Leica SL (601) ..Oct 20th?

[ptomsu]

It's not for me either, but I know an incredibly built and minutely thought out camera when I see one. Many features put it way ahead of the Sony: EVF, 4K (ouch, Panda, we know that's behind most decisions in the r2), stepped focus MAG, friendly to film lenses, incredible weather proofing (take it to gulf of alaska in winter, without boat), and many many small beautiful touches. MP, no, one Sony model is ahead.


If I may say so, that is 2 Sony models with the release of the RX1R2.

Please all keep in mind the only reason to many that bthis model does not have more MP is due to the factbthat the flagship Leica S has but 37.5 MP and some insiders say they cannot easily resign the sensor without some lens rework too.

Who are actually the people saying this? Who are these insiders? Would really like to learn to know them

I can believe many things, but the argument that S lenses would need a redesign for higher res is absurd. I think that these lenses have the most resolving power and reserves compared to others, maybe the Schneider Kreuznach lenses for the Phase bodies have more, but not even sure about that.

The only reason for the current sensor resolutions in the Leica lineup are, that they still tend to believe that these resolutions are enough (this actually is debatable) and that even with the most tricky sensor tech implemented the range of 24MP is still the sweetspot for FF and 37MP the sweetspot for Leica MF.

I would like more vendors to stay in these ranges and rather improve other features like overall IQ, AF responsiveness, etc., etc, instead of increasing MP count (which almost no-one needs)!

 

[algrove]

Mine thing that I found with many high frame rate cameras is that the shutter might operate that fast but good luck actually getting most of your burst in focus in less than optimum light. This was very obvious with my A77 and several pro APS-C Canon bodies I used prior to the 7D.

I think the lack of images are by design and maybe the feature wasn't up to snuff on pre production bodies. Sometimes what isn't said is telling. Truthfully it's not a feature that I'd probably use often anyway if I owned the camera.

Your post reminds me of a review I read last night where they were trying to confirm the 11 fps number and commented it did do that number for them, however very few images were in focus.

 

[tashley]

I had a fiddle with the SL and 24-90 this morning and boy did it ever feel nice. Too big and heavy with that lens for me to use as a travel camera, and not enough pixels either, but it felt so damned sexy that I nearly threw rationality out of the window. Sadly, sanity flooded back as I was about to place an order and I realized that the A7RII is the more rational choice for my needs. Damn. But I also realized that I REALLY want a great mid range zoom, and the 24-90 feels like it might just be that....

 

[aDam007]

Reading the last few pages, it's quite clear that those that want this camera would not budge on their POV and those that don't see of the point of this camera would continue to do so. It has been very repetitive. Leica is clearly not going to compete with Sony so it doesn't matter. Sony is gunning for Nikon position on the market while Leica is going to serve their own niche.

However, I do agree with Dre though. Sony got so much flak with their lens size, citing the incompetency of Sony for having thick sensor stack and small diameter mount. Now this camera comes out with ginormous lenses and no one questions why. I guess a big camera (though it's not that much bigger than Sony according to some ) needs a big lens.

Because you know with Leica creating a big lens. It's going to be one of quality. With Sony, the guarantee isn't there.

 

[MGrayson]

I played with an SL last night. It does focus very fast in dark conditions. It is heavy - not too heavy, but that's just one lens. As for size, the SL+24-90 is almost exactly the same size as a Canon + 24-105/4. For that matter, the SL+90-280 is almost exactly the same size as a Canon + 70-200/2.8, if camerasize.com can be believed.

BUT

I found it uncomfortable to hold - the bottom has sharp edges. Maybe with a grip? After all, the A7II is much better with a grip. The S felt hugely better, S+100/2 feels about the same weight as the SL+24-90. Of course, S+30-90 zoom is MUCH heavier.

The Leica guys made a big deal about it using every Leica lens (it was very easy to focus a 75 Cron in dim light, but the Sonys do that easily, too), but what does that leave for the long end? All MF lenses except the unreleased 90-280. How much will that weigh? OK, people use long R lenses just fine, but now stabilization matters for focusing. I can use a long MF lens on the A7II because I can zoom in on a stabilized view.

Still thinking this all through. I'd really like to see how the SL handles moving subjects. Mashing the shutter release in burst mode gave one soft frame followed by sharp ones. Not bad.

Oddly, I came away from the event feeling like an S+24+100 would make more sense. But then adding up the cost makes an (A7rII or 5DSR) + Canon 1Dx + tons of free (by comparison) lenses look even more sensible. :banghead:

Here's a nice table: Two SL and three S.

