Leica SL compared to others of its kind

[jaapv]

Nah it looks like Sony did. Then Leica stole the idea, but said the Sony sensors were too good so they used a cheap one like they always do, and then bought some EVF tech from Epson.

Actually Leica cooperates with Panasonic...🙄

 

[cz23]

I've never owned a digital Pentax, but if I were interested in an SLR-style system, I'd look carefully at the K1. Apparently a great body with nearly unlimited lens choices. And one could be pretty well equipped for the cost of one SL lens.

Not exactly the minimalist philosophy we love in Leicas, but camera configuration can be a simple as you want, regardless of having a myriad of options.

John

 

[Godfrey]

I've never owned a digital Pentax, but if I were interested in an SLR-style system, I'd look carefully at the K1. Apparently a great body with nearly unlimited lens choices. And one could be pretty well equipped for the cost of one SL lens.

Not exactly the minimalist philosophy we love in Leicas, but camera configuration can be a simple as you want, regardless of having a myriad of options.

John

As an ex-Pentaxian, it's hard to say this but "nearly unlimited with lens choices" isn't a good description of the K1. In fact, you are 100% limited to Pentax mount lenses, and particularly the most recent ones for good functionality and performance. And Pentax lenses can be very very good—but are quite variable in both their build quality AND their performance.

I found Pentax gear very very good when it was good, and extremely frustrating when it was slightly off the mark. Sadly, that turned out to be a good bit of the time, too much of the time because at that time I was dependent upon my gear to make my living.

G

 

[uhoh7]

SL compared with others of it's kind...or cost?

maybe the new MF mirrorless cameras are better compared to the 006 or 007?

It's funny, I've followed Sony very closely and began shooting RF lenses on the Nex-5. I had one of the first A7r cameras in the USA. Today my second body, behind the M9 is a A7 Kolari v2. A group of us followed all these developments over at FM, bought and compared Sonys, Leicas and lenses ad infinitum LOL

One of the most respected, Charles K, bought every new Sony including A7r2 and made many interesting observations about how various lenses got along with the Cameras. He just bought a XT1 and is moving to Fuji because of that camera.

Sony is brilliant and Sony is mind numbingly stupid. But to the point, if you like certain M or LTM lenses which are 35 or wider, the stock A7r2 is terrible. Spend another 500 for the thin filter mod, and then all you have to do is deal with is the profiles LOL. Sony lenses are all over the place and QC is famously erratic.

Why an SL instead of a M240 or MM? Not only can you shoot R glass, but you can shoot nikon and soon any mount I'd guess. No funny thick filter set placed on top of the sensors which distorts the wider ray angles, like all the A7 cameras are crippled by. As a platform for M and SLR glass with some native AF possibilities the SL smokes the A7r2.

The next camera I want? A7S Kolari. That camera actually will give me new choices in a variety of situations, since it can shoot clean at incredible ISOs. For that, I can endure the many tedious aspects of Sony design.

 

[Calzone]

Why an SL instead of a M240 or MM? Not only can you shoot R glass, but you can shoot nikon and soon any mount I'd guess. No funny thick filter set placed on top of the sensors which distorts the wider ray angles, like all the A7 cameras are crippled by. As a platform for M and SLR glass with some native AF possibilities the SL smokes the A7r2.

Funny thing is I still own my almost 4 year old MM. I love my Monochrom warts and all. Currently I'm on a list to be called for sensor replacement. I remember how the initial response was to this camera. One poster hear on this forum call the rumored idea of a monochrome digital Leica "dumb." LOL.

For me the Leica SL takes some things a little further than a M-240. First off in comparing the files (both are 24 MP) the M-240 is only 12-bit and the SL is 14-Bit, so the file sizes are 288 MB and 336 MB respectively. Probably only important if you are trying to print big, but more data and detail is just that. I replaced a Nikon D3X with the SL.

The SL has the processor for the Leica "S" and has 2 Gig buffer that can handle 33 DNG shots before becoming full. For those that do fashion photography trying to replace a big Digital SLR the SL is the better choice. This processor is really grand and well engineered, and it works in the league of a pro level DSLR.

The AF 50 Lux I already pre-ordered. For me autofocus is a great capability that M-bodies does not offer.

Lastly I'm impressed on how well my Noct-Nikkor works on the SL with a Novaflex adapter that allows me to use the Noctilux F1.2 profile. At F1.2 with the additional 8mm in focal length I have a wonderful portrait lens.

I have even used a 65/3.5 Elmar Visoflex lens with a triple level of Leica adapters with the 50 Elmar profile (both are Tessars). Every small format lens I own adds to the creative possibilities, and I don't really see any compromise or limitations.

I know there are less expensive cameras, and also other great cameras, but the SL is a camera like my Monochrom that seems that Leica kinda designed especially for me.

Cal

 

[uhoh7]

Great post, Calzone.

You remind me soon we will be seeing shots with S lenses from the SL 🙂

Another place it fits like no A7 can: a second body for two systems: M and S, beside a place as first body for the oft unsung R line 🙂

It costs alot. Somebody paid 7k for the M9 I now use. The SL will become a viable path for the more cost conscious in time. A working SL is always going to be worth money.

Fuji and Leica have been thinking alot about still shooters and what they like and need. Sony has been pushing the sensor and footprint envelope for the FF cameras, which is a benefit to everyone, but Sony can't make a natural package. That's also probably good long run, as still the digital barnack, a smaller, lighter M platform, has yet to be cashed in 🙂

 

[Calzone]

I am very-very lucky to own a 50 Lux-R "E60." Only about 2700 were ever made. The "E60" has a long focus throw like a Noctilux, but this long focus throw is no handicap on the SL. The 50 "E60" has a rendering a lot like a Noctilux with wonderful bokeh and smooth creamy OOF, but without the light falloff that gets displayed in the corners.

Now image being able to close focus accurately and easily with a Noctilux. Basically this is a magic lens that begs to be shot wide open. Then you have a camera that is designed to exploit Leica glass which really performs in a supreme manner wide open.

This lens is not ASPH, but is remarkably sharp wide open, then combine that with the balanced combination of softness.

Anyways this is no ordinary lens, and it gets utilized to its full potential on the SL.

The Noct-Nikkor with F1.2 exaggerates the shallow DOF, and the extra 8 mm compounds the shallowness. Bokeh gets kinda crazy, but the Noct-Nikkor really comes across as a true portrait lens.

Anyways it does not really get better than this unless perhaps you are shooting a Leica S. For me this is doubtful because I already print big and I could not afford to print the files big to exploit the added resolution and IQ of an S.

I would agree that for a long time line/horizon the SL can have legs. I'm so excited about PhotoPlusExpo tomorrow. Perhaps in the Leica booth they might have a working pre-production AF 50 Lux. Anyways this is my hope.

I paid $8K for my Monochrom that is still a great camera, the SL was only $7.5K. Now I am spoiled. LOL.

Cal

 

[TRIago]

I'm sure the SL is a fine camera and I can see why people would buy it. Buy I would not. But that's personal. If I go Leica, I go M. I'm not a professional photographer, tho. But seriously if I was and looking for a FF (35mm equivalent) I'd take a Canon right away. It is a better value in my point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jsrockit]

I'm sure the SL is a fine camera and I can see why people would buy it. Buy I would not. But that's personal. If I go Leica, I go M. I'm not a professional photographer, tho.

Me too. Leica, to me, is the M. I do like the Q though too.

But seriously if I was and looking for a FF (35mm equivalent) I'd take a Canon right away. It is a better value in my point of view.

Well, you don't even think of Leica if you are thinking of the best value.

 

[Calzone]

The SL is not a common camera, but I saw one "in the wild" Sunday. The only other one I saw in the wild was at an ICP Symposium where Tina M. was the owner and speaker doing a presentation on her shooting in Iran and Syria.

Kinda cool not seeing SL's everywhere. In this manner it remains distinguished.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

I'm sure the SL is a fine camera and I can see why people would buy it. Buy I would not. But that's personal. If I go Leica, I go M. I'm not a professional photographer, tho. But seriously if I was and looking for a FF (35mm equivalent) I'd take a Canon right away. It is a better value in my point of view.

