Two different views on the Leica SL

[bradhusick]

Ashwin Rao (a great friend of mine and a super guy) just wrote a really comprehensive article on Steve Huff Photo about the Leica SL. He really likes this camera.

I have a different opinion and I'll share it here for further discussion.
-Brad

A Contrarian’s View of the Leica SL

I thoroughly enjoyed Ashwin’s review of the Leica SL and I have the highest respect for him (and he’s a great friend too.) I have a different take on the SL and I thought it might be helpful to share some thoughts here on SteveHuffPhoto for people in the prospective market for the SL.

Let me set the stage by saying that I am a true fan of Leica. I have owned two M8’s, two M8.2’s, two M9’s, two M240’s and two Monochrom’s along with up to 22 Leica lenses at one silly point. I am now down to a more reasonable set of lenses and still have the Mono and the M. I also have a Sony A7R2, Nikon D4 and Leica D-Lux 109.

I had a chance to use the SL for a while and decided not to buy one. Initially I was confused by the positioning of this camera. Here was a full frame 24mp sensor much like the M240’s in a body significantly larger. I think Leica’s top goal was to produce an autofocus camera that could lead the company forward for the next decade. Since many Leica shooters are getting older and their eyesight isn’t what it used to be, I have seen several “for sale” ads for manual focus Leicas giving this reason for the sale. The first lens Leica introduced for the SL is the 24-90mm f/2.8-f/4. This lens is HUGE. It is similar in size to my 70-200 lenses for the Nikon. I enjoy using my Leicas to take photos of people in lots of situations and the compact, unthreatening nature of the camera/lens allows people to relax, giving me more natural shots. This is impossible using the 24-90 lens. People see this just like they see a large DSLR.

At this point there is only one AF lens available for the SL, so we don’t know what the future holds, but if the 24-90 is setting the stage I do not hold out hope for small AF lenses from Leica.

The SL body itself is extremely solid and well made, but no more so than the Nikon D4, a benchmark in rugged usability. The lower edge of the Leica SL is quite sharp, and my broad palms bring that edge to rest just inside my palm – very uncomfortable. The battery grip adds the extra depth I need, but makes the already large body even larger. Just look at the type of camera bag you need for the SL compared to the M and that tells an interesting story. Where I would sling the M on my hip and go out shooting, now I need a huge bag. This is one reason I don’t use my Nikon D4 for this purpose.

So how about using M lenses? Fortunately my eyes still work so I can easily focus the M240. Does the SL make better photos with M lenses than the M? I am not sure anybody could tell when looking at prints up to 20×30. On a screen it would be impossible to tell. The SL with M lenses becomes much larger for the shooter, more intimidating camera to the subject than the M.

How about autofocus? There’s no doubt the SL wit the 24-90 is quite good at autofocus, but nowhere near as good as the Nikon D4 with its library of dozens of fast lenses. I shot fast moving sports professionally for three years and there’s no way the Leica could keep up with the D4 or the Canon 1D Mark X. Having exactly one lens to choose from also removes it from consideration as a serious sports camera, although that’s not what Leica was going for with the SL.

How about using other lenses, like Leica R glass? I don’t own any R glass, but if I did I could do that today with my Sony A7R2 and focus them quite easily.

What if I am after the ultimate image quality in a full frame 35mm digital camera? It’s too early to tell, but I suspect that using lenses that are native to the system it would be hard to pick a winner between the SL and the Sony A7R2. Certainly with M lenses the SL will do a better job at the corners, but as I said earlier unless you’re looking at large prints you won’t see the difference with native glass.

In summary, I am not sure for whom the Leica SL is designed. There are better cameras for sports, smaller cameras for M lenses and candid portraiture, and several other cameras for mounting R glass. There are certainly other cameras that make superb images. All of them are cheaper than the SL and SL lens.

Please don’t think of me as Scrooge, it’s just one photographer’s opinion. Merry Christmas all.

 

[doug]

Having recently used the a7II in cold weather I'm curious what users' experience with the SL is when using gloves.

 

[aDam007]

Having recently used the a7II in cold wether I'm curious what users' experience with the SL is when using gloves.

