Leica SL (601) ..Oct 20th?

[Zony user]

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.

Completely agree. I am beyond disappointed. And this new system is full of compromises imho...

Dr. Kaufmann: We present to you, the all new "no compromise" Leica SL!!

Reporter: Very nice, and what lenses come with it?

Dr. Kaufmann: At launch only the 24-90mm f2.8-f4.0

Reporter: A variable aperture zoom?

Dr. Kaufmann: Oh, yes we find it a good compromise between size and IQ

Reporter: But you said "no compromise" just a second ago...

Dr. Kaufmann: ......

 

[MGrayson]

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

Lens availability *is* a problem. Where're those Batises? (I'm told that the plural of a Latin -is word ends in -es, so it should be Bates, but that sounds like a Hitchcock character..) Not kidding, they sound like a bigger draw into the system than the bodies. :banghead:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes they are hard to get. Problem was demand and small production space. They expanded it to accomadate immediately so there saying they should catch up by December . But yes they got caught with there pants down. Leica facility is already in place but are they faster to the street in product was my question. There out if excuses they have the production space.

Sony itself has not had a serious production issue yet. At least from what have seen . Maybe a two week delay after new first run of new body but nothing serious.

 

[Speedgraphic]

And you are posting on a Leica forum, why?

Who said I don't use and enjoy some Leica cameras? I just don't look at everything they do as exempt from criticism. And I look at people who complain about lenses that have been universally praised at being full of it really. Like if the 55/1.8 isn't good enough for you, it's not the lens, it you.

 

[mjr]

Some size comparisons on here https://www.facebook.com/groups/1493941300902396/ it's interesting I guess, I'm not sure I'm with all the "it's huge" "the lens is the size of a house" nonsense, it is what it is and for what they are aiming the camera at, it seems suitable to me but probably not for everyone.

Speedgraphic, the zeiss 55 may be adequate for you but please don't insist that if it's not for someone else then it's an issue with them. I have no idea why you are still "contributing" here, it's not for you, surely you're boring yourself by now?

Guy, we can't compare Leica with Sony because they are not comparing themselves, Sony is a huge organisation that is churning out camera after camera, Leica is a small producer of high quality kit, appreciated by those who get it and dismissed by those who don't, they are not the same.

Mat

 

[algrove]

Yes we can compare them. Compare them with images for example. They both are competing for camera $ spent be it by high spenders or low spenders of ILC's. I know many high spenders who have switched to Sony from Leica and they are individuals who get it.

 

[mjr]

Urgh, Algrove, Leica have not made a Sony competitor, it isn't a comparison, they can't compete on a mass produced camera with rapid updates, so they haven't, is that not obvious?

If a Sony fits then brilliant, if a Leica fits then brilliant, what's the point of stating otherwise?

Mat

 

[ohnri]

I would be interested to see an actual comparison from you showing how the A7RII is crippled in 4K, since Cinema5d has a different view (based on real use & lab tests):

"What we could see when comparing the two modes is that indeed the Super35 Crop Mode is very nice and a tad sharper and cleaner than the Full Frame Mode. But we were also surprised to see that the Full Frame Mode is actually not bad at all.

In fact I would say it can easily be scaled down to 3K or even go as 4K and look very nice. It’s really not so easy to tell the difference between the two modes so Full Frame must be good. Aliasing is not strong in full frame mode, there is a tiny bit here and there, but to be honest it’s hard to find.

So if you need the best quality you will want to go with crop mode, but if you’re not a pixel peeper than Full Frame Mode will serve you just as well.

In comparison to the Sony A7S in 4K it’s really really hard to tell the difference and I dare you to try. The most apparent difference is the A7S running at a base ISO of 3200 and the Sony A7RII running at a base ISO of 800. You can see the grain and compression / noise reduction artefacts on the A7S on moving images. The Sony A7RII looks a bit cleaner. As a still they look virtually identical."


https://www.cinema5d.com/sony-a7rii-a7s-lab/

I have no real argument with this assessment.

They describe the FF mode as 'not bad at all'.

The A7r2 FF mode is clearly less sharp and suffers from moire compared to the S35 mode.

Is that a problem?

Just depends on what you are looking for and what you are trying to deliver. If you are downsizing everything to 2K anyway then no problem. If you see the comparison videos on the internet and find them unconvincing then no problem

It is a subjective and artistic choice really.

But, every other internally recording 4K camera is sharper than the A7r2 is in FF mode.

I have seen the FF mode described as 2.5K. I would not go that far but it is obvious that more detail exists in the S35 mode as well as from both the GH4 and the NX1.

-Bill

 

[tashley]

Some size comparisons on here https://www.facebook.com/groups/1493941300902396/ it's interesting I guess, I'm not sure I'm with all the "it's huge" "the lens is the size of a house" nonsense, it is what it is and for what they are aiming the camera at, it seems suitable to me but probably not for everyone.

Speedgraphic, the zeiss 55 may be adequate for you but please don't insist that if it's not for someone else then it's an issue with them. I have no idea why you are still "contributing" here, it's not for you, surely you're boring yourself by now?

Guy, we can't compare Leica with Sony because they are not comparing themselves, Sony is a huge organisation that is churning out camera after camera, Leica is a small producer of high quality kit, appreciated by those who get it and dismissed by those who don't, they are not the same.

Mat

Mat, picking up the combination in the flesh, the first word that comes to mind is.... 'huge'... That lens is a monster. It will be just fine with smaller glass but really, as a 'kit', "huge" is fair.