A Canon DSLR was my first "serious" DSLR. It always worked well, but its lenses never inspired me. I changed it out for other systems two years later—that was over a decade ago...

The Leica SL and Leica lenses inspire me. Simple as that. Its value proposition is that I love using it, and the lenses I use on it (SL, R, and M series) are outstanding in every way that matters to me. Many of those lenses pre-date the state of the art Canon lenses I had by several decades.

G

 

[Calzone]

Here are some odd lenses to mount on a SL.

Nikon 35/1.8 LTM, Chrome Pentax-L 43/1.9 LTM; black Canon 28/3.5.

65/3.5 Visoflex via a triple stack of Leica adapters.

58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor AIS via Leica T-M adapter stacked with a Novaflex LEM/NIK. This stack of adapters allows me to utilize the Noctilux F1.2 profile. Nikon 45/2.8P (Tessar) that allows me to utilize a 50 Elmar profile. The 45/2.8P offers mucho contrast and saturation for a look of slides.

Using every small format lens I own is kinda seamless and fun.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Great post, Calzone.

You remind me soon we will be seeing shots with S lenses from the SL 🙂

Another place it fits like no A7 can: a second body for two systems: M and S, beside a place as first body for the oft unsung R line 🙂

It costs alot. Somebody paid 7k for the M9 I now use. The SL will become a viable path for the more cost conscious in time. A working SL is always going to be worth money.

Fuji and Leica have been thinking alot about still shooters and what they like and need. Sony has been pushing the sensor and footprint envelope for the FF cameras, which is a benefit to everyone, but Sony can't make a natural package. That's also probably good long run, as still the digital barnack, a smaller, lighter M platform, has yet to be cashed in 🙂

So last Friday I went to an event at the Leica Store in SoHo where they mounted "S" glass on a tethered SL to make portraits. John Kreider, a Leica Product Specialist answered my question about the advantage of "S" glass on a SL by zooming in on a file. There was macro like detail, deeper shadow detail than I ever saw, and added smoothness to the highlights. Basically more dynamic range.

Anyways I was blown away. Looked very medium format to me. Never saw that level on my 27 inch EIZO that I saw on a Mac powerbook's small screen.

Of course a strobe was used to bring out the information. The lens used was the 100/2.0 ASPH so this was not a slow lens like on my medium format film cameras. And yes it was stopped down.

Anyways definitely a big step towards medium format.

Sunday at our NYC Meet-Up we celebrated "lens-fest." Jim brought a Noctilux F1.2. What was interesting was comparing the 50 Lux-R E55 against my 50 Lux-R "E60." I was expecting my E60 to crush the E55, but my E60 only was a minor amount sharper. In fact the E55 displayed more saturated/deeper colors.

At home I tested my 50 Lux ASPH against my E60, and the clear winner was the E60. I wonder if the lack of size constraints allowed Leica to build a better lens, or if "R" glass exploits a larger image circle to exploit the "sweet-spot" like the "S" glass does.

Anyways it seems independently the guys at the Leica Store reported to me that they compared a 35 Lux-R against a 35 Lux ASPH FLE and were surprised that the "R" glass was sharper. Larger image circle?

Now I'm thinking that the AF 50 Lux I pre-ordered, coming out in spring 2017, has an 82mm filter thread, and is only perhaps a half inch shorter than the huge 24-90 zoom. The AF 50 Lux should be lighter due to less elements and groups, but my guess is that Leica is going to exploit a big image circle and the sweet spot.

The Pre-production AF 50 Lux I tried at PhotoPlusExpo wide open perhaps is large for good reason. John Kreider also mentioned that he will be testing the 50 Lux with new firmware this week. The AF should be speeding up.

When I check my G-mail I should have the shots John took of me, but know that the shots from Friday's event will be posted on the Leica Store SoHo's facebook page. I am wearing a white alpaca fur hat for the highlight. BTW the new level of detail was very macrolike.

Cal