I love how this comment, in on sentence, sums up why the SL is better 6 months of the year for most North Americans


Brand, I to have owned everything Leica has made for the past 15 years. Along with almost all other DSLR/MFD gear that was relevant to my needs/curiosities. I do not share your views on the SL though. I actually dislike the SL for completely different reasons. And like it for others. I'm still on the fence, but I think time will fix that. Waiting on the S-adapter, the 90-280, the 50luxl and of course waiting to see what Leica does with the M. Those items will either tip the camera in my favour, or make me sell it. For now, it's fun when I need AF and want to use my M lenses without having to bring multiple bodies out.

The problem with ANYTHING new from Leica. It's a waiting game to see how things unfold.

 

[biglouis]

I keep looking at the SL and thinking, if I am going to have a camera that big and heavy, why don't I just go the whole hog and get a s/h S system with one lens instead?

Maybe that is the marketing ploy here by Leica?

All credit to Leica for not giving in to the obvious: a Q based interchangeable lens system camera.

LouisB

 

[fotografz]

Always good to have contrarian views.

I have my own that are contrary to yours. However, I am 90% sure I'll not be buying a Leica SL (I'd never say never given that I DO have a lot of S glass).

I have never bought into the notion that a smaller camera is more stealthy than a bigger one. IMO, it has much more to do with "how" you shoot candid work verses "what" you use. The presence of the photographer is the constant … and people are bigger, more obvious, more predominate than what they have in their hand. The difference between a A7 and a Pro DSLR is nothing compared to how a person melds themselves into a situation. How you go about that, is what makes the difference.

I also believe that the difference between a rangefinder and a DSLR or Mirrorless camera is more about the photographer's shooting experience than the subject's experience. A rangefinder simply eliminates many distractions regarding what an image will look like, allowing the photographer to place more attention on what the image is about. IMO, it is easier to concentrate on content with a rangefinder than with any TTL camera. This doesn't mean it cannot be done with a DSLR, it is just fraught with more visual distractions, like the effect of focal length and DOF, which are nonexistent with a rangefinder.

What the SL brings to the party is a simple interface that is sorely lacking in most other competitive choices. IMO, Sony is the most egregious violator of simplicity and elegant workflow, and seems impervious to the concept of simplicity no matter how many whine about it. Years later, I still haven't warmed up to the Sonys for that reason (and a few others).

What I do not like about the SL are the image qualities I've seen so far. That is subject to change as the camera gets more use and more lenses come out for it … the S development was similar at first.

- Marc

 

[JorisV]

I am still on the fence as well.

I can see the appeal for people with R glass or long M glass, but up till now I fail to see the value proposition otherwise...

I am sure the zoom lens is good but is it $12K better than the Leica T with the zoom? Probably not... and the Leica T is a lot lighter...

That 50mm better be a damned good one!!!

 

[Vivek]

I think Ashwin's review is spot on and covers all the aspects and also spells out who it is for!

In fact, I have never seen a more honest, clear and concise review of Leica gear!

Well done, Ashwin! :thumbs:

 

[Godfrey]

Ashwin Rao (a great friend of mine and a super guy) just wrote a really comprehensive article on Steve Huff Photo about the Leica SL. He really likes this camera.

I have a different opinion and I'll share it here for further discussion.
-Brad

A Contrarian’s View of the Leica SL

...

In summary, I am not sure for whom the Leica SL is designed. There are better cameras for sports, smaller cameras for M lenses and candid portraiture, and several other cameras for mounting R glass. There are certainly other cameras that make superb images. All of them are cheaper than the SL and SL lens.

Please don’t think of me as Scrooge, it’s just one photographer’s opinion. Merry Christmas all.

Nothing wrong with having your own opinion.
I haven't read Aswin's article through yet. I take it, though, from a quick skim that he's quite positive about the camera.

Per your implied question (bold above), I know exactly whom they made the SL for: me. And others like me. This is exactly the camera, from any maker, that I have been waiting for since the dawn of digital cameras about 17 years ago. I knew it immediately the moment I read the announcement, and the more I use it, the more I'm convinced it is true. The right size, the right shape, taking the lenses I want to use (Leica R), and with its own state of the art (AF + OIS) lenses to come, with the features I've been waiting for, all put together into a top quality piece.

