Nikon z6 or Leica SL for use with Leica M glass?

I wonder about the native Z-glass: how future proofed is it?

For example a Leica representative told me that the lens for the Leica "Q" is good for up to an 80 MP sensor, and we are only up to 47 MP with a Q2.

On the SL Forums they say the native "L"-glass is future proofed out 3-4 generations or 100-120 MP sensors. We now have a second generation SL, a SL2, with only 47.3 MP.

Consider how many generations out if considering Z-native glass.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
I wonder about the native Z-glass: how future proofed is it?

For example a Leica representative told me that the lens for the Leica "Q" is good for up to an 80 MP sensor, and we are only up to 47 MP with a Q2.

On the SL Forums they say the native "L"-glass is future proofed out 3-4 generations or 100-120 MP sensors. We now have a second generation SL, a SL2, with only 47.3 MP.

Consider how many generations out if considering Z-native glass.

Cal
Click to expand...

Cal,

Now you’re just confusing us:) This kind of talk leads me to fear the paralysis of analysis where we just sit in the corner and whimper instead of just buying something and getting on with it, :) but your point is well taken. The future, how will that work. I’m 70 so I worry less about that than I used to as there is so much less of it now to worry about. But, when talking about future sensors we are usually talking more about resolution than anything else, which, in terms of lenses means we would be concerned with how the resolving power of a current lens will hold up to the demands of 80MP sensors, etc. So, that’s an MTF chart thing, and it’s hard to fault Z lenses in that regard, compared to pretty much anything out there now. That’s a known.
Again, rendering, that’s a separate consideration entirely.

Somewhat related, on the subject of Z lenses, are the comments Roger Cicala had on his teardown on the Nikon 28-70/2.8 Z lens. Somewhat related, somewhat in the weeds, I realize, but might be of interest on the matter of Z lens quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/01/finally-the-nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-lens-teardown/
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Cal,

Now you’re just confusing us:) This kind of talk leads me to fear the paralysis of analysis where we just sit in the corner and whimper instead of just buying something and getting on with it, :) but your point is well taken. The future, how will that work. I’m 70 so I worry less about that than I used to as there is so much less of it now to worry about. But, when talking about future sensors we are usually talking more about resolution than anything else, which, in terms of lenses means we would be concerned with how the resolving power of a current lens will hold up to the demands of 80MP sensors, etc. So, that’s an MTF chart thing, and it’s hard to fault Z lenses in that regard, compared to pretty much anything out there now. That’s a known.
Again, rendering, that’s a separate consideration entirely.

Somewhat related, on the subject of Z lenses, are the comments Roger Cicala had on his teardown on the Nikon 28-70/2.8 Z lens. Somewhat related, somewhat in the weeds, I realize, but might be of interest on the matter of Z lens quality.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2020/01/finally-the-nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-lens-teardown/
Click to expand...

Larry,

As an older person, I think you can understand about thinking about the really-really big-big picture, yet I know this gets mucho crazy because at this point everything is so great and all the rest is speculation.

In a helpful manner I think Huss summed it up in his post that for optimum performance use native glass.

All I can say from attending the SL2 Launch, an all day and night event, is that the SL2 is mucho crazy, so speedy, that it kinda crushes my old SL.

About the only thing I didn't do is try my APO 35 Cron on the SL2. I did try my Noct-Nikkor with my adapters.

The EVF and the rear screen are much improved over my SL, also I was surprised that when I downloaded the files and reviewed them on a 27 inch EIZO that on my monitor I could visually see the added detail. This surprised me, I didn't think I would notice unless I printed mucho big. Know that I used my own 50 Lux-SL so no sample variation here.

Pretty much exceeded any and all of my expectations, and I can't see or justify buying another camera for a long-long while after a SL2 purchase.

We are so lucky.

I assume the Z6 and Z7 have IBIS. Of course my old SL does not.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
...I assume the Z6 and Z7 have IBIS. Of course my old SL does not.

Cal
Click to expand...
Yes, IBIS is a serious consideration especially as we get older and somewhat less steady. This is something I appreciate about my Leica Q and the Pentax K1... and it does make a difference.
 
Calzone said:
Larry,
<snip>..........


In a helpful manner I think Huss summed it up in his post that for optimum performance use native glass. ......<snip>

Cal
Click to expand...

Cal,
I considered not addressing this, again, as it might sound argumentative in a bad way, but that is not my intention. On the other hand, given the OP’s original question, a search for information as to the relative benefits of using either the original SL or a Nikon Z body with M lenses, it seemed best to not just let the above idea sit there as a given.

So far I seem to be the only person responding who has any extensive experience with both the SL and a Nikon Z and M lenses, years with the SL and a year and a half with the Z7. Anything I might have to say regarding the specific question that the OP asked is limited to that and only that, the SL vs. the Z7 and Leica M lenses. No opinion offered here about the SL2 comparison, as that isn’t what was asked for, and I have no ownership experience with the SL2.

I’ve already related some of the results of that comparison, but I feel like I owe the OP a little more emphatic conclusion.
There are potential reasons that one might prefer to stick with native glass on native bodies, matters of ergonomics, familiarity, coherence, no need for adapters, but the idea that “for optimum performance use native glass” that’s just an idea that comes from the marketing department, it’s not the reality. Or should say, maybe so, maybe not.

For M lenses wider than 50mm, the SL or any Leica body will yield results which are somewhat sharper in the corners than the Z bodies will, for known reasons. This is true, though the differences there, until you get down to the 20mm range are in the pixel peeping area, and the insufficiency with the Z bodies is, to be clear, only in the domain of sharpness. The color depth and DR provided through wide angle M lenses will still be better when used on a Z body than on the SL.
For M lenses 50mm and above, the performance of M lenses is simply better on the Nikon Z than it is on the SL. If I may use an expression I used privately to myself when first using the Z body with lenses I had been using on the SL, even though it’s hyperbolic, the Nikon Z sensor and processing engine “trounces” the sensor in the SL. (N.B. The Nikon sensor is not a Sony sensor, fwiw). There is level of quality and competence in M lenses which the Nikon Z uncovers, which the SL simply cannot.
A lens has no idea what body it is on, it’s just refracting wavelengths of light, and passing them on to a sensor. It’s the sensor and processing engine which are going to ultimately determine its “performance”. Marketing departments always want us to “stay in the family”, and there are certainly reasons to do that besides optimum performance, but as someone who has used both these cameras extensively with Leica and other glass, I thought it unfair to the OP to let the idea just hang there, that he would get better results from his lenses on the SL. He won’t; quite the contrary, all things considered.

The SL2, as you say, might switch this completely 180 degrees, but that wasn’t what the OP was asking for.
The canard that lenses always perform at their optimum on the lens manufacturers body is just a canard, whether it is true or not for any given lens or body combination can only be determined by actual testing, not blind faith. Admittedly, blind faith is easier.

With respect,
 
Never used the Leica SL or SL2, but use the Nikon Z6 with all my Leica M mount lenses (including Leica & Voigtlander), and Leica LTM lenses (including Leica, Nikkor & Canon), and Nikkor S (original rangefinder) lenses. Have been very happy with how it performs with all the lenses. Like the Higher ISO of the Z6 (and lower cost) and I don't need the high MegaPixel count. Also have found that the Z6 with IBIS and the old rangefinder lenses allow me to make images that never would have been possible with the film bodies.

Best,
-Tim
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Cal,
I considered not addressing this, again, as it might sound argumentative in a bad way, but that is not my intention. On the other hand, given the OP’s original question, a search for information as to the relative benefits of using either the original SL or a Nikon Z body with M lenses, it seemed best to not just let the above idea sit there as a given.

So far I seem to be the only person responding who has any extensive experience with both the SL and a Nikon Z and M lenses, years with the SL and a year and a half with the Z7. Anything I might have to say regarding the specific question that the OP asked is limited to that and only that, the SL vs. the Z7 and Leica M lenses. No opinion offered here about the SL2 comparison, as that isn’t what was asked for, and I have no ownership experience with the SL2.

I’ve already related some of the results of that comparison, but I feel like I owe the OP a little more emphatic conclusion.
There are potential reasons that one might prefer to stick with native glass on native bodies, matters of ergonomics, familiarity, coherence, no need for adapters, but the idea that “for optimum performance use native glass” that’s just an idea that comes from the marketing department, it’s not the reality. Or should say, maybe so, maybe not.

For M lenses wider than 50mm, the SL or any Leica body will yield results which are somewhat sharper in the corners than the Z bodies will, for known reasons. This is true, though the differences there, until you get down to the 20mm range are in the pixel peeping area, and the insufficiency with the Z bodies is, to be clear, only in the domain of sharpness. The color depth and DR provided through wide angle M lenses will still be better when used on a Z body than on the SL.
For M lenses 50mm and above, the performance of M lenses is simply better on the Nikon Z than it is on the SL. If I may use an expression I used privately to myself when first using the Z body with lenses I had been using on the SL, even though it’s hyperbolic, the Nikon Z sensor and processing engine “trounces” the sensor in the SL. (N.B. The Nikon sensor is not a Sony sensor, fwiw). There is level of quality and competence in M lenses which the Nikon Z uncovers, which the SL simply cannot.
A lens has no idea what body it is on, it’s just refracting wavelengths of light, and passing them on to a sensor. It’s the sensor and processing engine which are going to ultimately determine its “performance”. Marketing departments always want us to “stay in the family”, and there are certainly reasons to do that besides optimum performance, but as someone who has used both these cameras extensively with Leica and other glass, I thought it unfair to the OP to let the idea just hang there, that he would get better results from his lenses on the SL. He won’t; quite the contrary, all things considered.

The SL2, as you say, might switch this completely 180 degrees, but that wasn’t what the OP was asking for.
The canard that lenses always perform at their optimum on the lens manufacturers body is just a canard, whether it is true or not for any given lens or body combination can only be determined by actual testing, not blind faith. Admittedly, blind faith is easier.

With respect,
Click to expand...

Larry,

Thank you. I appreciate your experience and sharing it.

I don't have any experience with the Nikon Z's so the information you supplied is helpful for me also.

I apologize if I opened up the topic a bit, but including discussion about native glass, getting spoiled by AF, and perhaps projecting some of my forward thinking.

Just know I have much respect for you. My purpose with my posts was to provide careful consideration to things not brought up.

Like you said the Nikons have a newer sensor, and the SL now is an old camera. It makes sense that a newer sensor is more advanced.

Cal
 
Emile de Leon said:
Jeeze..now..I want a Z6...
Wonder how it works with the WATE..
Click to expand...

Supposedly, as it is a retrofocus design it has none of the disadvantages of corner smearing seen with conventional non-retrofocus rangefinder wides, and is ideally suited to adaptation to any of the non-Leica mirrorless bodies, and would work perfectly well. An ideal solution to the wide angle Leica lens on a non-Leica mirrorless body, it’s said. No personal experience.

I don't have one, but would take yours if you don’t want it, and let you know how it works on a Z body. Give me a few years to do a good test, and I’ll get back to you:)

https://photo.imx.nl/leica/lenses/page87.html
 
Calzone said:
Larry,

Thank you. I appreciate your experience and sharing it.

I don't have any experience with the Nikon Z's so the information you supplied is helpful for me also.

I apologize if I opened up the topic a bit, but including discussion about native glass, getting spoiled by AF, and perhaps projecting some of my forward thinking.

Just know I have much respect for you. My purpose with my posts was to provide careful consideration to things not brought up.

Like you said the Nikons have a newer sensor, and the SL now is an old camera. It makes sense that a newer sensor is more advanced.

Cal
Click to expand...


Thanks, Cal.

Time marches on. Expensively.
 
So the M9 has left the building..

And the Z6 is ordered and will arrive tomorrow!

My rational part of the brain says it was the smart thing to do. (the emotional part already misses the Leica m9). I invested last year in Profoto B1 and a1 lights with a Nikon triggers and want to be able to work tethered for some studio portrait work so also from that respect the Nikon was the smart decision. (Leica sl and Capture Pro don't match) Also i could still benefit from a nice 400 euro cashback from Nikon that expired this week.

So thank you once again for all the very helpful info and posts!!

Now i have to see which adapters to get! Starting with the Leica M and Contax/Yashica mounts for my Yashinon 55mm f1.2.

Which Leica M adapter is the one to get according to your experiences?
 
Novoflex seems to be the benchmark when it comes to lens adapters, but there may be cheaper ones out there that will work fine too.

Congrats on the purchase!
 
I use the Novoflex Leica M to Z adapter and the Kipon Leica R to NIKON Z and the Kipon M42 to NIKON Z adapters. All seem equally well made and work very well - no wobble or play with any.
 