--Matt

 

[aDam007]

Case in point . I just heard from a client that I shot wind turbines with. I shot it with my A7rII 42 mpx piece of crap that I keep hearing about and guess what they printed a image 8 FOOT x 21 Foot( and its cropped) for a wall entrance and my client is thrilled plus she said she can see every detail in it. Oh and i shot it handheld. 24 mpx I would be giving them back there money. LOL

Im not so sure Im joking about the 24mpx. I need bigger and for the value proposition that I seek the Sony wins. I shot it with the Batis 85mm too. 1200 dollars

That job almost paid for my camera. Yes I make my money back but here I do it far faster and I'm banking a profit now.

Back to making popcorn. Bottom line we all make choices we all have budgets and we all have certain needs we need to fill. Seriously if it was the same 42mpx I would have a different opinion.

Your MP + print assumption is wrong.. Please understand that your A7rII has a marginal increase in print size at best. If you wanted double print sizes, you'd need 100MP. It's an easy test to try on your home printer. I do it with every new camera I buy/test.

The 20-ish % increase in print size on the A7rII is negated mostly by the fact that the M240 sensor has much better color tonality and native optics that have higher resolving power (and actually work well with the sensor/sensor glass). And yeah I get that for certain applications you can adapt M or Otus or whatever lenses.

SOOO what real world benefit does the A7rII have, if the only claim to fame is MP?

I'm not a fan of Sony colors. And UI and ect.. But I have seen EXCELLENT images taken with it that far surpass anything I've done with my cameras. I'm not saying it's not a good camera for some people, it's just not a good camera for me. AND It's not the end all be all because it has a few decent numbers on a spec sheet.

Personally I was more wowed by my S-006 and 120S then I was with the A7rII. Print and screen.
And I'm actually thankful the SL comes in 24mp for the work I do.


And frankly speaking to everybody angry at Leica's pricing.. Yes it sucks, yes it should be cheaper. But I've lost more money trying to LOVE the A7 series cameras, then any other system I've tried. And I tried them ALL.
I'd take an SL + zoom any day over a A7 that then tempts me to buy an A7r to then buy an A7s (because I needed resolution, then needed the ISO). To then buy a A7II because I wanted IBIS then to buy the A7rII... And I was almost tempted to try the A7sII because why the heck not at this point.. All the wile I'm buying 2-3 bodies because of how/what I shoot. AND the lenses which I was disappointed with (aside from Batis, which I've refrained from buying). AND each time a new type of body came out I sold at least one of my other type of bodies to replace it at less then half the original purchase price.... REALLY crazy stuff. Sony has no F*cks to give about loyalty. They'll just keep crapping out new tech as soon as it's available in one forum or another trying to suck money from people and make headlines. Sure maybe it's my fault for being a sucker. But it would have been nice to get a heads up from Sony about the 7/R/S variants. And I don't even fault them for lack of lenses. I was ok with the 55FE even though it wasn't as good as people claim (mini-otus I think was the term). The 35 was horrid and didn't play well with the sensor. LUCKILY there was an adapter and I was able to shoot my ZA lenses which aren't really that much better, but available as at the time I had an A99 setup out of curiosity.

IF you want that, but all the while suffer through a horrid UI that STILL hasn't been updated.. Fine, buy a Sony. But honestly at the end of the day you'll either feel jaded that you're using a A7 with none of the cool new features of the other Sony bodies because your camera has no value on the resale market so it's pointless to sell... OR you'll end up spending more money on Sony over the course of three years then you do on a Leica SL + lens which retains value and tries to give you the best possible product they can.

BUT look.. If you need MP, and want a cheap light mobile body. Nothing wrong with the original A7r... scratch that (shutter vibration issues).. Nothing wrong with the A7rII. And also nothing wrong with the A7s.. It's a beauty. But if I were new to this, I would at this point prefer the A7sII for obvious reasons.


Again, this isn't meant to bash you, or Sony's cameras.. It's meant to bash Sony's morality. Though as I've been told before by people on this forum. Sony is running a business. So they're gonna do what they gotta do.
I'm also equally angry at Leica, because though I can see the value of the SL. Not many people will, and that'll hurt me in the long run as a future SL owner. Since the less people that invest in the mount, the less likely we'll get a good variety of quality lenses. Or at least less incentive from Leica if they know they're making a lens for a smaller group of owners.

That and what's up with Leica's advertising? Those Germans are Sony-deniers. Nobody in Germany have a A7?

 

[aDam007]

I played with an SL last night. It does focus very fast in dark conditions. It is heavy - not too heavy, but that's just one lens. As for size, the SL+24-90 is almost exactly the same size as a Canon + 24-105/4. For that matter, the SL+90-280 is almost exactly the same size as a Canon + 70-200/2.8, if camerasize.com can be believed.