Its future is in front of it ... it's not quite a finished thing yet, just like the Olympus E-M1 was not quite a finished thing when it debuted in 2013 ... not behind it. But just as it is, it is satisfying and produces the results I want. It—along with the R lenses I have already and the SL lenses yet to come—will be the basis of my photography for years to come.

And that's all I need. And remember, that's just one photographer's opinion too. Happy New Year!

G

 

[Godfrey]

Having recently used the a7II in cold wether I'm curious what users' experience with the SL is when using gloves.

I was out shooting the SL using a pair of mechanic's gloves yesterday as the air was quite cold (and the camera body was quite cold as well). Fitted with a hand grip, it's very comfortable and usable: there's plenty of space on the body so your thickened fingers don't accidentally bang into the wrong buttons, the dials are large and easy to work precisely, and since most of the control motions are short press and long press buttons, you don't need an excess of finger dexterity to operate it like you do with the much smaller, more cramped and cluttered A7 body.

One of the small things I truly appreciate with the SL is the fact that it is not crowded with bunches of buttons, dials, and switches the way most modern DSLRs—and even the Leica M-P—are. The body is spacious and easy to pick up and handle without touching any of the controls or sensitive surfaces. Every time I pull the M-P out of the bag, I either have a thumbprint on the LCD, a fingerprint on the viewfinder, or I've pressed a control button because even as large as it is, the body has controls too close to exactly where I need to put my fingers to grip the camera. Not so with the SL: I can reach into my bag quickly, grab the grip, and tap the shutter release as I pick it up to my eye without worrying about whether I'm going to change settings inadvertently.

The SL is the only digital camera since the Olympus E-1 that I feel completely confident I can handle the same way I handled all my film cameras in the past without mucking up my settings. It's thin but not insubstantial body feels like my film cameras of the past as well. That is a nuance of its design which has great value to me.

G

 

[D&A]

I thoughly read and enjoyed Ashwin's SL article on Steve Huff's website and thought it was well written, well thought out and in usual typical Ashwin style, extremely well balanced. I could identify with much of what he wrote, not only of its discussion and merrits of the current SL techmonology, but also his comparion to other present and past Leica digital platforms and how RAW image output compares.

There are so many facets in which one can both look at and compare this camera to and its bound to elicit all the various comments its received so far. In one sense after having been lent an SL for a week to run through its paces, I both see and can agree with both Ashwin's and Brad's somewhat divergent viewpoints.

I also believe a lot depends on where someone is coming from in terms of primary lens system they plans to use and of course expected use of the SL camera.

I feel the most enthusiastic group of users so far are those who plan on using the body for their Leica R lenses, as its the most thorough implementaion of a digital body that readily accepts Leica R lenses with firmware instructions for individual R lens corrections. This may also be applied to the current group of S lens users when an adapter is avalable.

The 2nd group of current users appears to be those that desire a Leica AF body for times they simply want to shoot AF and which doesn't restrict them to only AF lenses and allows use of other Leica lens systems they currently use, most notably M lenses and maybe to a slightly lesser extent (not sure) R lens users.

Where I think Brad is partially coming from and I know I can also be put into that camp is when comparing whether the SL body can be used as a suitable AF substitute for our currently used AF camera system and possibly use the SL secondary for using our M or R lenses.

As Brad aptly pointed out, the SL both due to its lack of SL AF lenses currently available as well as the proven ability of both the Nikon and Canon systems in the fast paced world of shooting sports as well as other fast moving endeavors in which a highly reliable low light fast tracking system is manditory, the SL presently cannot quite compete. It also may not be where Leica intended the SL's primary AF use, namely for sports and also for the fast moving low light performing arts catagoriy, but more likely the wedding and portrait arena.

I think the SL has great appeal for a select group of users, maybe more so than the "S" system and that broader appeal and possible investment in the body will depend on some of the factors that have been mentioned in these discussions.

