DP Review of the SL

[Godfrey]

Even if they weigh the same why would you get the SL? It's inferior in every technical way to basic prosumer Nikon kits? Change it up to a D810 or 5DSR and you're cooking with gas even with the "rudimentary" Nikkor, ART, Otus, Milvus, or Canon lenses....oh wait all those lenses are actually world class.

Be honest, you're interested in the SL or X1D because they look great on the seat of a Mercedes in a way that cameras that deliver on their promises don't...then again, looking good is the Leica promise 2/3rds of the time.

LOL!

An IBM zSytem mainframe is technically superior in every way for most of what I do compared to an iPad Pro, but I know which one allows me to produce drawings that make people happy ... and looks great on the Mercedes' seat. :angel:

​

G

 

[fad gadget]

LOL!

An IBM zSytem mainframe is technically superior in every way for most of what I do compared to an iPad Pro, but I know which one allows me to produce drawings that make people happy ... and looks great on the Mercedes' seat. :angel:

​

G

Good one! lol

As the saying goes, If you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it...

 

[Calzone]

LOL!

An IBM zSytem mainframe is technically superior in every way for most of what I do compared to an iPad Pro, but I know which one allows me to produce drawings that make people happy ... and looks great on the Mercedes' seat. :angel:

​

G

Godfrey,

I may walk the talk, others might talk the walk, but riding instead of walking is better.

No cowboy hat needed. LOL.

Cal

 

[Huss]

And wise old photographers told me "if you can't do it good, do it big, if you can't do it big, do it in color."

The expression in the gallery world is 'make it big or make it red!'

If it is big AND red, well, you're set.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

You complain about a pound and a half on one hand, then say I shouldn't go to the SL in favor of medium format digital on the other, which will weigh in at double the above. How consistent of you!

BTW: you don't need the big, heavy 50/1.4 if you have the 24-90. Neither of the kits I articulated included more than one lens with a given focal length, and I gave you actual weight taken on a package scale (this morning!) of the whole kit, lenses/body/accessories + bag, not weights derived from adding up numbers from a specification sheet.

G

You're correct, I am very consistent considering the GFX + 63/2.8 + 120/4 + 32-64 = 6.89lbs. So, what you're trying to tell me that the official weights are not the actual weights? Do yours weigh less than the given weights from the manufacturer? The accessories and the bag itself will weigh the same no matter what kit you have inside of it. Don't get smart unless you can back it up with facts.

 

[jsrockit]

I get that the pro's use medium format so they can savagely crop and not really loose IQ because they have resolution to give, and I am in the same opinion as you: In the same manner that you express why print big, I ask why does one need so much resolution?

You never know what you are going to use your images for in the future. It's always good to have more than you seemingly need at the moment.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Don't get smart unless you can back it up with facts.

Can we just skip ahead to "I'll whip your ass" and get this over with?

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Can we just skip ahead to "I'll whip your ass" and get this over with?

I didn't say that. Just don't throw "information" around when you don't know what you're talking about or looking up supporting facts for what you're saying.

 

[Calzone]

You never know what you are going to use your images for in the future. It's always good to have more than you seemingly need at the moment.

John,

If anything good happens for me in the world of photography I hope I'm ready, but I don't want to get cocky and get ahead of myself. Call me unprofessional, and it is not important to me to please others or have any acclaim, but it is nice when it happens. LOL.

Kinda funny when I shot film with a total disregard to printing, when film was cheap, how many people I annoyed. Many people yelled at me, "I wanna see prints." Now I look back and realize I was clever to shoot so much film when it was still cheap. Ha-ha. I got the last laugh.

Now that I'm finally printing, I'm annoying people again. LOL.

And when I buy a Leica SL all of the sudden I find myself surrounded by haters.

So all I'm trying to do is be me, I have people telling me what camera is better than mine, and I spent too much money. I must be doing something right if I offend so many people without even trying. LOL.

Perhaps I might not be famous for photography, but more famous for annoying people. LOL. All I'm trying to be is me, and it is so hard. LOL.

So here is my KellyAnn spin. It gets mentioned that the Sony A7 has a better sensor, but the problem about using the A7 with using with Leica wides is not mentioned. So I am deemed foolish because I did not buy the less expensive camera with a better sensor that requires me taking a brand new camera and having it modified. The cost of this modification nor the time required is never mentioned.

So then Joe kinda expresses he is not the happiest A7 owner, and next we jump to comparing the SL to medium format digital cameras that have a better sensor. It is almost as if because the A7 got fended off other cameras were brought into play.

Meanwhile if we go back to what you say in a final photo, will anyone see that the Sony A7 has a higher resolution sensor over an image taken with the infearior SL sensor?

Anyways the SL is fun to use, I don't have to send out my camera to be modded, and I can see shooting and owning the SL a long time to annoy some people. LOL. It really offends some how I spent my hard earned money. So am I exaggerating...

I am a happy guy, I like what I do, but this seems to upset some people. Why?

Cal

 

[brennanphotoguy]

It doesn't upset anyone. A simple argument of, "I just like using this camera better because I'm comfortable with it. I understand it's deficiencies but it makes me feel better to use it than an A7/GFX/CaNikon so that's what I use," is perfectly acceptable. Don't try and hype the SL as a gamechanger in the mirrorless world or say that it's lenses are vastly superior to everything ever created.

I have the same argument for film vs digital. It's my personal preference, I know I can't shoot at ISOs that some digital cameras can, I know on a day to day basis it's more expensive than a digital camera where all of your cost is up front, I understand that cameras will need to be repaired, etc but I like using it because I just enjoy the cameras, find them more interesting and like the workflow better. I don't think the cameras are inherently better than anything else, I don't think my workflow is superior than someone elses.

The issue arises when someone says that X camera is better than Y camera for Z reasons where you can argue based on facts and not opinion.

 

[Godfrey]

You're correct, I am very consistent considering the GFX + 63/2.8 + 120/4 + 32-64 = 6.89lbs. So, what you're trying to tell me that the official weights are not the actual weights? Do yours weigh less than the given weights from the manufacturer? The accessories and the bag itself will weigh the same no matter what kit you have inside of it. Don't get smart unless you can back it up with facts.

LOL!

I don't have to 'get smart' ... I've been smart all of my life. :angel:

Given the number of inaccuracies passed about as 'specifications' that I've seen, I count what I see on my certified USPS package scale as far more "fact" than anything I read on a spec sheet. I assembled the gear into the bag and weighed it this morning.

G

 

[Calzone]

Don't try and hype the SL as a gamechanger in the mirrorless world or say that it's lenses are vastly superior to everything ever created.

Brennan,

I posted in your thread pretty soon after you started it. I really did not argue with the "the good, the bad or the ugly" that the reviewer mentioned. In today's world of photography there are many choices, but if one has lots of M and R Leica glass it is really clear which camera best supports that glass best. The gamechanger I mentioned is the image stabilization in the 24-90.

I did further research into this, and the reports generically say that IS in the lens is actually more tailored and lens specific, and were IS in the bodies of cameras tend to be more generic. In one regard to using lenses without IS having the IS in the body is an advantage, but as a performance standpoint the IS in the lens is more specific, evolved, and developed.

So I mentioned that this particular lens that is big and heavy has something to offer that was disregarded by the DP Review. The files and prints do not lie: this lens offers better performance than the M or R glass as Godfrey reports. Sorry you don't like our reviews.

I mentioned to clarify that I was responding to Godfrey's other post because there was a misunderstanding there also. I did replace a Nikon Pro DSLR with the SL. To me it being mirrorless is not the point, but that the SL replaced a DSLR. The features I mentioned, again, were features that my Nikon DSLR had, and were not some ground breaking innovation that I was announcing. For this misunderstanding I offer no apology, but I clarify a second time hoping for a response.

I do not disagree that the native glass is enormous. I can totally understand why others might shop elsewhere. As for the medium format cameras I would love to own one of them one day, but for practical reasons I would try to fully exploit the resolution they can provide. That does not mean others have to follow.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

And when I buy a Leica SL all of the sudden I find myself surrounded by haters.

So all I'm trying to do is be me, I have people telling me what camera is better than mine, and I spent too much money. I must be doing something right if I offend so many people without even trying.

Well, it's your $ and ultimately your camera to enjoy. Internet opinion only matters if you let it.

So here is my KellyAnn spin. It gets mentioned that the Sony A7 has a better sensor, but the problem about using the A7 with using with Leica wides is not mentioned. So I am deemed foolish because I did not buy the less expensive camera with a better sensor that requires me taking a brand new camera and having it modified. The cost of this modification nor the time required is never mentioned.

Well, I know I'm more of a Leica fan than a Sony fan so I'm on your side. However, some are immune to ergonomic disasters.

Meanwhile if we go back to what you say in a final photo, will anyone see that the Sony A7 has a higher resolution sensor over an image taken with the infearior SL sensor?

Probably not. At least anyone that's not an on-paper specs chasing camera geek.

Anyways the SL is fun to use, I don't have to send out my camera to be modded, and I can see shooting and owning the SL a long time to annoy some people. LOL. It really offends some how I spent my hard earned money.

Well, yes some people can't fathom why you don't get the best bang for your buck based on on-paper specs. That's life and it is not really fair to judge someone else's choices based on your own wallet and your own personal financial philosophy.

However, anyone who has used or owned Leica gear knows that while it might not be the best bang for the buck, it sure is fun to use. And while some think that Leica users only care about looking cool with your camera, I know that you, Joe, and Godfrey all photograph often and enjoy your equipment for actual photography.

 

[Godfrey]

...However, anyone who has used or owned Leica gear knows that while it might not be the best bang for the buck, it sure is fun to use. And while some think that Leica users only care about looking cool with your camera, I know that you, Joe, and Godfrey all photograph often and enjoy your equipment for actual photography.

I don't actually know anyone who owns Leica cameras, even those who call themselves collectors, who don't put it to use more than stand around trying to look stylish with it.

I'm not a collector at all. I buy Leica cameras because they work very well, better than the other cameras I've owned and used extensively. I don't make those judgments by reading specifications: I make those judgments by using the gear.

G

 

[SaveKodak]

John,

So here is my KellyAnn spin. It gets mentioned that the Sony A7 has a better sensor, but the problem about using the A7 with using with Leica wides is not mentioned. So I am deemed foolish because I did not buy the less expensive camera with a better sensor that requires me taking a brand new camera and having it modified. The cost of this modification nor the time required is never mentioned.


Cal

https://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-ii-infrared-or-thin-filter-converted-camera-copy/

Uh, it's right here. A pre-converted camera is $2000 dollars. If you want the BSI sensor a pre-converted camera is $3450.00. Given that they're located near NYC you could probably have a camera by Wednesday if you order right now. No waiting, and an extra $4000 bucks in your pocket to put toward some of those Pizeography inks or whatever you'd like to spend your money on. The BSI sensor in the A7RII is the best 35mm sensor on the market by a huge margin, full stop. Having used it in the A7RII and RX1RII, I was amazed by the files. They're largely ISO invariant, they contain a crapload of detail and tonal information, and it's still better than the SL at 3200 & 6400. You can even buy gigantic AF lenses for it if you want...

The only thing to get over is the fact that your camera won't say "L E I C A" on it, and you won't feel like you're in an exclusive club of old people who've been duped by great marketing. So, if you like photography I'd say get the Sony, and if you like owning precious things get the Leica. Same as it's always been.

 

[Godfrey]

Having owned and worked with the miserable Sony for a year and a half, I say that if you love doing photography, forget that travesty and buy yourself a Leica. You'll get better quality photographs and be able to join the ranks of us old folks who love photography while the spec sheet readers and other review-driven goofballs yammer on convincing themselves that their toy-du-jour is better than our cameras. 😛

G

"I made a nice photograph today, but I threw it out because it wasn't made with a technically better camera. Can't wait to get the next one!"

 

[jsrockit]

Jeez, the camera wars are getting crazy! 😉

How about both of these cameras are probably very nice?

As long as Sony and Leica have been around and will be around they will have their haters.

 

[Calzone]

https://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-ii-infrared-or-thin-filter-converted-camera-copy/

Uh, it's right here. A pre-converted camera is $2000 dollars. If you want the BSI sensor a pre-converted camera is $3450.00. Given that they're located near NYC you could probably have a camera by Wednesday if you order right now. No waiting, and an extra $4000 bucks in your pocket to put toward some of those Pizeography inks or whatever you'd like to spend your money on. The BSI sensor in the A7RII is the best 35mm sensor on the market by a huge margin, full stop. Having used it in the A7RII and RX1RII, I was amazed by the files. They're largely ISO invariant, they contain a crapload of detail and tonal information, and it's still better than the SL at 3200 & 6400. You can even buy gigantic AF lenses for it if you want...

The only thing to get over is the fact that your camera won't say "L E I C A" on it, and you won't feel like you're in an exclusive club of old people who've been duped by great marketing. So, if you like photography I'd say get the Sony, and if you like owning precious things get the Leica. Same as it's always been.

Truely, thanks for this helpful information.

BTW I have no doubt that the A7 has its advantages, but don't forget its disadvantages.

Hard to speculate if I am duped like you say, but years from now we shall see.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

Jeez, the camera wars are getting crazy! 😉
...

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S. Thompson, RIP

onwards,
G

 

[Calzone]

Jeez, the camera wars are getting crazy! 😉

How about both of these cameras are probably very nice?

As long as Sony and Leica have been around and will be around they will have their haters.

John,

I have no ax to grind against Sony or the A7, and I apologize to A7 owners who feel insulted because of my postings, but when attacked by individuals that just so happen to use a A7 as a fulcrum pressure is applied and collateral damage occurs. Why would I hate Sony?

I really don't care others don't like or hate my camera, and know that I don't hate any camera.

I am really sure that A7 owners are very capable, the A7 has its advantages, but also has its disadvantages, and it does seem like some individuals discount the bad or ugly in the A7 and they don't like to be reminded in this thread. It also does seem like some are kinda dug in and are beyond reasoning. It does seem that others brought to this game the Leica verses Sony aspect. I only responded.

I do not discount the good, the bad, and the ugly about the SL either, and I am perfectly fine with others shopping elsewhere. I do not disagree that there is a premium for the Leica branding and for people looking for value certainly the A7 is a better deal bang for the dollar.

I would not consider this a war, but is more of a game. If someone jams an A7 in my face they can expect to get slammed back. I didn't start this game, and I didn't make the rules, but if one reads through this thread things only got esculated because they wanted a fight.

I don't feel like I need to impose my choice of camera, I can be happy that others like other cameras, I kinda like others people's thinking because this enrichens understanding, but please don't get in my face and impose yourself.

Cal