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!

Fun with the Leica SL (digital)

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
This is a terrific example of pairing an exceptional lens with the new SL . (you are lucky to have such a nice model !)

The aesthetic (look) is being produced by the 50 APO ...notice how smooth the image looks and the graceful fall off into the unsharp areas . You see that the image is sharp but it also looks realistic with plenty of detail available . If you captured this same image using for example a zeiss zm 50/2 you would see much stronger edge sharpness and higher overall contrast . Quite different .

I am finding that the SL (and Q) files as they are rendered thru LR ...both have greater saturation and contrast than the M240 files . They have some “Bite” (edge contrast?) similar to the way a Nikon D4s,Df renders . This makes sense for their intended usage .

A professional shooting for web publication is going to love the SL files .

It will be interesting to see how they complete the lens line up . It took a long time to fill in the S lenses but they are as good as it gets from 24 thru 180mm . The SL is going to limp along for quite a while if all they have is the 24-90 . (FYI ...I have the SL primarily because of my desire to use the long R lenses ).
 

uhoh7

New member
One of you that has both the SL and the Q, how do the images compare given that both use the same sensor? Can someone post a comparison set of images? Thanks
What would be really fun is SL with 28 cron vs Q :)

The funny thing about the various sensors, there is no doubt about the newer ones giving ISO and DR benefits, but for daylight 28, nothing charms me more than the M9 and 28 cron. It's like an MM, you don't have some aspects (in that case it's color ;)), but the aspects you do have can be stunning.

In fact, from M9 to SL, to my eye the primary factor in many shots is the lens. Of course there are exceptions, low light, or high DR, where the sensor is going to really effect things. The M9 is weak in those aspects, obviously, but otherwise lenses, like the 28 cron and 50 lux, and many others, just love that camera. But it's a matter of taste, for sure.

I like the SL very much, but I see nothing in the images which set it apart from the 240, if anything I still like the 240 better with M glass. The A7r2 on the other hand does create files which are distinctive from the other A7 cameras, especially in color, and so does the A7s which has a gritty look (not in bad way). The M9 is also distinctive, though as is the case with all these examples, heavy editing begins to blur the differences alot.

So to me, the SL comes across as a very good vanilla 24mp sensor. In fact if you just leave the files alone, as DPR does, they can look dull. But those same files really pop if edited nicely by someone like Ron (he grabbed their samples), and they handle that with out making a bunch of noise.

But many variables, and I'd imagine with strong light the SL will really jump as well.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Had about an hour today to push the buttons and see what results. First, the mandatory action shot of a parked bicycle:

L1000004 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

with the APO SC-R 90. And then some edgy colors. This one seems over-corrected at the edges but the colors are good:

L1000010 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Then a distant scene (focus was at infinity, the golf flag was about 1-2 m away) with the R 15/2.8 @f/5.6 (again overcorrected at edges, but this may be partly because I forgot to revise the lens profile...)

L1000028 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

No more posts until I get time to shoot a little more carefully, and have figured out more of the menus. I'm processing in CaptureOne 9.0 with the generic dng profile.

scott
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Great to see you've received yours, scott. I hope you enjoy it.

I think the best processing environment for the SL at present is Lightroom 6.3. It's the only raw processor that I'm sure has the right camera calibration profile for Leica SL DNGs as yet, although I have to say that*a couple of tests using Photos on OS X has shown it does a very nice job of rendering as well (leading me to believe that Aperture will too). I haven't seen the over-corrected edges that your photos are showing with my (pre-APO) Summicron-R 90 or Elmarit-R 19 v1; all my SL processing other than the tests in Photos have been done in LR 6.3.

It would be interesting to see a test using the defaults of the same DNG files in LR6.3, Photos, and Capture One 9 with your lenses.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Another from my squares session:


Leica SL + Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8 v1
ISO 400 @ f/2.8 @ 1/160

I thought this was an interesting enough capture, technically, to give folks access to the full rez for examination/inspection because of both the very broad dynamic range in the scene and because of the detailing at the focus plane (on the tree trunk) at f/2.8. First is the full 4000x4000 rendered:
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/756/23005084303_bab7493e8b_o.jpg

Then, for additional comparison, the 6000x4000 original capture, with no processing other than to roll it out from DNG to JPEG:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5686/23005069233_eceb031d18_o.jpg

enjoy!