I strongly feel though that there is going to be more definitive differences between the SL and future M body (aside from rangefinder/OVF vs. EVF) for strictly M users as that is currently a hot topic being debated in various forums. Somehow I feel the SL down the road will primarily become a SL Af lens body with many suplimenting their optical arsenal and use the SL with R or S lens use (whether primary or backup body).

Conversely as the next incarnation of the M body develops, I believe its implementation for use with M lenses will somehow differenciate it even more so from using the SL currently for M lens use and that those contemplating using the SL body as a substitute for a M body lens, will diminish. Just my 2 cents for what its worth.

Dave (D&A)

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'm having a blast exploring what the SL can do with R lenses and those M lenses that are difficult to use on my M[240] -- 18 and 21 mm in particular. So I guess I fall into the first category in Dave's post. My AF system is Olympus M1 and M5.2. For anything sure not to need more than web screen resolution, they are fine, and very natural to shoot with. I get called upon to cover occasional events, and the Olympus gear is just fine there, and trouble-free. I confess that instead of making a careful set of economic tradeoffs, I'm just asking that any camera that I buy be really excellent at something that I will be doing. The SL, M[240] and the Olympus kit all meet that criterion.

scott

P.S. Don't put too much stress on the fact that the SL offers dedicated R and M lens profiles. When the R profiles work right, the changes they introduce are very small, and slightly reduce vignetting when the lens is within a stop of wide open. A few of them are currently bad (APO 90/2.0 and APO100/2.8) and I have to use nearby lenses' profiles (pre-APO 90/2.0 and 90/2.8 work fine). I wrote this up over on the LUF with a longer list of examples (5 in all) and have reported this to Leica's SL folks. But even with no lens profile, the R lenses work just great on the SL. A second thing that will be valuable if and when Leica puts it in are distortion corrections, which they have done for the SL 24-90 but have yet to do for the R lens list.

 

[D&A]

Very interesting Scott. I was under the assumption that R lens corrections provided by the SL currently included distortion corrections. I presume that if they don't, than sooner than later they will. What about M lens corrections? Lenses like the Leica 18mm M lens could certainly benifit from it.

Dave (D&A)

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Very interesting Scott. I was under the assumption that R lens corrections provided by the SL currently included distortion corrections. I presume that if they don't, than sooner than later they will. What about M lens corrections? Lenses like the Leica 18mm M lens could certainly benefit from it.

Dave (D&A)

My Olympus Pro zooms (7-14 and 12-40 mm) have some obvious barrel distortion at their wide ends, so I am used to deciding whether to accept the "Adobe standard" corrections when developing those pictures in CaptureOne. There is a lens profile dialog that shows what is happening. If I don't have to worry about any straight lines that look curved, I undo the default correction and get a little sharper details in the corners. The same dialog shows up with the 24-90 SL zoom in the wide half of its range, with a default correction prescribed. For Leica (but not Olympus), the information is transmitted directly in the DNG file. In effect, the parameters which describe the distortion curve that you see in the technical information sheets are encoded in the DNG, and there is a standard that says how to reverse their effect. When I have looked at files from the SL with R lenses in COne, they bring up the same dialog, but to date I have not seen any default corrections. Leica certainly could put this information in, at least for their primes.

Incidentally, vignetting and color drift corrections are done in the camera, on the Bayer-filtered pixel intensities. Distortion correction is best done after each pixel has been translated into RGB values, and all three can be shifted in space. That happens when the JPEG is encoded or when the raw file is developed, downstream.

scott

 

[D&A]

Yes with regards to distortion corrections, its generally done as you described and info has to be incorporated into the DNG file. Appreantly not fully done with R lenses yet but wondered if done for M lenses with regards to the SL?

Dave (D&A)

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Yes with regards to distortion corrections, its generally done as you described and info has to be incorporated into the DNG file. Appreantly not fully done with R lenses yet but wondered if done for M lenses with regards to the SL?

