Fun with the Leica SL (digital)

[scott kirkpatrick]

Two square 15mm shots in my neighborhood::

S1020981 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

S1020985 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Both probably taken at f/8, ISO 50

scott

 

[aDam007]

Not really a proper review (I just don't have the time right now), but incase anyone was interested in the 50 Summilux-SL

http://www.jupitersnake.com/review/50-summilux-sl-f1-4-review-first-look/

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

@Adams -- if it is too much of a hassle to post the DNGs in a gallery, at least post your door shot DNG. I'd like to see how much distortion the DNG parameters correct for and if there is LCA correction "baked" in as well. Thanks.

 

[aDam007]

@Adams -- if it is too much of a hassle to post the DNGs in a gallery, at least post your door shot DNG. I'd like to see how much distortion the DNG parameters correct for and if there is LCA correction "baked" in as well. Thanks.

I don't mind posting DNG shots. I'm just away right now and the internet is terrible.

Basically the three door shots you see.. The uncorrected one was simply a shot where the baked in corrections couldn't be read by the software I used to create the JPG. The second shot (on mouse over) was a straight from DNG JPG file that had the baked in corrections. So basically the mouse over shot is what you would see if you used LR to process your files. The third shot (brighter JPG) was basically the LR shot that I just edited to my taste. Since SOOC DNG files converted to JPG don't look great.

That should give you an idea of what you would get with digital corrections turned on.


Anyway, as far as CA is concern. I see enough to give pause, but as an average Leica user (not saying you, just in general) you won't see it as Leica has done a good job with the digital correction profile. I noticed this also with the 60TL Macro, but with the 60TL macro the LCA is pretty bad so the digital corrections are noticeable (think greyed out lines around foliage etc.)

I don't know why Leica has embraced the whole digital corrections as a company who prides itself on good optics. But seeing how crazy the discussion got over on the L forum, I'd rather just keep out of it. Me, I'm probably going to just skip on the 50SL, as I don't use the SL much anyway for my photo work. I've started to use it a bit for video as I have a video project coming up and want to get some use out of the SL to see if it's suitable for my needs. Going to invest in more R glass if the video project leads to more video work.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Yes, the version of the door that you showed prove there is a lot left for digital correction. If you look at the numbers passed along to make the correction, the LCA correction shows up in the differences between the R, G and B layers' correction parameters. It's the same for all images (unless there is some dependence on focal distance), so please post something nicer if you like when you have time. Seeing LCA effect is more image-dependent if you do it from the images, not the numbers.

scott

 

[Paratom]

Hi Adam,
thanks for posting your impressions about the 50SL.
How would you say does it compare to the 70mm S?
When I see the size and price of the 50/1.4 I believe I rather use the S with the 70 (or 45 or 100) than to buy the 50, specially if AF isnt that great.
I will try to resist and wait for the 35 and 75 Summicrons. I dont need f1.4.
Tom

 

[Godfrey]

I took a nice long drive this morning, getting to know the car after getting it all set up and ready for a road trip.
Just a few snaps while I stopped in Santa Cruz after breakfast.

All: Leica SL + Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH OIS
All ISO 50 @ f/8​

enjoy!
G

 

[PeterA]

Spring is starting to burst forth and there is some colour to be had...

I've started to add to my lens arsenal I can use on teh SL - starting with a few Zeiss lens - of course the peerless 100/2 macro planar in Milvus forn and Nikon mount.

 

[PeterA]

 

[PeterA]

Some pretty late afternoon light ..

and a Noctilux snap

 

[aDam007]

Hi Adam,
thanks for posting your impressions about the 50SL.
How would you say does it compare to the 70mm S?
When I see the size and price of the 50/1.4 I believe I rather use the S with the 70 (or 45 or 100) than to buy the 50, specially if AF isnt that great.
I will try to resist and wait for the 35 and 75 Summicrons. I dont need f1.4.
Tom

Hi Tom,

Sorry I've been without proper internet access for over a week now. I'm back online now that I'm in the states!

To answer, I find that the 70S is the best lens to adapt on the SL. I don't know why, maybe because of the focal length, maybe the rendering and color cast of the lens jives with the SL sensor. But so far out of all the S-lenses I've tried, I think the 70S is the best fit on the SL.

The 100S obviously has more wow factor since it's a close focusing f/2 100mm lens. It does have an interesting look used that way. But again I think the 70S is a steal if you consider current used prices vs what they're asking for their 50SL. And if you don't mind size/weight and AF, the 70S might be a better option then buying the 75SL (especially since you have the 70S, and the 75SL probably won't be cheap). Though I'll not personally commit to one or the other until I've tested the 75SL (but for me it's easy to pick the best one, since I don't own the 70S anymore.)

 

[Paratom]

Hi Tom,

Sorry I've been without proper internet access for over a week now. I'm back online now that I'm in the states!

To answer, I find that the 70S is the best lens to adapt on the SL. I don't know why, maybe because of the focal length, maybe the rendering and color cast of the lens jives with the SL sensor. But so far out of all the S-lenses I've tried, I think the 70S is the best fit on the SL.

The 100S obviously has more wow factor since it's a close focusing f/2 100mm lens. It does have an interesting look used that way. But again I think the 70S is a steal if you consider current used prices vs what they're asking for their 50SL. And if you don't mind size/weight and AF, the 70S might be a better option then buying the 75SL (especially since you have the 70S, and the 75SL probably won't be cheap). Though I'll not personally commit to one or the other until I've tested the 75SL (but for me it's easy to pick the best one, since I don't own the 70S anymore.)