BUT

I found it uncomfortable to hold - the bottom has sharp edges. Maybe with a grip? After all, the A7II is much better with a grip. The S felt hugely better, S+100/2 feels about the same weight as the SL+24-90. Of course, S+30-90 zoom is MUCH heavier.

The Leica guys made a big deal about it using every Leica lens (it was very easy to focus a 75 Cron in dim light, but the Sonys do that easily, too), but what does that leave for the long end? All MF lenses except the unreleased 90-280. How much will that weigh? OK, people use long R lenses just fine, but now stabilization matters for focusing. I can use a long MF lens on the A7II because I can zoom in on a stabilized view.

Still thinking this all through. I'd really like to see how the SL handles moving subjects. Mashing the shutter release in burst mode gave one soft frame followed by sharp ones. Not bad.

Oddly, I came away from the event feeling like an S+24+100 would make more sense. But then adding up the cost makes an (A7rII or 5DSR) + Canon 1Dx + tons of free (by comparison) lenses look even more sensible. :banghead:

Here's a nice table: Two SL and three S.

--Matt

Neat thoughts... Glad to hear it works well in low light. One of the main reasons I want it.

Aren't both zooms OIS? Works well enough in the tele-end for industry leading Canon. I wouldn't expect it to be a problem with the SL. Though no tripod mount on the lens is a bit of an odd choice.

I'm most looking forward to the S to L adapter.

 

[MGrayson]

Neat thoughts... Glad to hear it works well in low light. One of the main reasons I want it.

Aren't both zooms OIS? Works well enough in the tele-end for industry leading Canon. I wouldn't expect it to be a problem with the SL. Though no tripod mount on the lens is a bit of an odd choice.

I'm most looking forward to the S to L adapter.

Yes, the native SL lenses are OIS, and perhaps the two zoom solution will do do everything. But until the 90-280 comes out, the only long options are MF unstabilized.

And yes, S lenses would be killer, but I'd hate to lose the sensor real estate given how good those lenses are out to the edge. I certainly get the color consistency point.

Aside: My two issues with my Sony are AF tracking and color. Maybe the A7rII + Canon 70-200/2.8 solves the AF problem, and maybe a custom profile solves the color problem, but (color anyway) the Leicas give me results I like and a more pleasant shooting experience with less effort. Me? Lazy? Yep. Worth the money? :banghead:

 

[aDam007]

Yes, the native SL lenses are OIS, and perhaps the two zoom solution will do do everything. But until the 90-280 comes out, the only long options are MF unstabilized.

And yes, S lenses would be killer, but I'd hate to lose the sensor real estate given how good those lenses are out to the edge. I certainly get the color consistency point.

Aside: My two issues with my Sony are AF tracking and color. Maybe the A7rII + Canon 70-200/2.8 solves the AF problem, and maybe a custom profile solves the color problem, but (color anyway) the Leicas give me results I like and a more pleasant shooting experience with less effort. Me? Lazy? Yep. Worth the money? :banghead:

HAHAHA..

Good new is I just checked, and the tele-zoom has a detachable tripod collar!

 

[Zony user]

Alot of complaints about the grip. That is a deal-breaker for a heavy camera. Why couldn't they make that right? It's not like they had any size constraints.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Nothing is free with Leica.

UV IR filters were free when the M8 sensor was found to be faulty and FF Kodak CCD replacements are free when the M9's sensor was found to be faulty.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Reid said he had talked with Leica about implementing this feature for the adapter that is currently due out in 12 months. Just don't hold your breath if the M-R adapter time table is followed- 15 months.

My A7II's EVF still projects a reasonable image to compose with even when I'm using a 3.0 ND at F11. I'd say stop down is unnecessary with this new EVF tech Leica has.

 

[algrove]

I had a fiddle with the SL and 24-90 this morning and boy did it ever feel nice. Too big and heavy with that lens for me to use as a travel camera, and not enough pixels either, but it felt so damned sexy that I nearly threw rationality out of the window. Sadly, sanity flooded back as I was about to place an order and I realized that the A7RII is the more rational choice for my needs. Damn. But I also realized that I REALLY want a great mid range zoom, and the 24-90 feels like it might just be that....

Just get an R24-90 and adapt it to either an M240 or Sony A7R2.

 

[algrove]

As for the AF speed of 11fps. I read a review last night that mentioned they could confirm the 11 fps, but that many images were not in focus. To me in focus is more important than fast fps.

