DP Review of the SL
- Thread starter brennanphotoguy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 149
- Views 18K
rscheffler
Well-known
Too bad most Sony sensors are in cameras that leave a lot to be desired in respect to ergonomics and ease of use. Sony nails a lot of technical points, without doubt. It would seem for some, other more subjective factors are equally or more important in their camera (system) purchasing decisions.
All I know is I greatly enjoyed using the SL when I had the opportunity. I could accurately focus my fast semi-wide, normal and tele M lenses without image magnification or need to rely on focus peaking. Without need for magnification, use was fluid and decisive. I have never experienced the same ease of use and satisfaction with the Sony a7X series cameras. And I have used all except the a7II and a7SII...
While the SL works well with M lenses, IMO it is still not as good with some wide angles as the digital M cameras are. It's a major reason why I didn't pursue the SL further. Instead I decided to wait for an M update to improve EVF and live view performance, which is the case in the M10. But EVF resolution still isn't at SL level, so it might still be another M generation before EVF performance will match the SL
I know Joe, he would not regret it. State of the art means nothing if you don't like using the camera.
willie_901
Veteran
The signal-to-noise ratio of current Leica camera data streams are slightly behind some other brands.
This is what data from unrendered raw files show.
Dynamic Range vs. ISO
Read Noise VS ISO
With raw files ISO invariance is convenient. But knowing what ISO is optimal for your camera in extreme low-light is more important.
So here's what I think.
There is much, much more to choosing a camera than how many stops of underexposure are tolerable. In many cases it's not even relevant. The signal-to-noise ratio performance of Leica's current cameras are not a significant limitation.
This is what data from unrendered raw files show.
Dynamic Range vs. ISO
Read Noise VS ISO
With raw files ISO invariance is convenient. But knowing what ISO is optimal for your camera in extreme low-light is more important.
So here's what I think.
There is much, much more to choosing a camera than how many stops of underexposure are tolerable. In many cases it's not even relevant. The signal-to-noise ratio performance of Leica's current cameras are not a significant limitation.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Leica lent me the 24-90 for NYC Fashion Week and I did a long test drive. This lens brought the SL's full potential, and dispite being a zoom (I am not a zoom kinda guy) makes me seriously want to buy one. The weight and size are truely a lot.
The SL is fun to use and does not have a menu that gives one a headache.
I'm not sure if the image stabilization in the lens is the better idea, but the 24-90 at night at only 400 ISO made mind blowing files that displayed resolution that really surprised me. I believe the 50 Lux-SL I already pre-paid for will be a great lens for shooting urban at night.
I'm with Godfrey in that the native glass seems to be best and betters the M and R glass.
BTW I use the OEM Leica strap that came with my SL, but I use a Nikon base plate from a AH-4 hand strap to hang my SL vertically like a M5. The ergonomics of this carry adds a lot of comfort over the horizontal hang.
My friend Robert in another thread had his A7 fail from misty conditions, but luckily he recovered the camera after letting it dry out for a few weeks.
The SL has a weather sealed body and the native lenses are also weather sealed.
Anyways for me the SL is a fun camera, a fast shooter, and easy to use. I can see me shooting this camera 4-5 years from now and still loving it.
Cal
The SL is fun to use and does not have a menu that gives one a headache.
I'm not sure if the image stabilization in the lens is the better idea, but the 24-90 at night at only 400 ISO made mind blowing files that displayed resolution that really surprised me. I believe the 50 Lux-SL I already pre-paid for will be a great lens for shooting urban at night.
I'm with Godfrey in that the native glass seems to be best and betters the M and R glass.
BTW I use the OEM Leica strap that came with my SL, but I use a Nikon base plate from a AH-4 hand strap to hang my SL vertically like a M5. The ergonomics of this carry adds a lot of comfort over the horizontal hang.
My friend Robert in another thread had his A7 fail from misty conditions, but luckily he recovered the camera after letting it dry out for a few weeks.
The SL has a weather sealed body and the native lenses are also weather sealed.
Anyways for me the SL is a fun camera, a fast shooter, and easy to use. I can see me shooting this camera 4-5 years from now and still loving it.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
Joe's camera is less fun to use. I much rather do the strength training, even though I'm a lazy slacker.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I don't think anyone was saying that the camera is *bad* per say but more so that there are many other options that do many other things much better than this camera for the price. Every camera system is going to have it's flaws. I wish the Sony cameras had dual card slots and weather sealing. I wish the D750 had the better view finder from the D810, no pop up flash and better weather sealing. I wish the SL had a better quality sensor, a more ergonomic grip, and a better native lens selection (more of them and much smaller physically). For the price of the SL it shouldn't be much to ask for *some* of those things. I love the SL's design (grip aside), weather sealing, fit and finish but it just falls short in a few important areas. The M is able to differentiate itself because of what it is and can be priced accordingly. The SL is just another mirrorless camera.
jszokoli
Well-known
Cal,
But the SL is clearly inferior, what's wanting to use a camera if it creates technically deficient images...