My question was more about SL+50/1.4 vs Leica S + 70mm, specially since the 50mm is not much smaller.

 

[aDam007]

My question was more about SL+50/1.4 vs Leica S + 70mm, specially since the 50mm is not much smaller.

Directly compared to... With both lenses on the SL, the 50mm has more subject separation, shallower DOF and better bokeh. Simply being a 1.4 gives it that advantage. And when the AF isn't acting up, it's gonna be a bit faster than the 70S (and should improve greatly by final release).

As a general purpose lens, it'll probably also be better given the wider FOV. Assuming you want a wider FOV for your walk around lens (something I'd want).

To be honest, I'm not sure if I could recommend the 50SL over the 35TL (another lens I know you have) IF the T were a better camera (think Fuji X-T2 better) since as it stands the SL in crop mode isn't ideal.


BTW I much prefer the 70 if you're mounting it on the S vs the 50 on the SL.

Hope this helps.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

@AdamS, could you put up and post links to two DNGs from your SL + 50/1.4 shots, one shot fairly close (the door would be fine) and one focused at 5 m or more, just in case the correction parameters differ. The SL writes these in a standard, readable way in DNG files, and they can be read with some Adobe software.

thanks,

scott

 

[aDam007]

@AdamS, could you put up and post links to two DNGs from your SL + 50/1.4 shots, one shot fairly close (the door would be fine) and one focused at 5 m or more, just in case the correction parameters differ. The SL writes these in a standard, readable way in DNG files, and they can be read with some Adobe software.

thanks,

scott

At some point soon.. I'm just busy now. And don't want to dig the HDD out of my suitcase yet!

 

[aDam007]

My question was more about SL+50/1.4 vs Leica S + 70mm, specially since the 50mm is not much smaller.

Hope my other answer was sufficient. But been thinking about this a bit more. Took the 100S out on the SL today. Aside from size weight and hopefully AF speed.. I think it'll be difficult for the 75SL to top the 70S. The only way I would consider paying more (assuming the 75SL isn't cheap like the 70S currently) is if there was a significant emphasis put on rendering/signature/style rather then optical perfection (now in Leica terms means digital correction emphasis). As it stands, even on a crop body the 35S is also a REALLY good lens. And very smooth bokeh wise (even on the SL).

And even though the 100S loses a LOT of magic on the SL, it really still retains enough that I'd be shocked if the 90SL was better (again aside from size and AF speed).


Though today using the 100S on the SL I'm reminded of how poor the AF currently is on the 50SL.

 

[aDam007]

Also after using the 100S on the SL, I'm reminded of just how "dirty" (for lack of a better word) the 24-90SL zoom is. I think I'll keep the 100S on until I sell the system or until something good (35/75?) comes along for the system.

Some random "test" shots from my jet-lag zombie like walk to lunch with the 100S on the SL:

P.S. Either those sweet potatoes were nuclear in color, or the camera has a problem with magentas I'm fairly certain it was the sweet potatoes.

 

[Paratom]

Hope my other answer was sufficient. But been thinking about this a bit more. Took the 100S out on the SL today. Aside from size weight and hopefully AF speed.. I think it'll be difficult for the 75SL to top the 70S. The only way I would consider paying more (assuming the 75SL isn't cheap like the 70S currently) is if there was a significant emphasis put on rendering/signature/style rather then optical perfection (now in Leica terms means digital correction emphasis). As it stands, even on a crop body the 35S is also a REALLY good lens. And very smooth bokeh wise (even on the SL).

And even though the 100S loses a LOT of magic on the SL, it really still retains enough that I'd be shocked if the 90SL was better (again aside from size and AF speed).


Though today using the 100S on the SL I'm reminded of how poor the AF currently is on the 50SL.

Adam,
I think one reason to use a SL body is AF speed. So if you intend to use 70,100 S lenses anyways than I think A S body makes more sense.

SO far if I use the SL its allmost allways with the AF Zoom or with manual more exotic lenses (CV 40mm or 85/1.5 Somnium lens).

I am still struggeling with myself which systems to keep. S stays for sure because i just love the IQ.
M will stay (probably) for its minimalistic approach and small size.
Then there are T and SL. I got the SL because I wanted a fast system as well and its flexible and takes all kinds of lenses, but with the Zoom it gets so big that I dont carry it that often, and with manual focus primes I rather use the M.
The T has the advantage of being really compact and the IQ - while not offering DR of FF is still very good IMO (specially color, tones , sharpness) and the lenses are a great compromise between flexibility, size and speed. If there comes a T2 with a little more resolution and some other slight improvements I will reconsider if I keep the SL. I am afraid however than Leica will not make the T2 as "professional" as they could in order to not canibalize SL market.
On the other hand the announced 35,75 and 90 SL AF primes could make the SL a much more compact AF system than it is today and might lead me to sell the T system. The addition of a compact 70-180/4.0 SL would be nice as well to round up the system.

Those image with the SL and the S lenses look pretty good IMO. If I were you I would not sell the 100, its too good of a lens.

 

[Robert Campbell]

Reflection

 

[Andrew Gough]

Leica SL and 24-90mm, Yokohama, Japan

@24mm

@90mm

@24mm

@90mm

Andrew