G
 

Doc Wing

New member
Great to see you've received yours, scott. I hope you enjoy it.

I think the best processing environment for the SL at present is Lightroom 6.3. It's the only raw processor that I'm sure has the right camera calibration profile for Leica SL DNGs as yet, although I have to say that*a couple of tests using Photos on OS X has shown it does a very nice job of rendering as well (leading me to believe that Aperture will too). I haven't seen the over-corrected edges that your photos are showing with my (pre-APO) Summicron-R 90 or Elmarit-R 19 v1; all my SL processing other than the tests in Photos have been done in LR 6.3.

It would be interesting to see a test using the defaults of the same DNG files in LR6.3, Photos, and Capture One 9 with your lenses.

G
I thought Aperture was dead as Apple was doing no more upgrading to add calibration for raw files for new cameras. I ask as I love Aperture but have moved to Lightroom reluctantly.

Best,
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Much of OS X RAW processing is done by the OS itself. Aperture doesn't need updating to support new cameras. Aperture is very far from dead and may outlive standalone LR.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I thought Aperture was dead as Apple was doing no more upgrading to add calibration for raw files for new cameras. I ask as I love Aperture but have moved to Lightroom reluctantly.

Best,
Much of OS X RAW processing is done by the OS itself. Aperture doesn't need updating to support new cameras. Aperture is very far from dead and may outlive standalone LR.
Yes: As long as Aperture will run (and it runs on OS X v10.11.x El Capitan so far), it takes advantage of the same raw processing engine that Photos does. Aperture is not being developed any further, and at some point will no longer be able to run, but it's still a useful tool.

Photos doesn't have the same UI but has most of the same image processing capabilities. Certainly the same raw engine and basic tools, at least, expressed in different ways.

G
 

Doc Wing

New member
Yes: As long as Aperture will run (and it runs on OS X v10.11.x El Capitan so far), it takes advantage of the same raw processing engine that Photos does. Aperture is not being developed any further, and at some point will no longer be able to run, but it's still a useful tool.

Photos doesn't have the same UI but has most of the same image processing capabilities. Certainly the same raw engine and basic tools, at least, expressed in different ways.

G
Godfrey,

That is great to know. Does it also have lens correction, like Lightroom, or is that a thing of the past for Aperture?

Doc Wing
 

roanic

New member
Another from my squares session:

I thought this was an interesting enough capture, technically, to give folks access to the full rez for examination/inspection because of both the very broad dynamic range in the scene and because of the detailing at the focus plane (on the tree trunk) at f/2.8. First is the full 4000x4000 rendered:
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/756/23005084303_bab7493e8b_o.jpg

Then, for additional comparison, the 6000x4000 original capture, with no processing other than to roll it out from DNG to JPEG:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5686/23005069233_eceb031d18_o.jpg

enjoy!

G
Thanks for the original capture! I'm finding the corners rather disappointing, but I don't have the 19mm, not sure how it is supposed to behave (I would love to see how on the same image it would behave when stopped down a little). My favorite wide lens on the M is the 21mm super elmar, which is just crazy sharp and pop even wide open (...at f/3.4, but hey!) -- I'm hoping it will behave ok on the SL, but if not I'd like to find another good wide lens for the SL. The 19mm R sadly does not seem to do it (from this pic).
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Hi there!

A few questions about the SL.

I used an R4 many years ago, with a ground glass screen. I found the viewfinder good, and easy to use. I read that the SL has a viewfinder that may well be better than the best found in (D)SLRs. Can this really be correct? Is the SL viewfinder really so much better? I find the EVF on the M240 to be "not bad", and more or less good enough for my needs. And I prefer using a reflex-type viewfinder than an rangefinder; up to now I haven't had much choice with Leica, well not one that I choose to afford. As well as the R4, I also had an M3 and an M4; I much preferred the viewfinder of the M3, and I use a 1.25 magnifier on the M240.

Secondly, an M240 with EVF is about 725g, while an SL is about 850g. Would I notice this in practice? – I have significant neck problems, bad enough to lead to my premature retirement. I found a Canon 5DII with the 24-105 standard lens simply to heavy to sling around my neck. Might I have problems with an SL and M lenses?

With the R4, my favourite lens was a 90mm f/2; the combination seemed 'balanced'. Would an SL with M lenses still feel 'balanced', or does it feel better with, say, R lenses which are usually heavier?

Call me a superficial heretic, but I can't really see the Leica look that you all can; I just find, and found, that they were and are delightful instruments with a particular tactile pleasure. There are no dealers anywhere close for me to try the camera out – though I doubt if I'd want the 24-90 zoom – too heavy.

Thanks for any advice/suggestions!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi there!

A few questions about the SL.

I used an R4 many years ago, with a ground glass screen. I found the viewfinder good, and easy to use. I read that the SL has a viewfinder that may well be better than the best found in (D)SLRs. Can this really be correct? Is the SL viewfinder really so much better? I find the EVF on the M240 to be "not bad", and more or less good enough for my needs. And I prefer using a reflex-type viewfinder than an rangefinder; up to now I haven't had much choice with Leica, well not one that I choose to afford. As well as the R4, I also had an M3 and an M4; I much preferred the viewfinder of the M3, and I use a 1.25 magnifier on the M240.

Secondly, an M240 with EVF is about 725g, while an SL is about 850g. Would I notice this in practice? – I have significant neck problems, bad enough to lead to my premature retirement. I found a Canon 5DII with the 24-105 standard lens simply to heavy to sling around my neck. Might I have problems with an SL and M lenses?

With the R4, my favourite lens was a 90mm f/2; the combination seemed 'balanced'. Would an SL with M lenses still feel 'balanced', or does it feel better with, say, R lenses which are usually heavier?

Call me a superficial heretic, but I can't really see the Leica look that you all can; I just find, and found, that they were and are delightful instruments with a particular tactile pleasure. There are no dealers anywhere close for me to try the camera out – though I doubt if I'd want the 24-90 zoom – too heavy.

Thanks for any advice/suggestions!
Hi Robert,
I would say the SL is the best EVF on the market and I would think manual focus works fine and slightly better than with a FF OVF from a DSLR.
If you find a 5dIII+24-105 too heavy you sure do NOT want to get the 24-90 Leica lens.
Regarding M+EVF vs SL....I dont think 100 or 150g make much of a difference.
I find the handling SL with M lenses fine / balanced, even my 50APO looks a little small on the SL.
Overall I think its still easier to focus 35 and 50mm rangefinder lenses on the M with rangefinder, maybe 75 and 90 could be easier / more accurate to focus on the SL.

If I was planning to just use M lenses I would probably rather use the M than the SL, but thats really a matter of taste.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey,

That is great to know. Does it also have lens correction, like Lightroom, or is that a thing of the past for Aperture?

Doc Wing
If Aperture performed raw-conversion-time lens correction, then it should be the same in Photos; for instance, for Micro-FourThirds cameras*that have lens corrections injected as part of the raw metadata.

I don't see the notion of post-raw-conversion "lens profiles" or such things in Photos like Lightroom has, but then I don't know whether Aperture ever had those things either.

Again, I feel Lightroom 6.3 is, at the present time, the best image processing environment for the Leica SL since it explicitly has appropriate camera calibration profiles for the SL body and recognizes (applies automatic corrections for) the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm lens as well.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks for the original capture! I'm finding the corners rather disappointing, but I don't have the 19mm, not sure how it is supposed to behave (I would love to see how on the same image it would behave when stopped down a little). My favorite wide lens on the M is the 21mm super elmar, which is just crazy sharp and pop even wide open (...at f/3.4, but hey!) -- I'm hoping it will behave ok on the SL, but if not I'd like to find another good wide lens for the SL. The 19mm R sadly does not seem to do it (from this pic).
I have a set of quickie lens tests I did with all my R lenses. The 19mm performs quite well on center at f/2.8; corners and edges improve greatly between f/4 and f/5.6. Overall performance seems best at f/8—not surprising for a fast ultra-wide-angle lens.

I don't think it's worth dwelling on too much, but it out-performs the Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 AI-S by a bit (the Nikkor gets close at f/8 but is never quite the same) and its performance seems fairly similar in its curve to my brand-new Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH. Not a bad showing for a forty year old lens design... (Hurray to Walter Mandler! :) I don't know of too many ultrawide lenses that don't improve a couple of stops down from wide-open.

If I kept my quickie lens tests, I'll do some corner clips so you can see the performance variation as it goes from wide-open to fully-stopped-down. I'll see if I can find them this evening.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hi there!

A few questions about the SL.
...
Some responses, I don't know about "advice".

  • I rate the SL EVF right up there with the R8 optical reflex finder used with no aids or overlays. It has some advantages beyond the R8 as well: brighter in dim circumstances which enables you to see DoF easily, magnification and peaking focusing assists, Live Histogram, overlays for grid and two axis level, etc. The SL's EVF has quite a bit better resolution and much better refresh rate compared to the M/M-P typ 240 EVF.
  • The weight difference is four ounces. If you want to know whether this is going to bug your neck, add a four ounce weight to your M240 and see what it does. It doesn't matter to me, but I only rarely put any camera around my neck like that.
  • My only 90mm M-mount lens is the diminutive M-Rokkor 90mm f/4; it feels a little small on the SL (but is still a fine performer). The Summicron-R 90mm f/2 feels perfectly balanced on the SL, as it should because the SL and the Leicaflex SL that the Summicron-R 90 was originally designed for are just about the same size, shape, and weight. I prefer the overall feel and balance of the SL used with R lenses, so far; I've not used my M-mount lenses on it very much yet.

My experience with Leica SLRs is limited to the Leicaflex SL and the R8, I never owned or worked with any of the R3 to R7 models. The Leica SL, to me, carries the R camera tradition embodied by those two models forward nicely to the next generation.

(And yes, the 24-90 zoom is a bit of a howitzer in size and weight. I'll get to work with it one of these days; I'm so far enjoying the R lenses too much. :)

G
 
Last edited:

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Godfrey or Jono -- a quick question. I've set auto ISO with max ISO 1600 and max shutter speed of either 1/60 or (later) 1/2F. As the light fades or I shut down the f stop, in A mode, first the shutter speed drops to, say, 1/60. Then the ISO increases (in rigid steps of 1 ev, stopping at some strange value) and then the camera underexposes, staying at max ISO and 1/60. In the Ms the shutter speed would continue to drop when the light level is not sufficient. What have I set wrong? Are the auto ISO limits rigid in the SL?

I could work around this by setting a lower min shutter speed, but then I would drop to that speed at min ISO before beginning to increase ISO. The way it works in the Ms seems the right way.

scott
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey or Jono -- a quick question. I've set auto ISO with max ISO 1600 and max shutter speed of either 1/60 or (later) 1/2F. As the light fades or I shut down the f stop, in A mode, first the shutter speed drops to, say, 1/60. Then the ISO increases (in rigid steps of 1 ev, stopping at some strange value) and then the camera underexposes, staying at max ISO and 1/60. In the Ms the shutter speed would continue to drop when the light level is not sufficient. What have I set wrong? Are the auto ISO limits rigid in the SL?

I could work around this by setting a lower min shutter speed, but then I would drop to that speed at min ISO before beginning to increase ISO. The way it works in the Ms seems the right way.
Yes, AutoISO behaves this way in the SL: when you're past the range you've set, you'll get underexposure. When you switch to a fixed ISO setting, the exposure times will lengthen to maintain proper exposure ... up to a point. As you close down the aperture more and more with adapted lenses in low light, you'll run into the range limits of the metering system—at which point you'll get underexposure again. You can see this happening when using Manual exposure mode too. There comes a point where you're past the range limits of the metering system (because it's trying to meter with the lens stopped down) and that ultimately results in underexposure if you follow the meter's recommendations.

With the SL's 24-90 lens, this doesn't happen until you're in MUCH lower light because the lens is held wide open at viewing/metering time, normally.

I wrote about this behavior on the LUF a week or two ago. No one commented. The SL seems a bit tighter on range limits with adapted lenses than some other cameras, but I've seen the same behavior with other cameras to which I've adapted my lenses.

BTW: It would be nice to ask questions like this in threads separate from the "Fun with the Leica SL" thread. Nearly all SL questions and opinions have all been going into just this one thread, which I thought was supposed to be about sharing photos made with the SL like other "fun with ..." threads. Can we put pictures here and discussion/questions/etc into other threads that pertain to the specific topic of discussion?

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
The SL can work in bad light. Following Godfrey's suggestion, I switched to fixed ISO, A mode, while shooting around the Congress Center here in Montreal last night. Here's one at the resulting 1/50 sec:

L1000077 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Super-Elmarit-R 15@ f/4. And inside the poster session, amid 3000 people anxious to explain their ideas

L1000062 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

scott
 
Top