The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica SL (601) ..Oct 20th?

M

mjr

Guest
I respectfully disagree with you, the fact that you feel there is no advantage doesn't mean there isn't one for many people, just not for you. it's why I say it is what it is, you either want it or you don't.

I could use it for video with my S lenses and then it's smaller and cheaper than my second S body and can use my existing lenses so it's lighter than buying another kit. My point is and always will be that there are options for everyone, I'm not buying the SL because I have 2 S bodies and love everything about them. If smaller and cheaper kit did exactly the same then I'd own it, but for me the whole kit, as a complete package does more than any other camera I have used, so for me it's perfect. The SL could be a handy addition for me because I couldn't care less about getting something small, light, or to some extent cost.

I don't mean disrespect to anyone but so many people come along and say this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment has no value because of x or y and I honestly find it nonsense. Buy what you want.

Mat
 

jonoslack

Active member
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.
Hi Tim
I hope you're well.
I shot it (with the 24-90) 1 handed (the other hand was for waving at the ladies on the tractors) for 4 hours (two in the pouring rain). It might be huge, but it's perfectly manageable.
 

jonoslack

Active member
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).
Well, I think the real solidity of the body, together with the extremely soft shutter, offers the opportunity to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds (mind you, the Sony has IBIS, so you might feel that was more of an advantage). I found shooting the Sony A7ii with R lenses to be rather frustrating - they didn't balance properly, and it was hard to handle. The SL on the other hand is rather a joy.

half full - half empty I guess.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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).
I have carried MF equipment many times on international travels and this was 1 or 2 bodies with at least 4 lenses, also tele lenses. I know what that means and I definitely can say that weight and size is an issue! Especially if you have to fly! For home and studio usage I do not mind any size of camera!

I agree with you that the size advantage of a FF mirrorless like the Sony A7rII disappears pretty soon as you start adding faster and longer glass, especially zooms, so I find the size of the SL actually a big advantage, as it allows for better grip and better batteries etc. from the scratch. Maybe the bad thing was to release the SL with just the 24-90, which does not only look huge on the pictures, it seems to be so in nature and from what I have read from different reviews. Maybe they should have also offered the 50 prime from the very beginning or maybe even better the a 35, 50 and 75 as the first available lenses!

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Tim
I hope you're well.
I shot it (with the 24-90) 1 handed (the other hand was for waving at the ladies on the tractors) for 4 hours (two in the pouring rain). It might be huge, but it's perfectly manageable.
And from what I can say you seem not to have the largest hands Jono! So this is encouraging! :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well 40 years of hauling this crap has done some real damage. I like light weight but than on the other hand I'm being paid so I shut my bloody mouth about it. Lol

I'm that lady carrying the water. It has to get there. The body looks a little heavy but the zoom ouch that might need 2 Tylenol at the end of the day. Lol

Point being I think almost all of us had our share of carrying heavy gear but truth be told I never looked at mirrorless as a light weight option either. Who said it was supposed to be. I see these weight arguments a lot especially with Sony people whining on about there bulk and weight . Obviously they never been where a lot of us come from. You have to do what you have to do but I can't tell you how many times I muttered under my breath I picked the wrong profession, I should have been a writer. Than again you all know I would fail miserable at that one. Lol
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Hi Jono,

I think the SL gets many things right and I wish all the vendors, including Leica, great success.
With regards to comparisons, I am more interested how Leica M lenses perform on the SL and A7r2, especially ones that turned out problematic for the Sonys.
Of course a Kolari modification of the A7r2 brings a noticeable improvement.
BTW, what is the sensor cover glass thickness of the SL? TIA.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
just looked at one SL at photoexpo. great form factor; the 90-280 zoom is a monster, but surprisingly not too bad

the SL finder pales when compared the 007 though, so don't make that side by side look-see

best feel of all was an m4/35mm cron; what a beaut!
 

helged

New member
Well, I think the real solidity of the body, together with the extremely soft shutter, offers the opportunity to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds (mind you, the Sony has IBIS, so you might feel that was more of an advantage). I found shooting the Sony A7ii with R lenses to be rather frustrating - they didn't balance properly, and it was hard to handle. The SL on the other hand is rather a joy.

half full - half empty I guess.
For those of us that only have read about the SL :), any comments on the difference in usability/handling of e.g. R-lenses on SL vs M240 beyond the excellent (SL) vs not-so-excellent (M240) electronic view finders?
 

algrove

Well-known member
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
I agree Leica has not made a Sony competitor-at least to the A7R2. The SL only has a better EVF than the A7R2, much more weight, way less MP, (because it must have lower MP than the S-007 be definition due to the S being the flagship Leica out there) heavy as **** lenses (I should say one lens so far), Sony looks (that was what many people thought when first seeing the SL), 2.5 x the price of an A7R2, S owner's appeal, better for S lens owners, not terrific for M lens owners (based on may reviews saying the best body for an M lens is an M body), same usability for R lens owners as the M240 platform (except for better EVF-and it better be better since there is no other way to focus lenses), due to size it competes with a shrinking DSLR market, no IBIS to help with all lenses to be used on it not just the SL lenses, etc etc.

Even many reviewers say the 11 fps does not always hit focus, but does fire off 11fps, but if not all hit focus then what's the object of a fast firing camera if focus is no good on many fps? I prefer to have all my images in focus.

Don't be naive to think that the SL does not compete with every camera out there in some way, shape or form. Could I buy one? Sure. Will I buy one between now and year end? No. Before the next lens comes out 6-8 months from now there will be many new cameras released which will compete with the SL for buyers' funds. Even many S owners who could buy this now are waiting on the sidelines to see what really happens with the direct S adapter and the much anticipated direct R adapter. plus more native lens availability. I just remember not long ago, I had to wait over 15 months from handling the M-R adapter at Photokina 2012 until it became available.

Just like it took the Sony A7 series to be accepted, especially after the vibration issue with the a7R and how badly it handled many M lenses after Sony hinted that legacy glass would work well on that body, individuals might wait for acceptance (by retail customers as well as 3rd party lens manufacturers if any) of the SL too. That wait is what can cost Leica mostly due primarily to a lame SL lens line-up. Only within the last year has Zeiss stepped up big time to fill out the FE line more than ever and that came about only after brisk sales began and many, many months from introduction.
 
Last edited:

atanabe

Member
I would have wished that they would have introduced the adapters at launch and not "... in 2016". It offers a great alternative for the S owner like myself to use a high ISO capable body with the S lenses. At half the cost and almost half the weight of the S type007, it is a practical companion. I did ponder the Sony A7rII but then I would have had to buy a whole new series of lenses. So when the adapter comes out, I will look into the change, until then, I will sit on my wallet.

The size of the zoom? It is a product of the laws of physics, FF = large lens then add on AF motor and a large aperture . . . you get the picture. As an example, look at the 35-70 f2.8 ASPH R lens that Leica produced it was no lightweight and did not have AF or OIS to add to the girth nor the range on either end. As a leader in optical design, if they opted to make a sub par full aperture zoom everyone would be up in arms that they dropped the ball. If they came out with a smaller f4 constant everyone would be up in arms that it is not fast enough. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
I respectfully disagree with you, the fact that you feel there is no advantage doesn't mean there isn't one for many people, just not for you. it's why I say it is what it is, you either want it or you don't.

I could use it for video with my S lenses and then it's smaller and cheaper than my second S body and can use my existing lenses so it's lighter than buying another kit. My point is and always will be that there are options for everyone, I'm not buying the SL because I have 2 S bodies and love everything about them. If smaller and cheaper kit did exactly the same then I'd own it, but for me the whole kit, as a complete package does more than any other camera I have used, so for me it's perfect. The SL could be a handy addition for me because I couldn't care less about getting something small, light, or to some extent cost.

I don't mean disrespect to anyone but so many people come along and say this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment has no value because of x or y and I honestly find it nonsense. Buy what you want.

Mat
Clearly the approach that most have with this camera is totally different than Leica's aim... Leica never addressed this product at the mass market that would go out to select a system to use and sell 50000 cameras per month... Surely there will be some people that can afford it and use it in that manner, but only a few out of its customers... And maybe later on, Leica will use this same platform to address it to the consumer market... but this is clearly a PRO product that has been designed as to provide a cross-talk among the rest of Leica and Sinar products.

Clearly Leica has aimed for a platform that allows R users to use their lenses, M users to do the same, S users to have a back up camera and Sinar users to obtain a cheap MFDB with S lenses on their front standard and full interface communication between front and rear standard and even integrate pro video in their work as well as turning Sinar view cameras into great professional videocameras.

It is a product that unites and enhances the abilities of already existing Leica users and especially the pro ones... Nothing more, nothing less. A proof of the above is that Leica is into no rush as to provide lenses for the consumer market as they know it would only be a small fraction of the possible sales. To the contradict, I believe that this camera will enhance sales of the Leica S and of the Sinar products rather than selling much in its own... and I also believe it will be a major success among Holywood professionals and the rest of major cinema studios around the world...