 

[mjr]

Tim

I haven't held it of course so my experience is looking purely at comparisons, my idea of huge is clearly different to yours, I carry an S with a 180 for hours every day with another body and 3 more lenses in a backpack and it's nothing to me. I loved the 200f2 on the D800 and carried that everywhere too, the concept of huge is not the same for everyone. Many people will carry a 24-70 f2.8 around with them and won't feel it's huge for the range, this is a 24-90 so less than carry for example a 24-70 and an 85mm prime to cover the same range.

Some people are just more prepared to carry stuff than others, the ones that don't won't buy it, I just don't see the issue.

Mat

 

[mjr]

Tim

Here's something that makes me smile when I read about huge cameras and massive lenses, a 10 year old girl in Mali carrying a bucket which when I offered to help her and picked it up, weighed about the same as 10 SL's and kit lenses, I like perspective!

 

[biglouis]

Yes they are hard to get. Problem was demand and small production space. They expanded it to accomadate immediately so there saying they should catch up by December . But yes they got caught with there pants down. Leica facility is already in place but are they faster to the street in product was my question. There out if excuses they have the production space.

Sony itself has not had a serious production issue yet. At least from what have seen . Maybe a two week delay after new first run of new body but nothing serious.

Guy

This is a bit of an elephant in the room. All the excitement of a new product has to be tempered by the fact that it will be months before they are in peoples hands. Yes, a few will be lucky in November and then you will have to be prepared to wait months before one you order is available. I received an email from a well respected store here in the UK which I have used many times and have nothing but good things to say about informing me about pre-orders. But it really means joining a waiting list which on past performance could mean a 3-6 months wait.

I'm not saying that didn't happen with the A7RII but now I can go to many stores here in the UK and buy one from stock and this only 2-3 months after launch. The Leica Q which was launched at the same time is still a 3 month wait according to several stores I approached about 3 weeks ago and I doubt if there has been a sudden surge of product coming into dealers since.

There is something distinctly odd about a company that consistently offers products that are not easily obtainable.

LouisB

 

[Speedgraphic]

Urgh, Algrove, Leica have not made a Sony competitor, it isn't a comparison, they can't compete on a mass produced camera with rapid updates, so they haven't, is that not obvious?

If a Sony fits then brilliant, if a Leica fits then brilliant, what's the point of stating otherwise?

Mat

This is just mental acrobatics. The idea that you can't compare a Leica to any other camera is the only way you can cognitively disconnect critical thinking. The M240 can't be compared to pretty much anything because it's the only RF out there, same with the mono, same with the S in a way. But their is NOTHING unique about the SL. Every make has something that does a version of what it does. Many reviews have posed the question, where does this fit in? Leica says, well it's a PRO camera (whatever that means) we're competing against other PRO cameras. Well, according to the specs every other tool is a better choice for almost any job. You can't use the 11fps because the AF is crippled, you have to wait a year for a 50/1.4 or use a gigantic variable aperture zoom, or spend a crap ton of money for lenses that are non-native to the format.... What's the point? Why put yourself through that? I'm sure it's a perfectly competent camera but at the same time it's just not special. And a 12 grand camera and lens should be pretty eff'ing special.

 

[mjr]

No problem, it doesn't match what you want from a camera, now what? We're done aren't we? On to something else and leave people who have an interest in it to discuss it?

Mat

 

[k-hawinkler]

I would like to see some of the excellent things of the SL in a Sony, like state of the art EVF, larger and faster buffers, higher frame rate, etc.
With regards to size, my A7r2 is just right, not too small and not to large for small or large lenses, including the APO-R 280/4.

 

[thompsonkirk]

Agree with Louis and with Tom/turtle (above). I'd like this camera to be a success, but why go ahead and buy the body until AF lenses are available for it? Only when the primes and short zoom that I'd use appear on the scene could I take a practical interest. IMO it was a mistake to release this body without a more extensive/useful lens line.

Kirk

 

[hcubell]

Tim

I haven't held it of course so my experience is looking purely at comparisons, my idea of huge is clearly different to yours, I carry an S with a 180 for hours every day with another body and 3 more lenses in a backpack and it's nothing to me. I loved the 200f2 on the D800 and carried that everywhere too, the concept of huge is not the same for everyone. Many people will carry a 24-70 f2.8 around with them and won't feel it's huge for the range, this is a 24-90 so less than carry for example a 24-70 and an 85mm prime to cover the same range.

Some people are just more prepared to carry stuff than others, the ones that don't won't buy it, I just don't see the issue.

Mat

I think you miss the point. Photographers for over 150 years carried extremely heavy gear over long distances because they had to do so in order to get the performance advantages that such equipment offered. I cannot imagine anyone CHOOSING to carry 30-40 pounds of camera equipment if they could get the same or better performance out of camera equipment that weighs 10 pounds.
For me, this is not about the cost. It is frequently the case that the last 5-10% improvement in performance carries a very big price tag. I get that. I would pay (and have paid) for that. I own and carry medium format equipment with an 80 MP back because it offers capabilities that I cannot otherwise get. However, a Leica SL with a 24 MP sensor and that weighs what it weighs? I am at a loss to see what advantages it offers compared to a Sony A7RII (other than the EVF).

 

[hcubell]

Tim

Here's something that makes me smile when I read about huge cameras and massive lenses, a 10 year old girl in Mali carrying a bucket which when I offered to help her and picked it up, weighed about the same as 10 SL's and kit lenses, I like perspective!

I bet you didn't ask her if she LIKES to carry the water.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Not that this is getting ugly it's not but just remember to keep it friendly . Thanks

 

[jonoslack]

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.

HI There
Whilst I'd like to see a stop down adapter (especially to convince potential SLR converts) - I completely agree with you - I'd rather focus at the chosen aperture and see the depth of field, and I found this eminently do-able with the SL and R lenses.

All the best