Leica SL

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
11:57 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
For most of the time I was a working photojournalist, film was the medium and the dominant camera was the Leica rangefinder (supplemented by SLRs for long lenses). That changed when digital arrived and allowed the quick transmission of news images. It was the beginning, and change was rapid. It seemed you were using new, and often better, cameras every 6 months. Canon and Nikon dominated the arena; Leica faded.

Digital Leica rangefinders were expensive. News photographers needed multiple bodies so they could shoot quickly with different fixed focal length lenses or still have a working rig when some cameras went down when you were in some distant, perhaps hostile, location where you were not going to be able to pick up a replacement. While digital Leicas were going up in price, photojournalists whose magazines and papers were struggling with the transition from print to screen were getting less work and less money for that work. The Leica, once dominant, began to fade from the arena of photojournalism.

It wasn’t a nice feeling to see the tool that had been your mainstay fade. Shooting news you were rarely able to fully exploit the technical excellence of the camera. But you sure were grateful for its durability and ruggedness.

I think the immediate future of the small digital camera is in what is now called “mirrorless” (although my 4x5 Speed Graphic and 8x10 view camera take exception to this) thanks to less moving parts and focus evaluated at the image sensor itself. My hope is that Leica makes a comeback in my world with the Leica SL, the full frame “mirrorless” that they introduced at Photo Expo. We won’t know that until time passes, but look what we can assume we are getting from Leitz.

(1) Very good lenses (and adapters that will fit your existing M, S, and R lenses)

(2) Very rugged body, built like a tank from a single block of aluminum

(3) A good, 24 meg, full frame sensor with no low pass filter

(4) Claims of autofocus that is faster than any other DSLR system

(5) 4K video

(6) High image quality; high build quality - I guess that’s repeating 1 & 2.

The apparent price tag is $7,450 sans lens. Already folks are yelling, “Too expensive.” Check this out. It makes the body price seem not so bad.

Nikon D3x - $6,995

Canon EOS-1DX - $4,599

The real difference is in lens prices. The 24-90 f/2.8-4 kit lens is $4950; so, get those adapters.

Here are the most intelligent articles on the SL that I found on the web. Please add to these if you find something you find informative. For me, I’m just happy that Leitz has joined what I think is the real world. Am I right or wrong? What do you think?

https://luminous-landscape.com/leica-sl-initial-thoughts/

https://luminous-landscape.com/some-thoughts-on-the-leica-sl/

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2015/10/my-thoughts-on-leica-sl.html
 
Not to diverge too far from your theme, but the Leica Q seems to be a winner, too (if you could get one). Fixed lens, full frame and (almost) affordable (if you could get one). Really tempting (if you could get one).
 
The Leica SL is the camera I've been expecting for the past two or three years. Funny, an interview with the Leica folks said they'd been working on it for about three years. When the T system was announced, I took one look at the lens mount and thought to myself, "There will be a full frame camera with this lens mount any time now." That's the SL.

For me, it is all about the lenses. I want a body that simply works, feels good, has good controls, and that will last. A 24 Mpixel sensor is enough. Today's dynamic range and ISO sensitivity is enough. The build quality of the SL is more than enough. I prefer manual focus. I want as good a viewfinder as I can get, past the optical excellence of the Leicaflex and R8. The SL body has everything I need for my take on this stuff.

With that in mind, starting three years ago, I've been selecting and collecting Leica R lenses. I've been concentrating on the older, more original Mandler designs, and 3-cam mount. I love how Walter Mandler envisioned the drawing of photographs with his lens designs. The later revisions of these lenses are often better performing—more accurate, more critically perfect—but I prefer the aesthetics of the older generation versions. I've acquired a dozen wonderful examples from 19 to 250 mm ... I think I've got enough.

The SL's dedicated lenses will all be spectacular, top of the line creations with AF, OIS, and incredible quality. Maybe, when the line is a little more complete, I'll treat myself to one or another of them. Not important.

All the gear I need that I don't already have is now on the way here. The SL body has been pre-ordered. I am as excited as I can be about it. :)

G
 
Leica lacks the support services that nikon and canon have had for decades. Also I'd argue that reliability is questionable up to this point and the system is no where as mature.

Is the SL with adapters utilizing M and flex lenses not like other systems where there are no auto aperture functions. Particularly in the journalistic world I can't see M lenses of much use or for that matter any lens that doesn't have auto aperture function. Focusing wide open and then stopping down to the working aperture just would not be practical. Please tell me if Leica has found a way around this.
 