People keep forgetting that Leica promotes this as a PRO platform... not a Sony or Nikon or Canon alternative... and even if all the makers have cameras addressed to a pro task... Leica's idea of a pro is all kinds of tasks, whether if its Magnum, or Studio, or fashion, or product, or architecture, or cinema...
 

turtle

New member
Heavy lenses and bodies have their place. Small lenses and bodies have their place. However, they need to be matched to make any sense at all. My issue with the SL is not that the body is 820g (so is a D810, roughly) or that the 24-90mm is 1150g (so is the new Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR, roughly). It is that the SL seems to be a poorly designed 'handle' for the weight of lenses designed for it and of which we are aware at this stage.

Had Leica been thinking straight, they would have matched the design of the body to the lenses. That said, very large, exceptional zooms make sense when you need to milk a 36MP sensor, but less so for 24MP. Were this camera a 50MP monster, the size of the lenses would make more sense, but at 24MP, Leica has ended up with large lenses and a body that seems ill suited to carry them.

Someone said earlier that the SL 24-90mm is no heavier than carrying a professional f2.8 24-70 plus an 85mm. True... but the 24-70 is up to one stop faster at the long end (not sure of the aperture of the SL lens at 70mm) and and the 85mm will be between 2 & 3 stops faster and therefore much more useful for portraiture.

The SL may mate very well with lenses in the 500g range, but Leica has not announced any. With the 50mm f1.4 scheduled to take a year, this means the SL represents a serious proposition only 12-24 months downrange, when we can be sure the marketplace will have moved on a looong way. Even then, if any future 24/28/35/85 Summilux lenses are anything like the size of the 50mm, the handling is still going to be highly questionable.

If I had a large number of R and M lenses, perhaps a M9 (and nothing later) I might think seriously about the SL to get those optics up and running with a modern, all round useful general purpose 24MP camera. For other people, especially professionals, the SL system doesn't seem to be a remotely sensible or practical proposition. Had it been 50MP, we might have seen studio or landscape photographers leap all over it. Had it been more compact with much lighter and smaller lenses, we might have seen M users and Fuji X users looking for that Leica juice jump in with both feet. As it is, I cannot see how anyone buying in without lots of Leica glass wouldn't be better off with a Nikon D750, or A7R II.... or a Leica M 240 for that matter.

I notice some have commented that the 'AF is crippled' for 11fps. Is it confirmed that it has poor tracking, due to contrast detect only AF?
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I would have wished that they would have introduced the adapters at launch and not "... in 2016". It offers a great alternative for the S owner like myself to use a high ISO capable body with the S lenses. At half the cost and almost half the weight of the S type007, it is a practical companion. I did ponder the Sony A7rII but then I would have had to buy a whole new series of lenses. So when the adapter comes out, I will look into the change, until then, I will sit on my wallet.

The size of the zoom? It is a product of the laws of physics, FF = large lens then add on AF motor and a large aperture . . . you get the picture. As an example, look at the 35-70 f2.8 ASPH R lens that Leica produced it was no lightweight and did not have AF or OIS to add to the girth nor the range on either end. As a leader in optical design, if they opted to make a sub par full aperture zoom everyone would be up in arms that they dropped the ball. If they came out with a smaller f4 constant everyone would be up in arms that it is not fast enough. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I agree, the size and weight even of the APO-R 280/4 or Vario-R 105-280/4.2 has never stopped me from using it on an A7r/2.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
I respectfully disagree with you, the fact that you feel there is no advantage doesn't mean there isn't one for many people, just not for you. it's why I say it is what it is, you either want it or you don't.

I could use it for video with my S lenses and then it's smaller and cheaper than my second S body and can use my existing lenses so it's lighter than buying another kit. My point is and always will be that there are options for everyone, I'm not buying the SL because I have 2 S bodies and love everything about them. If smaller and cheaper kit did exactly the same then I'd own it, but for me the whole kit, as a complete package does more than any other camera I have used, so for me it's perfect. The SL could be a handy addition for me because I couldn't care less about getting something small, light, or to some extent cost.

I don't mean disrespect to anyone but so many people come along and say this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment has no value because of x or y and I honestly find it nonsense. Buy what you want.

Mat
I understand. You are thinking about this from a very different perspective as someone who already has a collection of exceptional legacy lenses to use on an SL. I am thinking about this from the perspective of me.....someone who doesn't own legacy lenses and is considering buying a camera and lenses for (1) landscape use that provide performance that approaches medium format quality and (2) handheld travel use that approaches DSLR quality, all without the attendant weight penalty of medium format and DSLR equipment. That's all I want. [G] The Sony A7RII gets me the closest so far. I would pay a lot more to get even more. The mainstream camera manufacturers will likely never build something like that. Leica would be the best bet, but the SL doesn't do it for me.
 

algrove

Well-known member
I understand. You are thinking about this from a very different perspective as someone who already has a collection of exceptional legacy lenses to use on an SL. I am thinking about this from the perspective of me.....someone who doesn't own legacy lenses and is considering buying a camera and lenses for (1) landscape use that provide performance that approaches medium format quality and (2) handheld travel use that approaches DSLR quality, all without the attendant weight penalty of medium format and DSLR equipment. That's all I want. [G] The Sony A7RII gets me the closest so far. I would pay a lot more to get even more. The mainstream camera manufacturers will likely never build something like that. Leica would be the best bet, but the SL doesn't do it for me.
Good points. You know I had the M240 and tried the A7R, but the vibration issue turned me off and I returned it. I then sold my P45+ and V system due to too many error messages involved with mating a newish digital back to an older V system designed for film.

Then a friend said he had been with Michael Reichman in Hawaii and suggested I look at the relatively new (then) 645Z which greatly interested me. MF, polished use of the Sony MF 51MP sensor, new lenses for digital, old lenses which are perform very well, etc. I got it and love it for landscape in the US, not for foreign travel.

If and when I want a change for my M240, for me, it should be smaller and lighter. That does not describe the SL. However, the next time Jono is quiet for many weeks I sure trust he is testing a interchangeable lens FF, AF Q. I love my Q and want more even if it uses T lenses.
 

D&A

Well-known member
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
This is just a guess but like the Leica T when first released, a very limited selection of af lenses were announced and su9bsequently released. I think in thr case of the T and now the SL, Leica is taking a wait and see approach to see if both body and system is well received in order that production and investment of lenses is financially sound. If not, its easy then to reduce or stop production of body. Since both the T and SL bodies are able to take other system lenses, owners of these bodies are not left completely in the lurch.

It doesn't appear further development of lenses for the T body will be forthcoming (unless I missed something)€ and I believe the same approach was taken with the S system but in that case sufficient number of bodies were sold to warrent further development and release of S lenses.

The last thing anyone wants is to be left with a body developed in a closed system with little to no lenses available for use with that system.

Dave (D&A)
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
Good points. You know I had the M240 and tried the A7R, but the vibration issue turned me off and I returned it. I then sold my P45+ and V system due to too many error messages involved with mating a newish digital back to an older V system designed for film.

Then a friend said he had been with Michael Reichman in Hawaii and suggested I look at the relatively new (then) 645Z which greatly interested me. MF, polished use of the Sony MF 51MP sensor, new lenses for digital, old lenses which are perform very well, etc. I got it and love it for landscape in the US, not for foreign travel.

If and when I want a change for my M240, for me, it should be smaller and lighter. That does not describe the SL. However, the next time Jono is quiet for many weeks I sure trust he is testing a interchangeable lens FF, AF Q. I love my Q and want more even if it uses T lenses.
If Leica was after a Sony alternative, they would simply make a version of the Q with interchangeable lens, sell it cheaper than the Q (since there would be no lens in the equation) and then none would complain about size or bulk or price... But obviously they had different in mind... a real pro product! After all they can offer the interchangeable lens Q anytime they want in the future in much the same mount...
 

algrove

Well-known member
This is just a guess but like the Leica T when first released, a very limited selection of af lenses were announced and su9bsequently released. I think in thr case of the T and now the SL, Leica is taking a wait and see approach to see if both body and system is well received in order that production and investment of lenses is financially sound. If not, its easy then to reduce or stop production of body. Since both the T and SL bodies are able to take other system lenses, owners of these bodies are not left completely in the lurch.

It doesn't appear further development of lenses for the T body will be forthcoming (unless I missed something)€ and I believe the same approach was taken with the S system but in that case sufficient number of bodies were sold to warrent further development and release of S lenses.

The last thing anyone wants is to be left with a body developed in a closed system with little to no lenses available for use with that system.

Dave (D&A)
Yes, like the R system bodies.
 
Top