And just to make it clear to others viewing this tread, I really don't like my A7Rii. It's used interface is lacking, and I'm still struggling to get a grip on it's color rendering under certain circumstances. I had hoped that it would be a all around camera but this has not been the case for me. I'm on the fence with John's advice to give it a chance with a native lens, but I'm worried that it will be good money after bad.
But hey the A7Rii a great BW film scanner...
I'm going to stay with my digital Leica's rangefinders for now.
Joe
But the SL is clearly inferior, what's wanting to use a camera if it creates technically deficient images...
And just to make it clear to others viewing this tread, I really don't like my A7Rii. It's used interface is lacking, and I'm still struggling to get a grip on it's color rendering under certain circumstances. I had hoped that it would be a all around camera but this has not been the case for me. I'm on the fence with John's advice to give it a chance with a native lens, but I'm worried that it will be good money after bad.
But hey the A7Rii a great BW film scanner...
I'm going to stay with my digital Leica's rangefinders for now.
Joe
But this is subjective. People have said the same things about Leica M cameras (or rangefinders in general) for 60+ years.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I congratulate you on not reading my post all the way before commenting.
SaveKodak
Well-known
I have you have that someone backwards. The SL has objective technical deficiencies, especially when compared with products upon which it was so obviously based. From a capable and technical standpoint it's the worst performing mirrorless you can buy.
What's subjective is that anyone may enjoy the camera anyway and that's fine. I enjoyed my M 240 despite it's sensor performance.
I just don't understand the knee-jerk defence of the indefensible. Like, if you want the SL as a system to succeed, why not point out areas that need improvement? I like the Sony system but I am fully capable of pointing out that their fast primes are way too big and the ergonomics need significant improvement.
It just goes back to that old Mike Johnston article which basically stated that too Leicaphiles, "the current Leica is the best possible leica and could not possibly be improved, until the next one comes out."
But, the fact is, the SL has not been well received from a sales perspective. Before you ask, yes I have the #s as I work at the same place as Brennan. We have MANY more pre-orders of the 63/2.8 for the GFX than the SL 50/1.4 for example. Most people see the SL for what it is, half baked. This also explains why Leica refuses to make lenses for it. You can like the SL all you want, but don't be surprised when people point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Point taken, but no need to be so condescending. I don't think my tone was.
Not backwards. That is my point... people could still love the SL more than any other camera. And sometimes technical capabilities are subjective if they are capabilities that don't mean anything to what you want to accomplish with your photography. We don't all photograph the same things in the same way.
SaveKodak
Well-known
Ok sure, if you want to spend the most amount of money you can for the least amount of camera, then you are objectively making the right choice with the SL.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Forgive me, it's been a long morning without enough coffee. I'm feeling sassy.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Joe,
I'm a technically deficient kinda guy, so perhaps the SL is a good camera for me because it shares my style.
I kinda knew that I did not want to struggle with using a camera, and all I need is a camera that is easy to use and takes good pictures. I know that is not asking for much, but it works for me. I kinda knew the A7 was not for me.
BTW I think my original Monochrom is still a great camera, one of the reasons I like it is because it is uncomplicated, so basic, and primitive. The M246 kinda crushes it in performance, but am I wrong to still love my now four year old Monochrom warts and all? Do I really need more?
The SL was the right camera for me, and I think it has legs, meaning 4-5 years out I will still be shooting and loving it. Now the challenge is to get the most out of my cameras, and this is what really counts.
Cal
Believe me I get your point. It's not for me either. But I do think it could be right for some. However, I'm sure some would question my love of the Fuji X-Pro2 at $1699.
SaveKodak
Well-known
Maybe but I think the XPro2 fundamentally does deliver on it's promises. Fuji worked hard and fast to improve their technology and develop a system of lenses that were all very high quality and matched to the ergonomics of the camera, for the most part. The XPro2 isn't for me personally but I wouldn't really question anyone's interest in it. Plus, there is no other camera that realistically competes with what the XPro2 does. It might kinda-sorta look like an M, but really it's a lot more like a Contax than a Leica.
I lodged the similar criticism that I have now for the SL against the XPro1 and my experience with that camera ultimately drove me away from the Fuji system. Fuji corrected their shortcomings. Time will tell if Leica does the same. I personally moved away from all mirrorless cameras now, as I shoot all my personal work on film, and most of my client work using Nikon digital. The Nikon's may be boring in some ways but they are the best at what they are made to do. For cameras that bring me a certain amount of joy, you can't really beat my Rolleiflex.
Yes, agreed... the G Series... my last full time film camera.
I have to agree there... if I was doing pro work and had to rely on my cameras for a living, I'd use Nikon.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