Ray

These "live view" cameras don't need auto aperture.
They focus with the "live" aperture and shoot with the same.
It's all off the sensor which adjusts for exposure whether it's from lighting situation or iris size does not make much difference.
Some are slower to react to lower light levels that a small aperture might bring about.
I imagine the SL will be ahead of the curve in this regard.
 
Considering the price for Leica SL and its zoom lens, how could such a flaw where the lens and lens hood block focus-assist light go unnoticed?

Capture.jpg


From this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScLP7iTo7EM


I admit that I'm not in the market for this camera; however, I'd be hard pressed to buy a camera and its kit lens for $13,000 only to have it not lock focus in low light due to lens hood getting in the way.
 
f16sunshine said:
Ray

These "live view" cameras don't need auto aperture.
They focus with the "live" aperture and shoot with the same.
It's all off the sensor which adjusts for exposure whether it's from lighting situation or iris size does not make much difference.
Some are slower to react to lower light levels that a small aperture might bring about.
I imagine the SL will be ahead of the curve in this regard.
Click to expand...

DOF would influence accuracy of focus I'd imagine, wouldn't it? I just can't see how you can focus as precisely with the DOF at f11 as you would at 1.4. Focus isn't as critical but placing the best focus point would be a pain I'd think.
 
(I thought from the title the thread was about SI - Sports Illustrated :) )

At first I was a bit puzzled by the SL, but now think I have a better understanding of what it could be.

I shoot an M system and a Canon 1 series system side by side at a variety of event type jobs. I like the 1DX a lot, but would like it to be a bit slimmer, lighter and quieter. I've been hoping Canon would release a suitable mirrorless camera similar to 1D series build quality and ergonomics. I don't really care about an 'as small as possible' mirrorless...

I think the SL is close to the camera I hoped Canon would build (and likely still will). If it lives up to its claimed performance, it could replace my DSLR kit for much of what I do for clients. Unfortunately, where it likely will not perform ideally is for sports/action, which I also cover, with the 1DX (let alone lack of lenses and I'd be afraid to know Leica's pricing for a 300 or 400/2.8 or 200-400/4 type zoom). So there would still be a need to maintain a DSLR system for this kind of work... and since I get by fairly well with the DSLR kit, I'm not so sure it would be worthwhile introducing a 3rd system (SL) in the mix, at least from a cost and ROI perspective. Sure, I'd like to, but practical realities for me suggest it's not going to happen in the near future.

That said, I do hope Leica builds on the SL system and expands its capabilities. I'm also very interested in how the SL's tech will transfer to the next M camera.
 
x-ray said:
DOF would influence accuracy of focus I'd imagine, wouldn't it? I just can't see how you can focus as precisely with the DOF at f11 as you would at 1.4. Focus isn't as critical but placing the best focus point would be a pain I'd think.
Click to expand...

It's a good point. On the other hand you do get a DOF pre-view that is not darkened as it would be with a typical Reflex.


The bottom line is native lenses are always best.
 
x-ray said:
Leica lacks the support services that nikon and canon have had for decades. Also I'd argue that reliability is questionable up to this point and the system is no where as mature.
Click to expand...

This is also a critical point. Canon CPS has certainly been critical to have at times. So far I've been fairly fortunate with Leica, in that I've been able to survive with my other gear if something was in for service. But their turnaround times are much too long for pro support. Nowhere in Leica's SL marketing have I seen anything about enhanced pro service and support...
 
x-ray said:
DOF would influence accuracy of focus I'd imagine, wouldn't it? I just can't see how you can focus as precisely with the DOF at f11 as you would at 1.4. Focus isn't as critical but placing the best focus point would be a pain I'd think.
Click to expand...

Having done this for seven years now using mirrorless bodies of various types with adapted lenses, I have to say that it just isn't much of an issue. With most lenses, I find I can focus very quickly and accurately even stopped down a bit, to say f/5.6 or f/8 depending on focal length and the specific lens. The 'feel' of the focusing view is quite different from an optical SLR because of the constant brightness; you can see in-out focus transitions much more clearly.

Of course, focusing techniques vary based on the focal length and characteristics of the lenses too. Focus peaking and magnification assist bring whole new realms of focusing tools to the table .. Use them for a while and optical SLR viewfinders begin to feel very limiting and antiquated.