Guy- I'll take some popcorn while this drama plays out over the next year. :banghead:

Trouble with 1 year is the popcorn will get just as stale as waiting for #2 and #3 lens to show up which are considered a native SL lenses. Why buy S lenses which will break the bank or T lenses which will be cropped? And most honest reviewers say the M lernses are best used on an M. Also within the next year who knows what might come out to attract M users to another AF system, like the FF Pentax due out in the Spring.

I love my M's at 24MP and all my lenses including some R lenses which work just fine on the M. OK, so maybe I will need an AF camera in the not too distant future, but as Leica's customer base ages (like myself) why would they want to go to a heavier camera system. They own M's for RF, size and weight. I guess this is why many M users when wanting AF have opted for the Sony models to date and I for one do not see the majority switching to a heavier new system no matter how much money they have to spend.

I bought the Leica Q because I like using the original RX-1 so much. I could walk any street anywhere with those 2 bodies and decide which one works the best for me. Since I use the 645Z mainly for landscape, I for one really want an AF small, light weight camera for street use and the SL does not fit into that category for me.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Your MP + print assumption is wrong.. Please understand that your A7rII has a marginal increase in print size at best. If you wanted double print sizes, you'd need 100MP. It's an easy test to try on your home printer. I do it with every new camera I buy/test.

The 20-ish % increase in print size on the A7rII is negated mostly by the fact that the M240 sensor has much better color tonality and native optics that have higher resolving power (and actually work well with the sensor/sensor glass). And yeah I get that for certain applications you can adapt M or Otus or whatever lenses.

SOOO what real world benefit does the A7rII have, if the only claim to fame is MP?

I'm not a fan of Sony colors. And UI and ect.. But I have seen EXCELLENT images taken with it that far surpass anything I've done with my cameras. I'm not saying it's not a good camera for some people, it's just not a good camera for me. AND It's not the end all be all because it has a few decent numbers on a spec sheet.

Personally I was more wowed by my S-006 and 120S then I was with the A7rII. Print and screen.
And I'm actually thankful the SL comes in 24mp for the work I do.


And frankly speaking to everybody angry at Leica's pricing.. Yes it sucks, yes it should be cheaper. But I've lost more money trying to LOVE the A7 series cameras, then any other system I've tried. And I tried them ALL.
I'd take an SL + zoom any day over a A7 that then tempts me to buy an A7r to then buy an A7s (because I needed resolution, then needed the ISO). To then buy a A7II because I wanted IBIS then to buy the A7rII... And I was almost tempted to try the A7sII because why the heck not at this point.. All the wile I'm buying 2-3 bodies because of how/what I shoot. AND the lenses which I was disappointed with (aside from Batis, which I've refrained from buying). AND each time a new type of body came out I sold at least one of my other type of bodies to replace it at less then half the original purchase price.... REALLY crazy stuff. Sony has no F*cks to give about loyalty. They'll just keep crapping out new tech as soon as it's available in one forum or another trying to suck money from people and make headlines. Sure maybe it's my fault for being a sucker. But it would have been nice to get a heads up from Sony about the 7/R/S variants. And I don't even fault them for lack of lenses. I was ok with the 55FE even though it wasn't as good as people claim (mini-otus I think was the term). The 35 was horrid and didn't play well with the sensor. LUCKILY there was an adapter and I was able to shoot my ZA lenses which aren't really that much better, but available as at the time I had an A99 setup out of curiosity.

IF you want that, but all the while suffer through a horrid UI that STILL hasn't been updated.. Fine, buy a Sony. But honestly at the end of the day you'll either feel jaded that you're using a A7 with none of the cool new features of the other Sony bodies because your camera has no value on the resale market so it's pointless to sell... OR you'll end up spending more money on Sony over the course of three years then you do on a Leica SL + lens which retains value and tries to give you the best possible product they can.

BUT look.. If you need MP, and want a cheap light mobile body. Nothing wrong with the original A7r... scratch that (shutter vibration issues).. Nothing wrong with the A7rII. And also nothing wrong with the A7s.. It's a beauty. But if I were new to this, I would at this point prefer the A7sII for obvious reasons.


Again, this isn't meant to bash you, or Sony's cameras.. It's meant to bash Sony's morality. Though as I've been told before by people on this forum. Sony is running a business. So they're gonna do what they gotta do.
I'm also equally angry at Leica, because though I can see the value of the SL. Not many people will, and that'll hurt me in the long run as a future SL owner. Since the less people that invest in the mount, the less likely we'll get a good variety of quality lenses. Or at least less incentive from Leica if they know they're making a lens for a smaller group of owners.

That and what's up with Leica's advertising? Those Germans are Sony-deniers. Nobody in Germany have a A7?

Uhhhh it sounds like you are never going to be satisfied with anything frankly. I loved my A7 and I love my A7II even more. End of story. I didn't need to try every damn model because I know what my needs are before buying. If you really think the 55 & 35 aren't good enough you're just pixel peeping and you will never be satisfied with your images from any lens made by anyone. Pick a horse and run with it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Not a plug or anything like that but a fact. The new A7rII is a completely different and far better cam than the A7,A7r,A7II so if you had those previously I would not compare it to the new SL at all, not even close to what the new cam is and its new features and such. Seriously for your own comparison completely ignore those older models they truly do not represent Sony at this point. I know some gave up with those models and frankly I completely understand the reasons, it bugged me too. Not now though as the new body is a completely different beast and it works it's fixed its better and it actually performs as expected. I just noticed a lot of folks are comparing older models and that's just not a comparison to making a good buying decision. Carry on

Popcorn is still cooking.

Now my only other bitch in life has always been Leicas slowness to bring lenses to market. Now with there move to there bigger facility I hope that has changed for the better. I do hope so

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

somebody mentioned about samsung is the new leica partner, it seems samsung is shutting the camera business.

There are many rumours, including one about Panasonic, that they will launch a full frame mirrorless camera based on the SL. That would actually make sense. To suppliers to the same lens mount is always an advantage.

 

[John Black]

Hi Al - Leica doesn't seem to think in the ways we do. We think of the "new" replacing the old, like a M in this case (perhaps). Leica's thinking is much more of an "and" scenario. In Leica's mindset if somebody wants something lightweight / small, for those users Leica offers the M, T, X... I'm not saying their thinking is right, but that seems to be how they perceive things.

Sony has set an expectation that mirrorless full-frame will be compact and powerful. Whereas I think Leica's perspective on the SL is headed in a different direction. I think Leica is laying the groundwork for something that's more like an Zeiss Otus system. The SL body is the framework for higher rez sensors as they come available to Leica. And lenses like the forthcoming 50 Lux SL will be Leica's Otus.

I will not be using the SL system as Leica intended; their AF lenses are too big. Having owned the S system and carried a bag with several S lenses - it's too big / heavy for me. In my case the SL is a common mount to be used with several systems. I have a pretty big ensemble of Leica M, Leica R and Contax RTS lenses, so the SL body makes sense for me. Today I am using the M-P and A7II as a pair. That is not a compact duo -

851g = M-P + Battery + Thumbs Up + 1.25x + 1/2 Case + Neck Strap (a rope-style strap)
1060g = A7II + Sony v-grip + RRS L-bracket + Batteries + Novoflex adapter (R, M or Contax - all about the same weight)
VS
847g = SL with battery

For me, going with the SL simplifies the kit to one camera and eliminates almost a kg from the bag. Also no need to manage two battery systems, nor having to contend with Sony's short battery life. Using one common platform also simplifies some of my back office work, such as having to go into EXIF Changer and backfilling EXIF data in raws. Built-in GPS is another such time saver. Since the SL will recognize most of my lenses, I don't have to go into the Sony Steady Shot menu and change the focal length menu each time I change the lens (forgetting to do this can impact image quality).

I'm still curious what the next M will be. If the 4.4 MP EVF trickles down to the M, that's a big upside for the M. If Leica implement the LV / EVF on the M such that current +.5 second shutter lag is gone, that would radically change my opinion of the M with the EVF. And the last requirement is that the magnified view on the M be movable. With this hypothetical future M, for my needs the SL and future-M would be about on the same footing.

For now the plan will be to sell the A7 and M-P, that funds the SL body and it's more or less a cash-neutral swap. Use it for a year and when the next M comes around, re-evaluate.

 

[JohnBrew]

Uhhhh it sounds like you are never going to be satisfied with anything frankly. I loved my A7 and I love my A7II even more. End of story. I didn't need to try every damn model because I know what my needs are before buying. If you really think the 55 & 35 aren't good enough you're just pixel peeping and you will never be satisfied with your images from any lens made by anyone. Pick a horse and run with it.

And you are posting on a Leica forum, why?

 

[turtle]

I feel quite disappointed by the SL and feel it falls into a 'no mans land', lacking the compactness of the sony A7 series and the utility of a top flight DSLR. I've written a fairly in depth explanation on my blog as to why I think this new series won't prove terribly successful other than as a cross platform solution for existing Leica fans. Its far from the interchangeable Q many were hoping for and instead has waded into DSLR territory at a time when such designs are at their zenith. Foolish move by Leica if you ask me. A real opportunity lost.