DP Review of the SL

[Calzone]

DISCLAIMER: Some readers and the original poster might not like this post.

FULL DISCLOSURE: At the time of the below mentioned event I was a relatively new SL owner.

FACT: The 24mm-90mm zoom is mucho big and heavy.

So I went to ICP to attend a symposium that featured Tina Manley that involved two excursions: one into Iran; and another into Syria. The backstory here is that Tina formerly was a missionary with her husband, and she and her husband are known as humanitarians.

In Iran they had a driver/translator, and even though the Iranians hate the U.S. government, when meeting Iranians Tina, her husband, and their driver/translator became guests repeatedly again and again, and were invited for meals as almost members of the family during the whole trip. This trip involved exploring Iran as a country and was not a tourist venture.

Then there was the trip to Syria showing the bleak destruction of cities and the suffering of refugees.

So the reason I brought this up is that for 90% of the shooting of these images a Leica SL was used with the gigantic 24mm-90mm. Tina says that she always had the SL in hand at all times, and her husband carried a knapsack with a Monochrom, a M240, and a slew of M and R glass that more or less went unused. Pretty much Tina learned that the 24mm-90mm was the best tool for the job over the other two cameras, and the size and weight of the camera was deemed worth the effort.

The symposium was broken into two halves. In Iran the textures and colors were remarkable, but in Syria the pictures of the refugees was heartbreaking. All these orphaned kids, the destroyed cities...

So as a fund raiser Tina took some of these shots that had children in them, cropped rather savagely and dramatically, to reframe the images into portraits. These cropped images were then printed large for exhibition and sold to fund raise for educating these children. In the portraits the kids were kinda removed from the war zone, and could have been mistaken for American kids. BTW all the kids were rather good looking.

So this symposium displayed both the high ISO capabilities of the SL as well as the utility of the 24-90. Pretty much the other cameras and glass could of been left home.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

So this symposium displayed both the high ISO capabilities of the SL as well as the utility of the 24-90. Pretty much the other cameras and glass could of been left home.

Right Cal, but this can be done with a bunch of other cameras too.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Right Cal, but this can be done with a bunch of other cameras too.

This. She could have taken a D750 and a 24-70/2.8 VR and done the same thing. I know, she didn't have a D750 and she prefers the Leica system over the Nikon system blah blah blah. You're also misreading my posts as "the SL is a bad camera." I haven't said it's a bad camera or isn't capable of good images. I said that it is flawed in certain areas and is inferior to other cameras in a much lower price bracket and great in others but is my opinion that the "great in others" stuff doesn't make up the difference between that and the major flaws.

 

[Calzone]

Right Cal, but this can be done with a bunch of other cameras too.

John,

No doubt.

But in this example there were options available, and Tina's choice kinda supports that the huge/gigantic/monsterous 24mm-90mm that is also heavy and bulky ended up being the tool of choice.

Tina's trips were in a way a field test. She was surprised on how she ended up relying on the SL.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

This. She could have taken a D750 and a 24-70/2.8 VR and done the same thing. I know, she didn't have a D750 and she prefers the Leica system over the Nikon system blah blah blah. You're also misreading my posts as "the SL is a bad camera." I haven't said it's a bad camera or isn't capable of good images. I said that it is flawed in certain areas and is inferior to other cameras in a much lower price bracket and great in others but is my opinion that the "great in others" stuff doesn't make up the difference between that and the major flaws.

Hmm. All I can tell is that my Nikon D750 is the only camera I've ever owned, bought new too, that needed to go back to the manufacturer to fix design/manufacturing defects which caused serious image degradation ... twice. The shutter and primary control board were both replaced twice. That's incredibly sad.

I owned and loved Nikon gear, alongside my Leica Ms, for thirty years. It all went sour with them when they went to autofocus, for me. I wouldn't trust one in a pinch if you gave me two nowadays. I happened to buy the D750 just two weeks before the Leica SL was announced. As soon as I started using the SL, its performance and the quality of the photos it produced were so much better than anything I saw coming out of the D750, despite the D750 being used with a hand-picked set of the best Nikon lenses I'd enjoyed for years, that the
D750 has never been used seriously again. The only times I've used it since have been when Nikon sent me notices that it might be affected by defects, to verify the defects, and then it was sent in for overhaul. It's up for sale, along with all my other Nikon gear (four bodies, eight lenses).

The SL outperforms all of them and has been absolutely 100% reliable.

G

 

[Emile de Leon]

Now..I want..an SL...
Leica greed..has set in...big time...lol..

 

[Calzone]

Now..I want..an SL...
Leica greed..has set in...big time...lol..

Emile,

I love mine, good camera for me, but do what is best for you.

Whatever camera you buy, the best of luck.

Cal

 

[SaveKodak]

Hmm. All I can tell is that my Nikon D750 is the only camera I've ever owned, bought new too, that needed to go back to the manufacturer to fix design/manufacturing defects which caused serious image degradation ... twice. The shutter and primary control board were both replaced twice. That's incredibly sad.

I owned and loved Nikon gear, alongside my Leica Ms, for thirty years. It all went sour with them when they went to autofocus, for me. I wouldn't trust one in a pinch if you gave me two nowadays. I happened to buy the D750 just two weeks before the Leica SL was announced. As soon as I started using the SL, its performance and the quality of the photos it produced were so much better than anything I saw coming out of the D750, despite the D750 being used with a hand-picked set of the best Nikon lenses I'd enjoyed for years, that the
D750 has never been used seriously again. The only times I've used it since have been when Nikon sent me notices that it might be affected by defects, to verify the defects, and then it was sent in for overhaul. It's up for sale, along with all my other Nikon gear (four bodies, eight lenses).

The SL outperforms all of them and has been absolutely 100% reliable.

G

Did you say that you've shot 10k photos with your SL? Color me impressed that it has survived what is the equivelent of 3 or so weddings. Really amazing work by Leica. That's so amazing.

Meanwhile my prosumer $1300 dollar D750 is entering wedding season 3... Used next to an old D700 that is still working like a champ, and next do what must be a 2 decade old F100 that is working like a champ, and next to a brand new F6 that will work for idk how many decades.

Again, I'm more on what Brennan said. You can take the SL and make killer images, that's abundantly clear. Leica did some things right with it. OTOH, there is no value for the money unless you simply "must" buy Leica. I'm obviously talking to a bunch of a people who "must" buy Leica. I've said this to Brennan a bunch of times...if you were to make a focus group pre-release of the SL and pitch the thing, no one would want it. Variable aperture zooms? And old medium resolution sensor with worst in class performance, a single prime (that you still can't get) which is the size of a house? What Leica user is thinking...oh yeah, that's for me! But then the thing comes out, gets the expectedly mixed reviews and a generally poor reception from objective sources, and you still have the folks with the red dot colored eyes just jumping for joy because they can own an A7 copy that happens to be "luxury."

 

[jsrockit]

Did you say that you've shot 10k photos with your SL? Color me impressed that it has survived what is the equivelent of 3 or so weddings. Really amazing work by Leica. That's so amazing.

Why so angry about a camera?

Meanwhile my prosumer $1300 dollar D750 is entering wedding season 3... Used next to an old D700 that is still working like a champ, and next do what must be a 2 decade old F100 that is working like a champ, and next to a brand new F6 that will work for idk how many decades.

Hmmm, yes Nikon make quality gear too. We get it, you value being thrifty.

But then the thing comes out, gets the expectedly mixed reviews and a generally poor reception from objective sources, and you still have the folks with the red dot colored eyes just jumping for joy because they can own an A7 copy that happens to be "luxury."

Leica cameras always get mixed reviews but that doesn't mean they are bad or are incapable of quality photos. And anyone that has held a A7 and a SL can tell the SL is nothing like a A7. That said, there is nothing wrong for buying something because it has bleeding edge tech or because you love the ergonomics / haptics / feel of a camera. Implying that the only reason to buy a Leica is because of a logo is silly and immature.

 

[Calzone]

Why so angry about a camera?

A really good question.

Cal

 

[Huss]

This. She could have taken a D750 and a 24-70/2.8 VR and done the same thing. I know, she didn't have a D750 and she prefers the Leica system ...

I have the D750 and the build quality and lack of weather sealing do not compare to the SL. But I love it, and it gives great results and only cost me $1100! If the lady who took the SL to Iran needed that level of build and weather sealing, then yeah. But the fact that they also took an M says no..

Bottom line is they are Leica users, that's what they have and that's why they took it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You can take anything and make pics. People have been doing that since year 1 in photography.

I kinda don't get the claims that the image quality is better on the SL than the D750. I'm using the M240 and the D750 and at base, low ISO levels I do not see any difference. And I can only, maybe, see a difference if I pixel peep between the Nikon 50 1.8G and my 50mm Zeiss ZF.2 Makro Planar. The result from the Zeiss match up to my Summilux Asph apart from one area - flare resistance - where it is much better. The 50 1.8G also resists flare much better than my Summilux.
The SL has better high ISO than the M240, but so does the D750, and the D750 sensor out performs the SL if you get down to the nitty gritty ultimate details.

If I had a D750 and an SL, then yeah I would use the SL over it too. Because I prefer the menu system, lack of clutter and, well, I just dropped $7500 on a camera so it better be used!

Does any of this matter? Think about all the great photos that have been made throughout history. And realize that most of them were made quite some time ago with gear much 'inferior' to what is available today.

FYI, the military w/ unlimited budgets use DSLRs in combat.

https://petapixel.com/2016/10/07/watch-army-photographer-switch-camera-rifle-combat/

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm. Anyone who has to shoot more than 3000 exposures to capture a wedding has problems that can't be addressed by any equipment, in my book. Just sayin'.

My typical wedding shoot has never gone to more than 150 finished photographs, not ever since I started doing photography for pay in 1969. To net that many finished, salable photographs, I usually make about 300 to 500 exposures, which seems a lot anyway but eh? "film is cheap." Making ten times that number is just punching the button and hoping, in my book. There simply aren't that many photo opportunities even in a $20,000 wedding gala with 200 people attending.

I guess we'll never agree on this, but the SL to me is far better value for dollar, and a far better picture maker*, for the decade or more that I'll be using it. Let me know in 2027 how that D750 is doing for you.

* Most of the difference in picture quality is, of course, the Leica SL, M, and R lenses. Both cameras sensors do well, at least if the Nikon D750 shutter is working correctly and not causing flare and other artifacts to appear in the images. I've never heard of such things before in a Nikon, but that's what my D750 went back to Nikon to have taken care of, twice; I made exposures that verified it for Nikon Service.

G

 

[SaveKodak]

I can't roll my eyes high enough when people tell me that shooting 3k images per weddings is too many. They would spin around in my skull. Wedding coverage has changed over the 4 decades + since freaking 1969 hahaha. I'm sure when you started you could just line up the folks in front of some flowers and make 2 strobed shots like a prom photo but people today require a bit more creativity. And yeah it's digital so you by nature shoot it differently and do a lot more editing. Very few clients today would accept 150 images. Even the folks I know who still shoot 100% film deliver 350-500 finished images. I'm sure the SL beautifully lives up to your goals when those goals are...pic of my Mercedes here, pic of my Mercedes there, pic of my Mercedes next to other Mercedes... Butttt I need equipment that works in a more diverse set of environments.

 

[Calzone]

If the lady who took the SL to Iran needed that level of build and weather sealing, then yeah. But the fact that they also took an M says no..


I kinda don't get the claims that the image quality is better on the SL than the D750. I'm using the M240 and the D750 and at base, low ISO levels I do not see any difference.

https://petapixel.com/2016/10/07/watch-army-photographer-switch-camera-rifle-combat/

Huss,

I believe the timing of Tina's trip was two years ago and really the SL was just released and was an brand new camera and that was the reason why the Monochrom and M240 were brought along. At the time I bought my SL the camera had been out for about a full year. Anyways I think the timeline explains why she brought the Leica M's, meaning the SL was a brand new camera that had been just released.

Not sure if you are aware that your M-240 is only 12-bit. The SL is 14 bit, so with both cameras having 24 MP sensors the SL files are 48 MB bigger. Not sure if you would see a difference or under what conditions the extra 48 MB has any meaning, but there is a difference here.

A more fair comparision would be a M-10 to a SL. Both 14-bit, both Maestro processor borrowed from the medium format "S." So is there a big difference between a M240 and a M10???

Anyways people see things differently, make judgements, but I'd rather be open to listening than to say what I think. On one hand there is a difference, but how obvious is the difference? Is the upgrade worth the price? I guess that depends on the person/individual, but that might start yet another round of arguing and digging in on this thread. LOL

BTW I am a big Nikon SLR guy. Always will be.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

I can't roll my eyes high enough when people tell me that shooting 3k images per weddings is too many. They would spin around in my skull. Wedding coverage has changed over the 4 decades + since freaking 1969 hahaha. I'm sure when you started you could just line up the folks in front of some flowers and make 2 strobed shots like a prom photo but people today require a bit more creativity. And yeah it's digital so you by nature shoot it differently and do a lot more editing. Very few clients today would accept 150 images. Even the folks I know who still shoot 100% film deliver 350-500 finished images. I'm sure the SL beautifully lives up to your goals when those goals are...pic of my Mercedes here, pic of my Mercedes there, pic of my Mercedes next to other Mercedes... Butttt I need equipment that works in a more diverse set of environments.

Your missives make me laugh so much. Thank you; I needed the diversion today.

I think I'll go out for a drive in my Mercedes and buy some lunch. Let's see, oh yes: there's a nice restaurant next to the Mercedes dealership that has just the very tastiest sauerbraten and spätzle. Perhaps I'll nip a photo of my Mercedes next to my friend's Mercedes 300SL Gullwing afterwards. Wouldn't want to make two exposures, that might work my wonderful Leica SL a little too much. 😎

Haben Sie eine wundervolle Lebensdauer!

G

 

[Huss]

​

G

Cool! $15K of gear to take a pic of a $20K car!

😀

One $17 Nikkormat, one $25 35mm 2.8 lens, one $1.49 roll of film.
Car is worth about $10K

 

[jsrockit]

I believe we are now just getting into pure classism. Perhaps we should take this back to discussing the SL and not jumping to conclusions based on the stuff people own?

 

[Godfrey]

Cool! $15K of gear to take a pic of a $20K car!

Well, new cost of the car was more like $70,000. But I'm too frugal for that and bought it for $10K when it was ten years old. Actually, that photo of my SLK was made with an iPhone 6 and processed with Snapseed. So call it $600 for the camera, give or take a buck or three.

As was this one:

​

Now this photo is rather more interesting from a technical perspective...

​

... because if you grab just the very center about 650x650 pixels from it and crank in +3EV more exposure, you can see the Leica SL + Telyt-R 250mm f/4 (exposure at ISO 400 @ f/22 @ 2.5 seconds) and tripod outlined quite clearly. The blurry blob next to that in the very center is me moving about during the exposure.

​

That's pretty nice resolution for an ancient 1974 Telyt-R 250 v1 and 24 Mpixel. I think I paid $250 for that lens a few years back when Leica R lenses were worth nearly nothing; I suspect it's worth double to triple that now. 🙂

(... And hopefully we're now back on track talking about the Leica SL rather than all that palaver about how wonderful Nikon and Sony are... :angel🙂

G

 

[brennanphotoguy]

I wish the Leica R lenses were still cheap. They are really good but now all the video people are buying them up 🙁

 

[Godfrey]

I wish the Leica R lenses were still cheap. They are really good but now all the video people are buying them up 🙁

That's why I bought them when I did, before I even had a body to use them on and before the Leica SL had even been announced. All through the time I worked with Nikon SLR gear, I would look at the Leica R lenses and wish I could even afford one of them. It never happened while the R system was still in production, coincidence and whatever always got in the way. A while back, somewhere between 2011 and 2013, I noticed that many people were dumping their R lenses and bodies for dirt cheap prices. I remembered a conversation I had with a couple of people close to Leica at a photo event in NYC around 2008 where two of the more knowledgeable suggested that Leica were cancelling the R system but would not just obsolete the lenses out of hand ... they were simply too good to waste like that.

I then went on a buying spree that ended up with me having fifteen R lenses at an average price of $400 apiece—or about the price of one or two NEW ones!—and a couple of those deals included an R body as well. Roll forward to Fall of 2015, I've just bought the Nikon D750 body and grabbed a couple of Leitax mounts to put my favorites to work ... and Leica announces the SL. I ordered the SL body immediately, later added the SL24-90 to that order, and had it on the first day the SL was available to the public.

I have not regretted that outrageous expenditure one iota. I'd never spent that much money for a single camera and one lens before in my life, and likely never will again: it was a huge risk and I'm certainly not made of money. But the SL *immediately* showed me that Leica had it right, as soon as I got it home and compared several photos I made with the D750 fitted with the two lenses I'd adapted, swapped the R mounts back on the lenses, and took the same photos with the SL. Absolutely no contest whatsoever: the SL outperformed the Nikon with the same R lenses very clearly, most likely due to the Lens Profiles supplied for the R lenses in the SL, and despite both cameras having the same pixel resolution, etc.

I reiterate: this is the best money I've spent for a high-end 35mm format camera, ever. And I've worked with a lot of very good, high-end 35mm format equipment in the past 50+ years.

G