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?

doug

Well-known member
Thanks Doug. After reading Jim Kasson's blog I try to follow his recommendation.
But I have shot E1C shutter with 1/2000 s to 1/2500 s and didn't experience anything like that with my A7r2.
I guess, I will have to pay closer attention. :grin:
As I understand it the problem shows up most with large aperture adapted lenses. I saw it when using the FD 500mm f/4.5 L. It was not a subtle effect.
 

uhoh7

New member
I have litte doubt that this is true, but only for some of the Leica M lenses (mostly wides and up to 50mm), .
I disagree after ALOT of experience with many film lenses on the A7r and A7, and now Kolari.

The A7 series do weird things with all sorts of legacy SLR lenses. For example I have the famous Canon nFD 24/2. It's terrible on un-modded A7. It's fantastic on the Kolari. The issues we have seen from the beginning with 50s like the Lux ASPH, which is awful on the stock Sony, and the long long struggle for high performance ultra-wide should be a strong hint the sensor cover glass has wide effects (though of course they vary.)

So, I say the SL is the best legacy platform for ANY film lens. Assuming you can find the adapters, which are dumb and should be no problem eventually.

Vivek, I started with A7r, sent it back and got A7 (this right at original release), then was so disappointed with A7 and film lenses, I bought an M9. Following year Kolari became option. I had one of the very first, which was good because as soon as it came back my M9 shutter went down :scry: For 6 weeks I only shot the A7.mod.

There is no comparison. The Kolari mod totally resurrected the A7 for me, and not just with M wides. You still have the lousy cooked Sony "Raw" files and various annoyances of the interface, plus the poor EVF, but it's fully usable and can make some great images.

Today I go everywhere with both bodies. :)

I've felt up to now that the A7 with native glass did offer some very good performance, though for various reasons I don't like the choices much (bad MF feel on some, size issues with others etc). But the Lensrental data is damning of the native path for landscape lovers like me:

"The FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lenses are all over the place. It actually is a bit worse than the graphs look because a lot of the variance is WITHIN a copy, not just copy-to-copy. None of the 10 copies we tested had even corners. And I'll editorialize and say that none of the dozens we've tested on Imatest had even corners either. If you use this lens for centered objects, you'll be happy. If you want 4 sharp corners, it's not likely to happen unless your standards for equal sharpness are pretty low."

Later he talks about the 90/2.8 issues. Now, most of my regard for the native path has evaporated. However, my affection for my little Kolari A7 is higher than ever :)

Roger
LensRentals.com - Sony E Mount Lens Optical Bench Tests
 

Zony user

New member
I disagree after ALOT of experience with many film lenses on the A7r and A7, and now Kolari.

The A7 series do weird things with all sorts of legacy SLR lenses. For example I have the famous Canon nFD 24/2. It's terrible on un-modded A7. It's fantastic on the Kolari. The issues we have seen from the beginning with 50s like the Lux ASPH, which is awful on the stock Sony, and the long long struggle for high performance ultra-wide should be a strong hint the sensor cover glass has wide effects (though of course they vary.)

So, I say the SL is the best legacy platform for ANY film lens. Assuming you can find the adapters, which are dumb and should be no problem eventually.

Vivek, I started with A7r, sent it back and got A7 (this right at original release), then was so disappointed with A7 and film lenses, I bought an M9. Following year Kolari became option. I had one of the very first, which was good because as soon as it came back my M9 shutter went down :scry: For 6 weeks I only shot the A7.mod.

There is no comparison. The Kolari mod totally resurrected the A7 for me, and not just with M wides. You still have the lousy cooked Sony "Raw" files and various annoyances of the interface, plus the poor EVF, but it's fully usable and can make some great images.

Today I go everywhere with both bodies. :)

I've felt up to now that the A7 with native glass did offer some very good performance, though for various reasons I don't like the choices much (bad MF feel on some, size issues with others etc). But the Lensrental data is damning of the native path for landscape lovers like me:

"The FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA lenses are all over the place. It actually is a bit worse than the graphs look because a lot of the variance is WITHIN a copy, not just copy-to-copy. None of the 10 copies we tested had even corners. And I'll editorialize and say that none of the dozens we've tested on Imatest had even corners either. If you use this lens for centered objects, you'll be happy. If you want 4 sharp corners, it's not likely to happen unless your standards for equal sharpness are pretty low."

Later he talks about the 90/2.8 issues. Now, most of my regard for the native path has evaporated. However, my affection for my little Kolari A7 is higher than ever :)

Roger
LensRentals.com - Sony E Mount Lens Optical Bench Tests

Simple fix.
1. Get two A7Rii's for 80% the price of a SL.
2. Kolari mod one and you get 42MP + IBIS for all your legacy glasses.
3. For the unmodded A7Rii, get the awesome ZEISS glasses, like the Loxia 21mm and Batis 25mm. There will be VERY few legacy lenses that can match those two. Why even bother with the FE glass? (except for maybe the FE55)
 

anGy

Member
The FE 35mm f1,4 praise was one of the major reasons why I've decided to buy the A7rII.
The purpose was to sell my 45mm S lens to finance the Sony combo purchase. To me the S offers more advantages and character from 50mm and up than on the wide side, where lenses sort of just have to be sharp all the way (for landscape & architecture works).
After several comparisons between both systems (A7rII +35mm f1,4 vs S2 + 45mm S) I couldn't believe how bad the Sony was on borders and corners.
It cost me some money to sell the Sony system back only 2 weeks after its purchase but, at least, it helped me remember what level of IQ an S lens can offer (although even without direct comparison it was easy to see there was a problem in the corners with the FE 35mm f1,4).
It also helped me remember that forum info must always be put into perspective against your own level of expectations...
 

uhoh7

New member
The FE 35mm f1,4 praise was one of the major reasons why I've decided to buy the A7rII.
The purpose was to sell my 45mm S lens to finance the Sony combo purchase. To me the S offers more advantages and character at medium to long focal lengths than on the wide side, where lenses sort of just have to be sharp all the way (for landscape & architecture works).
After several comparisons between both systems (A7rII +35mm f1,4 vs S2 + 45mm S) I couldn't believe how bad the Sony was on borders and corners.
This is the problem with Steve Huff style enthusiasm. Sane responsible people who care are mislead by the hype. I'm afraid some otherwise very nice people here are doing the same thing. They get so excited. You say anything and you are a Sony Basher. Of course there are real Sony bashers, Leica bashers.

I like excellence. I get excited about it. Then they can me a fan-boy :cussing: I don't like cynical decisions which are half covered by "open mount" marketing. I get mad about it. Then I'm a basher.

Just can't win politically, but as a result of my own explorations I have two fantastic camera bodies and some nice lenses.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I had the same exact experience with the 35 1.4 anGy...I bought it for a lot of money here, and was happy with the overall character of the lens, but shocked by how uneven it was. I thought it was just my copy, so I returned it. The more I read about it, the more I saw that it seems to be a very common issue. In any case, I replaced it with the 35 2.8 FE and have found that to be very sharp across the frame. Obviously it would have been nice to have the speed, but the speed is no good if the edges are unusable (I was mostly using 1.4 for night exposures of landscapes, and in that use, its performance was not acceptable. Now I have no real alternative other than the 55mm. The 35 2.8 is great in daylight, and a much more manageable size and cost.) In any case, I hope they can sort out the QC issue on the 35/1.4, as it was excellent on center and had a lovely character.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well - S vs A7 is kind of an unfair comparison IMO.

I am sure the SL will be better with legancy lenses, but then Jono sounds the M will still be better than the SL for wide angle M-glass.
Plus you get a nice optical rangefinder with 100 stops of DR and resolution as high as your eyes would work.

Personally I wonder how good/fast the SL works with S-lenses.
I evaluate the SL as a second S body for high ISO.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I had the same exact experience with the 35 1.4 anGy...I bought it for a lot of money here, and was happy with the overall character of the lens, but shocked by how uneven it was. I thought it was just my copy, so I returned it. The more I read about it, the more I saw that it seems to be a very common issue. In any case, I replaced it with the 35 2.8 FE and have found that to be very sharp across the frame. Obviously it would have been nice to have the speed, but the speed is no good if the edges are unusable (I was mostly using 1.4 for night exposures of landscapes, and in that use, its performance was not acceptable. Now I have no real alternative other than the 55mm. The 35 2.8 is great in daylight, and a much more manageable size and cost.) In any case, I hope they can sort out the QC issue on the 35/1.4, as it was excellent on center and had a lovely character.

I must have a good copy. As my test shown here on the forum . Mine is very slight in the upper left corner by 2.8 all corners are very good. Not sure you can ask much more for a 35 1.4 . My sigma art 35 1.4 got good at F 4 because of field curvature. But I'm thinking of selling mine , not because of this issue though. I want the money for other choices. Unofficially I'm listing it for sale.
 
It cost me some money to sell the Sony system back only 2 weeks after its purchase but, at least, it helped me remember what level of IQ an S lens can offer (although even without direct comparison it was easy to see there was a problem in the corners with the FE 35mm f1,4).
Now, wait just a minute. I read just a few posts ago about how the S is already so far behind the curve.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I must have a good copy. As my test shown here on the forum . Mine is very slight in the upper left corner by 2.8 all corners are very good. Not sure you can ask much more for a 35 1.4 . My sigma art 35 1.4 got good at F 4 because of field curvature. But I'm thinking of selling mine , not because of this issue though. I want the money for other choices. Unofficially I'm listing it for sale.
Mine was bad enough that it is visible in a web jpeg...the right corner was totally soft at the focused distance, but sharp in the foreground, the left upper corner was ok, but unsharp in the bottom...and sharpness ran in a diagonal plane through the image...all messed up. Even visible at 5.6 in certain images.
35f1.4-problem-f1.4.jpg

I guess you have to click twice to see a larger image...still much decreased from full resolution. In any case, this was aligned using a versalign parallel, so I was exactly square to the board. I tried it outside as well (where I originally noticed it). In any case, I am sure there are good copies out there!! Mine was not, and after hearing about a number of other people who also had problems, I felt it was probably better just to try another lens. I did that, and it has worked out well. As I said, I find the 35 2.8 FE very good!
P.S., the color temperature difference across the frame is from the fact that the left board is lit at 4700K, and the right at 3500K...
Oh, and it was super super sharp wide open on center!!!
 

aDam007

New member
Simple fix.
1. Get two A7Rii's for 80% the price of a SL.
2. Kolari mod one and you get 42MP + IBIS for all your legacy glasses.
3. For the unmodded A7Rii, get the awesome ZEISS glasses, like the Loxia 21mm and Batis 25mm. There will be VERY few legacy lenses that can match those two. Why even bother with the FE glass? (except for maybe the FE55)

And that's a great recipe for a poor user experience. Because last time I checked the Kolari mod doesn't redesign the camera nor does it change the user interface.

Life's short, I'd rather pay more and be happy with the Leica. Of course assuming the SL makes me happy. If it doesn't I'll continue to use the S-system and M-system.
 

atanabe

Member
So much written with so little actual experience in hand. So far, "it is behind the ball", "it is too expensive" and on and on. I think that Leica has a talented group of accountants who scrub the numbers and know at what price point the product has to sell and in what quantity in order to green light the project. A product manager has to justify that x units will sell to existing customers, x units will go to new customers, at least that is my understanding of how a business works.

I am a current customer, I use the M, S and up until a few weeks ago a X now replaced with the Q. The Q replaces my X and in many cases the M, the S although it has the best glass that I have shot with, is reserved for the tripod as I am not able to handhold it as well as I used to. Now along comes the SL, it takes M glass,T glass and most important to me S glass. It costs less that half of the new 007 so it intrigues me from the price point, it has high ISO capabilities that I have witnessed in the Q so good there as well. Some would say the Sony A7rII would be a better choice at half the cost, yes and no, yes it is true it is half the cost but it would also mean that I would have to buy into a whole new bunch of lenses. I could not use the S glass on it and from what I have seen, the glass that is offered for the Sony has far too many variances for my liking. All the posts that I have seen posted here and other forums from Sony glass show variations that are not acceptable from copy to copy. Some are great, I fall in love, then another image that shows a tack sharp center and way soft edges and I feel dejected.

The big question for me is how will the S adapter work, for that I will have to wait till Summer 2016 and only then will I part with my hard earned $$$. Will it shoot with the CS? Is it a deal breaker? ???

Technology continues to advance and has yet to fall backwards so I am sure that newer and better things will be out there tomorrow and the day after that. One has to stop and look at the tools out there and determine what is needed vs what is desired. When the digital DSLR was born, offered ISO 400 and you choose the color balance I was in heaven, no need to carry different bodies or unload the film mid roll. Every advance since then is just an added bonus to me, I built my skills around a finite platform and adapted solutions to the problem.

PS I still own my Nikon D1X and take it out occasionally, still love the images from it.:D
 

aDam007

New member
The FE 35mm f1,4 praise was one of the major reasons why I've decided to buy the A7rII.
The purpose was to sell my 45mm S lens to finance the Sony combo purchase. To me the S offers more advantages and character from 50mm and up than on the wide side, where lenses sort of just have to be sharp all the way (for landscape & architecture works).
After several comparisons between both systems (A7rII +35mm f1,4 vs S2 + 45mm S) I couldn't believe how bad the Sony was on borders and corners.
It cost me some money to sell the Sony system back only 2 weeks after its purchase but, at least, it helped me remember what level of IQ an S lens can offer (although even without direct comparison it was easy to see there was a problem in the corners with the FE 35mm f1,4).
It also helped me remember that forum info must always be put into perspective against your own level of expectations...
I sold the FE 35/1.4 in record time.. I bought it from my dealer who gets me things before the masses. I had it a week and sold it off during the hype.. I think Steve Huff is a bit of a nutter for liking that lens, but his site did help me sell it for no $$ loss. But that's the problem isn't it. A lot of HYPE with Sony because they know how to turn out products to keep review sites like Steve's alive. So of course everything is great. And thus you get blind followers.

NOT saying you can't create great images with ANY photography gear. I just don't think they have built a solid professional system. Though some pros use Sony, so what do I know?

And I haven't been a fan of Zeiss since the ZE lineup and that's because I liked a lot of CY/C645 lenses at the time.

So I guess like you, I look for different things then everyone else.


At the end of the day, I could put up with all the quirks if
1) I liked the Sony sensors (colors and etc).
2) They AFd more accurately and faster.
3) The UI and button placement wasn't terrible

None of those above things have been fixed since the original A7. And I have had every model since (admittedly the later models only briefly).
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
I really don't see why some people are so negative about this camera, it is obviously a camera that aims to pros that already own Leica and even to some that are planning to enter Leica and it does provide a cheap alternative to Sinar users as to be used as an MFDB on one... It also provides a good back up to the "S" and a supplement to the "S-E"... It also provides an excellent video camera (even in combination with a Sinar) and for Leica users it doesn't require further investment on lenses...

Surely there will be some pros that will prefer to use a Sony A-7 with an Actus instead of MFDB (although they do need new lenses) and there will be other pros that choose different than Leica... (so they can't take full advantage of it)... but this doesn't change the fact that the SL is great for what it aims for... Surely a product must be judged on what it is designed to do... Not on to what someone would like to use it for... :loco:
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I dont see any sense to bash Sony A7 system to justify Leica SL.
In my experience the 24-70/ 55FE/35FE/35 Loxia and 70-200 all work fine on the A7II.
I am not totally satisfied with (skin) color though.

If a lens-like the 24-90/2.8-4.0, which is double size weight and price, delivers better iQ, it is not that surprising.

Even if the Leica SL system delivers better IQ, it is much larger than the Sony (and much more expensive).
Size wise I would compare the SL more to D810 or Canon 5dxxx. Then we can discuss OVF vs EVF, and we can discuss how lenses compare, and how sensors compare.

I am pretty sure if price is not issue that IQ and shooting experience of the SL is great, and a very flexible body to use all kind of Leica lenses.
 

atanabe

Member
I sold the FE 35/1.4 in record time.. I bought it from my dealer who gets me things before the masses. I had it a week and sold it off during the hype.. I think Steve Huff is a bit of a nutter for liking that lens, but his site did help me sell it for no $$ loss. But that's the problem isn't it. A lot of HYPE with Sony because they know how to turn out products to keep review sites like Steve's alive. So of course everything is great. And thus you get blind followers.
...
Well put, if a reviewer is dependent on vendors providing product and events at no cost then they are more reluctant to call the baby ugly. Jono does an honest review, he states his interest is first to Leica as a tester and that he will not flame them instead provide them (leica) feed back through a private channel. He avoids gushing reviews and avoids links to "buy it here" keeps it honest and believable. Knowing that he is not making money pushing the camera, I can filter the data with an open mind.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Not sure I agree with these posts (other than that of Tom's).

I hope all the spirited support for SL helps shore up Leica camera sales. Their cameras aren't selling well (even Jono mentioned it). That has nothing to do with Sony's UI or lack of lenses.

All I know is that the Apo Summicron 75/2 works superbly on all my Sony cams.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
I dont see any sense to bash Sony A7 system to justify Leica SL.
In my experience the 24-70/ 55FE/35FE/35 Loxia and 70-200 all work fine on the A7II.
I am not totally satisfied with (skin) color though.

If a lens-like the 24-90/2.8-4.0, which is double size weight and price, delivers better iQ, it is not that surprising.

Even if the Leica SL system delivers better IQ, it is much larger than the Sony (and much more expensive).
Size wise I would compare the SL more to D810 or Canon 5dxxx. Then we can discuss OVF vs EVF, and we can discuss how lenses compare, and how sensors compare.

I am pretty sure if price is not issue that IQ and shooting experience of the SL is great, and a very flexible body to use all kind of Leica lenses.
Who bashed the Sony? I don't remember anyone doing that... All I remember is some people claiming the advantages Leica gives to them, some more that where explaining why the Sony was no competition for what they would be using the new camera for and some from the opposite side insisting that Leica has designed a Sony competitor for what Sony A7 does... To them, I remember replying that...

"if Leica wanted to compete with Sony, they could make a Q with interchangeable lens (that would surely cost less than the Q since there would be no lens involved)... obviously Leica targeted to what they think that their users would currently need... they can make an interchangeable lens Q whenever they like and wish"...

I suppose that none can argue with that... :toocool:
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
All I know is that the Apo Summicron 75/2 works superbly on all my Sony cams.
Have you tried the summilux? I have both, and strangely, the Summilux performs better for me on the A7RII and A7S than does the Summicron...the summicron is better on the m9. I guess the summilux has a more retrofocal design? The difference is fairly clear in my setup. They are both very usable. The Summicron is sharper on center, but the summilux is better on the corners and edges. Of course, the Summilux has a lot of coma at 1.4, but stopped down a bit it is still very sharp.
 

uhoh7

New member
Have you tried the summilux? I have both, and strangely, the Summilux performs better for me on the A7RII and A7S than does the Summicron...the summicron is better on the m9. I guess the summilux has a more retrofocal design? The difference is fairly clear in my setup. They are both very usable. The Summicron is sharper on center, but the summilux is better on the corners and edges. Of course, the Summilux has a lot of coma at 1.4, but stopped down a bit it is still very sharp.
This is interesting. Charles K, who is pretty level headed, actually sold his 75 Lux because he did not like it on the A7r2. It had been fine for him on his previous Sony bodies. Now he likes the batis 85.

Makes you wonder if the copy variation is not limited to lenses but true of bodies as well.

I made a choice early on, January 14, I would follow the lenses I liked, not the bodies and what lenses they preferred. A7 went on the shelf for a time and I shot 90% on the M9. No regrets, then or now.

Adam is right, the Kolari mod gives you a good performing camera with the great film lenses. But the interface and files remain and must be endured. But you are there with 1100 bucks, for camera and mod (a7). If you did that with the r2 you'd be at 3600. Much less of a steal, though you do get lots of pixels :)
 
Top