Dave (D&A)

I haven't gotten to M lenses yet, although I did take an SEM 21 out for a spin a day ago. It does not have a distortion correction encoded. I'll check the 18 SEM in the next few days. I just checked to see if my R 15/2.8 has a correction encoded (it could use one) and it does not. But then I found that my 80, 90 and 100 mm R lenses all have a (very small) distortion correction encoded. There's a relatively quick way to check all of these by taking a single lens and identifying it as each of the lenses in the list in turn, taking one shot, and then checking in a raw file editor. But not tonight.

scott

 

[Godfrey]

P.S. Don't put too much stress on the fact that the SL offers dedicated R and M lens profiles. When the R profiles work right, the changes they introduce are very small, and slightly reduce vignetting when the lens is within a stop of wide open. A few of them are currently bad (APO 90/2.0 and APO100/2.8) and I have to use nearby lenses' profiles (pre-APO 90/2.0 and 90/2.8 work fine). I wrote this up over on the LUF with a longer list of examples (5 in all) and have reported this to Leica's SL folks. But even with no lens profile, the R lenses work just great on the SL. A second thing that will be valuable if and when Leica puts it in are distortion corrections, which they have done for the SL 24-90 but have yet to do for the R lens list.

This is what I expect. So far I haven't seen much real need for further geometric correction with my R lenses.. What little they need is nicely suppli d by the LR lens correction tools.

BTW, all MicroFourThirds lenses supply correction info to mFT bodies which is automatically embedded into raw file output and interpreted by converters that honor it.

G

 

[sjg284]

I'm not a buyer in its current form/price, but a longtime M user... and current owner of both Leica M240 & Sony A7rII..
I am looking forward to a camera that incorporates the haptics/interface/simplicity/quality/optics of Leica with the pure technical abilities and performance of Sony.
If the SL is a step in that direction.. and in some ways, I think it is.. then I am pleased.

For now I maintain both systems.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

This is what I expect. So far I haven't seen much real need for further geometric correction with my R lenses.. What little they need is nicely suppli d by the LR lens correction tools.

BTW, all MicroFourThirds lenses supply correction info to mFT bodies which is automatically embedded into raw file output and interpreted by converters that honor it.

G

The difference between Olympus and Leica in this regard is that Olympus' ORF files are built to a private standard while the DNG files follow a somewhat different open standard. Capture One prepares different profiles for each Olympus lens and puts them in separate files, but uses the embedded information directly from the DNG (they label it a "manufacturer's profile") when correcting a Leica raw file. I don't know how flexible LR and Adobe Raw are in this regard as I don't use them.

scott

 

[Godfrey]

The difference between Olympus and Leica in this regard is that Olympus' ORF files are built to a private standard while the DNG files follow a somewhat different open standard. Capture One prepares different profiles for each Olympus lens and puts them in separate files, but uses the embedded information directly from the DNG (they label it a "manufacturer's profile") when correcting a Leica raw file. I don't know how flexible LR and Adobe Raw are in this regard as I don't use them.

Adobe raw converters use the lens correction information in the mFT raw files directly, whether from Olympus or Panasonic (and the same for Leica T and SL DNGs). They know how to interpret the proprietary formats, in other words; most of the other top notch raw converters do the same. And if you convert the mFT files to DNG format, the lens correction information is also converted so the processing works the same way.

G

 

[jonoslack]

HI There Brad
Being a contrarian myself I read you're report before reading Ashwin's!

I was going to quote and reply, but after thinking for a while (and I really enjoyed both) it seemed there was a better way of highlighting what Ashwin said at the beginning of his report

Jack of All Trades

That's what the SL is . . .

The Nikon D4 is better for sport
The Leica S2 or a Hasselblad is better for landscape
The M240 is better with M lenses
The Sony A7rii is better for resolution
The Sony A7sii is better for video
The Leica Q is better for street
etc.

But unlike any of these camera, the SL is pretty good at ALL of these things (and I reckon it's possibly the perfect wedding/event camera into the bargain).

You have a different system for perfection in each of these situations (the right answer for you).

But as Ashwin points out, the SL can be a pretty small, quiet and nimble solution for M lenses, it can manage for sport (and will be better with the 90-280) , and I can vouch for it in terms of event, landscape, nature.

I also have a number of systems . . . . but increasingly I'm finding that when I dither about what to use, then I take the SL with the 24-90 and a couple of M lenses (usually the WATE and the 50 apo).