Roel said:
Which Leica M adapter is the one to get according to your experiences?
Click to expand...

I have a Novoflex, which, along with Voigtländer when available, seems to be the standard in construction quality that people look up to. I have some cheap Chinese adapters for other lenses and other cameras, and they are not made as well, but I can't claim to have detected notable differences in actual results, though I haven't shot any brick walls to analyze it to the nth degree. There are some adapters I have, even not so cheap ones like Kipons, that don't nail infinity focus as precisely as the Novoflex or Voigtländer ones do though that is more of an inconvenience than anything else.

The Yeenon (which unfortunately for English speakers sounds like something you hear shouted out at a rodeo and not the name of a precision instrument) Leica M to Nikon Z Macro adapter is something I might mention as it is the one I tend to use more than the Novoflex. It seems as well made as the Novoflex and has an extremely smooth and precise helical which allows close focus with M lenses, something you can't get easily on an M body. Hard to give up once you have it at your disposal, and the adapter, again, seems as well made as the Novoflex, to me at least. Not cheap, however.
Mine came with both caps, which is nice and the Novoflex won't give you. The following link doesn't seem to include caps, possibly a different seller. YMMV.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/YEENON-LM-...550912?hash=item3b32df1400:g:wfAAAOSwF79d30MF
 
I use the Kipon Z adapters on my Z7 (and Fotodiox for everything else). I didn't notice any difference between them and Novoflex in build or function. Apart from the cost.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
.......

The Yeenon (which unfortunately for English speakers sounds like something you hear shouted out at a rodeo and not the name of a precision instrument) Leica M to Nikon Z Macro adapter is something I might mention as it is the one I tend to use more than the Novoflex. It seems as well made as the Novoflex and has an extremely smooth and precise helical which allows close focus with M lenses, something you can't get easily on an M body. Hard to give up once you have it at your disposal, and the adapter, again, seems as well made as the Novoflex, to me at least. Not cheap, however.
Mine came with both caps, which is nice and the Novoflex won't give you. The following link doesn't seem to include caps, possibly a different seller. YMMV.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/YEENON-LM-...550912?hash=item3b32df1400:g:wfAAAOSwF79d30MF
Click to expand...



Larry, Thnx, that close focusing of these adapters looks great. How much closer? Does this influence the 'normal' use? Would i need a novoflex/kipon and a yeenon or can i use that Yeenon for all purposes.
 
Hey Roel, congrats on the Z6. Hope you like yours as much as I like mine.

When I got my Z6 about this time last year, none of the adapters from the major manufacturers were available yet, not at least that I could find. Really wanted a Novoflex, but they weren't in stock until months later. Went with a "Fotasy LM-NZ" adapter, I think it's a cheap Chinese made one. It has worked fine for the last 12 months.

I also have an Amedeo Nikkor-S to Leica M adapter for use with my Nikkor rangefinder glass. The cool thing about the Amedeo w/Leica adapter on the Nikon Z6 is that, unlike on the Leica rangefinder bodies, you can use all the Nikkor rangefinder glass with the Nikon Z6, including the Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 and the Nikkor 2.1cm f4 with no issues. Really makes it fun.

Best,
-Tim
 
Roel said:
Larry, Thnx, that close focusing of these adapters looks great. How much closer? Does this influence the 'normal' use? Would i need a novoflex/kipon and a yeenon or can i use that Yeenon for all purposes.
Click to expand...

Close focus is about 10-11 inches, if you move the adapter helical all the way out, which is about 1/4”. It doesn’t influence normal use as far as I have been able to tell. You leave the adapter helical parked back in its retracted position, and close focus would be whatever is normal for the given lens, achieved by normal use of the lens focusing ring. If that’s not enough for the shot you want, just then rotate the helical ring on the adapter as needed, up to around 10” close, as a guesstimate.

I haven’t done pixel peeping rigorous side by side comparisons of this and the Novoflex, so this is just a “user” opinion, but I think you could just use the Yeenon as your one adapter. I only have the Novoflex as well so that I can have two lenses ready to go without having to switch adapters from one lens to another. It’s not necessary to have two or more.
If someone else has done exacting side by side comparisons and found a difference, I’d accept that. I just haven’t seen any problems.
If you knew you never wanted to get closer than the close focusing spec of the lens itself, then a standard solid adapter would be all you needed, and those might be cheaper, though not the Novoflex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom