2 said:
My personal preference for capture is square format as it seems the most logical and convenient to use, requiring no rotation of camera position and it's easily cropped to any desired rectangular aspect ratio. I'd be happier with the 40 mm square format of this concept camera than either 33 x 44 or 30 x 45, but that's just me. Who knows? New "XCD-V" lenses, "V1D" concept camera; maybe us squares have a future — or maybe not.
Click to expand...
I suspect that until some new sensor design and manufacturing process emerges that makes much cheaper small-batch production, as Jim mentioned about the problem of bespoke (custom-made) sensors, by far the most likely camera sensors will be whatever Sony offers, based on what Sony finds most customers buy (or say they will buy). Anything else will cost a lot more and probably offer somewhat lower performance. Will there be a(nother) real 6x6 or even a smaller 1:1 digital camera? Personally, I doubt any time soon. But hey, I've been very wrong before.
 
Last edited:
TechTalk2 said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
TechTalk2 said:
The S3 aspect ratio is a problem for me. And maybe for Leica, since it means a bespoke sensor.
Click to expand...
Agreed that most medium format shooters don't seem to want that more-rectangular aspect ratio,
Click to expand...
I've never noticed a tendency for medium format shooters to think as a group. Why would a photographer care what aspect ratio other photographers prefer when creating an image? Medium format cameras have used a variety of aspect ratios 1:1 (6x6), 4:3 (645), 5:4 (6x7), and 3:2 (6x9) along with panoramic formats like 6x12 and 6x17.

Image aspect ratio is a personal, subjective, creative decision which often varies depending on subject matter. I've enjoyed images from medium format in everything from square to very rectangular panoramic aspect ratios and everything in between.

Personally, I started with a 35 mm full-frame film camera with 3:2 aspect ratio, moved to medium format film with a 1:1 aspect ratio camera, and then to large format film with a 5:4 aspect ratio. The digital backs I used started with a 31 x 31 mm (1:1) square sensor and progressed in chronological order to: 36 x 24 (3:2), 37 x 37 (1:1), 49 x 37 (4:3), 44 x 33 (4:3), and 53.4 x 40.0 (4:3).

Out of all of the above, the aspect ratio which I found to be problematic was none of them. All of them could be cropped to fit whatever was required.

My personal preference for capture is square format as it seems the most logical and convenient to use, requiring no rotation of camera position and it's easily cropped to any desired rectangular aspect ratio. I'd be happier with the 40 mm square format of this concept camera than either 33 x 44 or 30 x 45, but that's just me. Who knows? New "XCD-V" lenses, "V1D" concept camera; maybe us squares have a future — or maybe not.
Click to expand...
I would think the vast majority of medium format film cameras made were 4:3 or squarer.

A 40mm x 40mm sensor would be great.
 
Last edited:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
NAwlins Contrarian said:
The S3 aspect ratio is a problem for me. And maybe for Leica, since it means a bespoke sensor.
Click to expand...
Agreed that most medium format shooters don't seem to want that more-rectangular aspect ratio,
Click to expand...
I've never noticed a tendency for medium format shooters to think as a group. Why would a photographer care what aspect ratio other photographers prefer when creating an image? Medium format cameras have used a variety of aspect ratios 1:1 (6x6), 4:3 (645), 5:4 (6x7), and 3:2 (6x9) along with panoramic formats like 6x12 and 6x17.
Click to expand...
I was merely reporting my observation, that is, my sense that, on the whole, medium format photographers do want 4:3 over 3:2. I base that on my sense of having seen many posts to the effect of, 'One of the reasons I switched to / prefer my MF rig is the 4:3 aspect ratio, versus 3:2 on FF.' Were those genuine preferences, or merely made-up justifications?

I am not saying 4:3 is what they should want. It is at least curious that most movies are 2.39:1 or 1.85:1, and most modern video is 1.78:1 (chosen as the equal-ratio midpoint between 4:3 and 2.39:1), and this is a development of video that was for a half-century 1.33:1--but many photographers think 1.50:1 is too wide.
Click to expand...
I get where you were coming from and that you were making an observation not a recommendation. I just wanted to throw a broader light on the whole subject of aspect ratios.

There are various opinions on aspect ratio, some loosely held while others are more rigid. It's good to get different perspectives, both in images and ideas.

Best wishes to you and keep shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Moving from Leica SL2-S to Zf?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Ruedon
R
JimKasson
Why we own cameras, and why it matters
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
DavidMillier
DavidMillier
Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
12K
Hmm1000
H
D
Sigma 300-600 4 DG OS Sports – Review After 14 Days of Testing
Replies
1
Views
3K
jerste
J
lokatz
G9II vs OM-1 compared for bird shooting - Part IV
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
lokatz
lokatz

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top