When you can take your time, you can use the EVF and LCD for almost unlimited precision in critical focus work.

The 'dedicated' R Adapter SL will be out next year. Leica hasn't said yet what features it has but it may well allow auto diaphragm operation, ROM lense data transfer, aperture setting transfer, etc. All will be good additions/conveniences, but given the great experience I've had with lens adaptation so far, none are truly essential.

G
 
Hsg said:
Considering the price for Leica SL and its zoom lens, how could such a flaw where the lens and lens hood block focus-assist light go unnoticed?

http://s1.postimg.org/pxrbarocv/Capture.jpg

From this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScLP7iTo7EM


I admit that I'm not in the market for this camera; however, I'd be hard pressed to buy a camera and its kit lens for $13,000 only to have it not lock focus in low light due to lens hood getting in the way.
Click to expand...

I'd bet there's a notice in the 24-90 manual that warns about the lens hood blocking the focus assist light. But IMO, people who buy a $13,000 camera and lens, and then rely upon a focus assist light, are simply not a part of the buyer demographic. Most people I know turn off the focus assist light a second after they turn off all beeps and simulated shutter sounds ... :)

G
 
Glad to see that the SL discussions have moved beyond the information-void "OMG it's HUGE!" stage.

The lack of DOF wouldn't be a problem for me. I have used SLRs all my life and you quickly get to know the DOF without having to press a lever or button. Besides, there's not enough time to check DOF in most situations anyway. If you do have the time, you can just make a quick picture and check it.

The SL is the camera I have been waiting for since Leica discontinued the R series. Feeling like a fool now that I sold all my R lenses.
 
"the dominant camera was the Leica rangefinder (supplemented by SLRs for long lenses). That changed when digital arrived and allowed the quick transmission of news images."
Bill: I am not sure what group of photographers you hung out with, but the shift away from the Leica as THE professional 35 occurred long before the digital revolution.
The decline in Leica use started around 1960 and marched downward with the rest of the German camera industry through the 1960s. While a minority of pros continued to use Leica-Nikon combos during that period (such as Larry Burroughs), most had gone exclusively to Nikon Fs with a few Pentaxes by 1970. All during my professional work in the late 60s and early 70s, I never saw more than a couple of pros or advanced amateurs with Leicas. The M5 was poorly conceived and marketed and almost put Leica under. Only the reviving of the M4 and perhaps the SL, followed by the purchase of Leitz by Wild saved the company at that time.
New Leicas (any model) have been the gadget-photo toy of the rich for a long time now. Digital had nothing to do with that change. WES
 
wes loder said:
"the dominant camera was the Leica rangefinder (supplemented by SLRs for long lenses). That changed when digital arrived and allowed the quick transmission of news images."

Bill: I am not sure what group of photographers you hung out with, but the shift away from the Leica as THE professional 35 occurred long before the digital revolution.
The decline in Leica use started around 1960 and marched downward with the rest of the German camera industry through the 1960s. While a minority of pros continued to use Leica-Nikon combos during that period (such as Larry Burroughs), most had gone exclusively to Nikon Fs with a few Pentaxes by 1970. All during my professional work in the late 60s and early 70s, I never saw more than a couple of pros or advanced amateurs with Leicas. The M5 was poorly conceived and marketed and almost put Leica under. Only the reviving of the M4 and perhaps the SL, followed by the purchase of Leitz by Wild saved the company at that time.

New Leicas (any model) have been the gadget-photo toy of the rich for a long time now. Digital had nothing to do with that change. WES
Click to expand...

I was in high school 1968 to 1972, in the New York City area. I'd picked up doing photography in 1967 or so, and was photo staff chief in my high school starting about January 1969.

I was lucky, at that time, to be given press passes for the staff for various events that my school was peripherally involved with. Amongst the press photographers, the vast majority working in the field were carrying Nikon SLRs. However, at the indoor events and theater events there were always a large handful of press photographers with a Leica instead of a Nikon ... usually an M, sometimes a IIIf.

I so wanted a Leica then. My father had one but it was verboten ... a sacred object, not touchable by anyone who wasn't an adult. In my father's world view, I'd have to be about thirty before I was old enough to touch it. My uncle had helped me buy a Nikon F ... which shocked my father ... but I wasn't going to be approved to touch the sacred just because I owned the sacrilegious. Later that year, I broke his world view by acquiring a pair of Leica IIs (IIf and IIc) with lenses from Olden Camera in Manhattan. For a pittance; "No one wants this old junk anymore, now take it and get out of here!" But that's another story.

I used those two IIs for the next 15-16 years... alongside my Nikon F.

G
 
wes loder said:
"the dominant camera was the Leica rangefinder (supplemented by SLRs for long lenses). That changed when digital arrived and allowed the quick transmission of news images."
Bill: I am not sure what group of photographers you hung out with, but the shift away from the Leica as THE professional 35 occurred long before the digital revolution.
The decline in Leica use started around 1960 and marched downward with the rest of the German camera industry through the 1960s. While a minority of pros continued to use Leica-Nikon combos during that period (such as Larry Burroughs), most had gone exclusively to Nikon Fs with a few Pentaxes by 1970. All during my professional work in the late 60s and early 70s, I never saw more than a couple of pros or advanced amateurs with Leicas. The M5 was poorly conceived and marketed and almost put Leica under. Only the reviving of the M4 and perhaps the SL, followed by the purchase of Leitz by Wild saved the company at that time.
New Leicas (any model) have been the gadget-photo toy of the rich for a long time now. Digital had nothing to do with that change. WES
Click to expand...

Wes -

Thanks for the correction. My perspective may be a little warped.

As well you know, in 1957 the Asahi Pentax appeared with an instant return mirror that depended to a certain degree on gravity and sometimes had problems if you were taking verticals. It had an automatic diaphragm that stopped down when you took the picture and which you then cocked open for the next shot. Probably just as important, it was the first SLR to use the thumb wind advance lever already found on the Leica and Nikon rangefinders. No question that over the next few years, thanks to the features that appeared in that Pentax, the SLR rose hugely in popularity. I was an avid amateur, had one and really enjoyed it.

In 1968 I got my first real professional assignment, going to Poland and photographing, among other things, shipyard boycotts in Gdansk led by a young Lech Walesa and the empty and terrifying Auschwitz concentration camp. I moved on to Czechoslovakia just as the Russians invaded and put an end to my scheduled work. Instead I went to England and worked for several months. When you are on the road for a long time (but, with no time for repairs) with clothes and camera, you want your cameras to be small and very reliable. At the time, that meant rangefinders.

Don McCullin, the best of my generation, used SLRs. In the early 80’s he was covering the war in Lebanon, and I have never seen so many SLR bodies. If one gave him any trouble, he just threw it away. And I would have to say, I admired his attitude. Leicas were expensive, and I dreaded the thought of one going down. In the late 80’s, covering Tiananmen Square, there was no question that there were still less Leicas and more SLRs. But there were still a few Leicas, and they were in the hands of photographers I admired.

Perhaps because my work involved a lot of extended travel, folks who did it used the small rangefinder bodies to a greater proportion than other photographers. Perhaps they still do. I have a younger friend who covered a lot of wars and he used Leicas (film and digital). I always covered the Presidential campaigns and conventions back here. You see a broad range of news photographers and, no question, a lot more SLRs than I saw abroad. I’m sure you are correct that Leica decline started in the 60’s. In my world, a rather weird one, it started a little later. And as for the “gadget-photo toy of the rich,” you are sadly correct.

The only thing I can add is that I don’t think the Leica SL is going to be the traveling photojournalist’s camera of choice, too big, too expensive. But I do think the smaller, less expensive mirrorless will slowly replace the DSLR in news as a few of the technical problems are overcome.

Bill
 
I so wanted a Leica then. My father had one but it was verboten ... a sacred object, not touchable by anyone who wasn't an adult. In my father's world view, I'd have to be about thirty before I was old enough to touch it. My uncle had helped me buy a Nikon F ... which shocked my father ... but I wasn't going to be approved to touch the sacred just because I owned the sacrilegious. Later that year, I broke his world view by acquiring a pair of Leica IIs (IIf and IIc) with lenses from Olden Camera in Manhattan. For a pittance; "No one wants this old junk anymore, now take it and get out of here!" But that's another story.

I used those two IIs for the next 15-16 years... alongside my Nikon F.
Click to expand...
Funny story...thx for that!
 
x-ray said:
Leica lacks the support services that nikon and canon have had for decades.
Click to expand...

In today's world, where Leica has its own shops in most major world cities, and then some, plus independent sellers, and you can overnight ship anywhere in the world, why should this be an issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom