Two different views on the Leica SL

[Vivek]

It is not that simple. Even amongst the operators, there are some that are "super-operators". The key is to identify these super-users and engage them early on.

There are differences between operators and users. :grin:

 

[jaree]

There are differences between operators and users. :grin:

Point taken. For me it is the "users".

 

[k-hawinkler]

There are differences between operators and users. :grin:

Yup, Leica could get help from both types before release of new gear! The earlier the better! :thumbs:

 

[jaree]

Thanks jono. I agree, bizarre is the appropriate term for this! Lloyd should have his gear checked by Leica.
BTW, based on your experience I got the 35-70/4. I like that lens a lot and use it more than my 28-90/2.8-4.5.

Coincidentally, I had the 35-70 F4 and recently snagged the 28-90/2.8-4.5. Now I have to decide which one to keep!

 

[Amin]

I know Steve Huff. He's genuine and honest. His style is very enthusiastic and positive and that shows in his writing. Sometimes he seems a little too positive about the latest gear, but if you read him carefully, he does talk about the negatives. It's just that overall he's an optimist and the negatives are too easy to skip over.

I often don't agree with him, but he's always civil, fair and friendly - like most of the folks here on GetDPI. He doesn't tolerate personal attacks, and I like that about his site.

At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to disagree with the bolded (by me) part of what you said here. I rarely read Steve's site and don't recall having commented there in the past other than to compliment a post here and there by him or a guest writer.

However, I recently replied to disagree with one of his comments he made on his own article and found his reply to me to be most uncivil:

I tried to post this reply:

However, that comment was "awaiting moderation" for a day, and then he deleted it without ever posting it.

So my impression of the guy is that he is discourteous.

I don't buy the explanation that he is understandably defensive because of trolls, etc. I've been posting on the internet for a long time and have dealt with many trolls myself without resorting to such behavior as he displayed here.

 

[iiiNelson]

At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to disagree with the bolded (by me) part of what you said here. I rarely read Steve's site and don't recall having commented there in the past other than to compliment a post here and there by him or a guest writer.

However, I recently replied to disagree with one of his comments he made on his own article and found his reply to me to be most uncivil:

I tried to post this reply:

However, that comment was "awaiting moderation" for a day, and then he deleted it without ever posting it.

So my impression of the guy is that he is discourteous. I don't buy the explanation that he is understandably defensive because of trolls, etc. I've been posting on the internet for a long time and have dealt with many trolls myself without resorting to such behavior as he displayed here.

Wow... Far be it from me to be a Steve Huff apologist but he is human and I believe even the most rational mind is entitled to bad days here and there. I don't really want to bash him as I do enjoy his "reviews" and articles even if nothing else to keep a balance between the pessimists and the chart shooters. Sometimes a picture or 75 is worth more to me to see what a camera/lens is potentially capable of.

I've had a difference of opinion or two with him in the past regarding "12 megapixels being enough for anyone except pixel peepers" and sometimes you just gotta take a step back from subjective opinions. Sometimes it really is simply a matter of personal use. He is very passionate about most things Leica (and that's fine) and I was too at one point to an extent far shorter than he is. These days I shoot Sony mostly but over the last 10 years my primary system has changed from Canon, Panasonic, Leica, and now Sony. The bottom line is that all things aside I rather have more opinions available than fewer so I'm thankful for everyone's experiences - even when I don't 100% agree with them.

 

[Paratom]

As I mentioned in my very first comment. I dislike the SL for different reasons then Brad. And I think Leica will eventually iron out the system.. And once more lenses are available, I think I can be happy with it. Or at least make use of it.

I find all sorts of bugs with Leica's cameras as I'm generally an early adopter.. I always email them. They never do anything about it.
Eventually they get around to all of it, they figure it out after about a year or two.


Ponder this.. Leica touts this as being a AF masterpiece. But then releases a f/2.8 - f/4 lens (slow) which causes the AF to struggle in low light. IF they had released a f/1.4 lens, the AF would theoretically be great in low light. And it would have seemed like Leica actually got something right. If it was truly a "no compromise" system, they would have realised that making the zoom slower meant AF issues. And would have either limited the range, or just made it bigger in order to make the lens faster (f/2.8 at least).. And at this point, I don't think people would have really noticed it if it was bigger.

It's not an MF lens BTW. I don't even know why they put two rings on it. Has anyone tried to MF the vario-SL? Terrible. So when the AF fails in low light... You can't even MF. And if the lens itself fails, then you're totally screwed, it'll just be a "something heavier than a brick" brick. You'd have to switch over to M glass. And if I'm going to do that, I have my RF which I can focus faster and like the colors from a lot better.

Speaking of the colors, the out of camera colors are decent at best. With really bad skin tones in certain light. Very weird blown out looking JPG files. And the RAW files are identical to the A7II with little to no processing (assuming both cameras have the same lens attached). Nothing unique or Leica-esq about the colors out of this sensor.

Tried the SF-40 flash. Wouldn't buy it. Might as well spend less then half the money and get the I40 from nissan in m4/3 mount. And just use it on A or M mode. TTL is terrible on the SL. None of the flashes work with it (24D, sf26, sf40, sf58). I've tried them all.. It's TTL system is the poorest of any camera I've owned. I'm no longer holding out hope for the SF-64, it's not going to be good without a serious SL body firmware update.

But to defend my earlier comment. I think the SL is a good step in the right direction for Leica.. They did a good thing. They just didn't release a complete enough system. Nor did they think a lot of things through when they brought the camera to market. I think by the time the necessary things come (S-adaper, R-adapter, native AF lenses) the camera will be old news, and or people who have had it 6m-1y will be frustrated with it, and will be looking to unload it to go back to the M.


So why not just buy an A7II if you don't need the ergonomics and the simple menus? Would save a LOT of money.
THE ONLY SAVING GRACE and the reason I haven't sold it, is the fact that it has a good UI and good ergonomics, feels nice in my hand. And I'm holding out hope that the native 50mm Summilux-L will BLOW everything out of the water. If it doesn't.. The camera's gonna be sold to the highest bidder. And I'll just stick with my M and S-systems.

My experience with color is different. I feel the SL color - under most conditions - is quite good while I have been not 100% with Sony color.
Reasons to keep the SL over a SOny would be (IMO)
- better viewfinder
-better midrange zoom lens
-faster AF
-if you own M lenses better IQ

Reasons to get the Sony:
more MP
smaller
lower price
more Af lenses available at the moment

 

[Vivek]

I don't buy the explanation that he is understandably defensive because of trolls, etc. I've been posting on the internet for a long time and have dealt with many trolls myself without resorting to such behavior as he displayed here.

After thinking about this, here is my opinion.

I think the animosity wasn't personal but a result of clash of the blogs. He has his and you (a competitor) have yours.

So, this does not bother the most who post here.

 

[jaree]

Not to mention that the click-through links to buy stuff make money for his blog. So why not praise all cameras and just say that "I only review cameras I like". But I give credit to the guy for creating a site with an apparently large audience and a healthy set of advertisers. And, it is his blog, he can say what he likes so long as it is given as an opinion and not "factual information".

I do agree that it is a clash of the blogs.

I wonder how Ken Rockwell is doing these days?

 

[Vivek]

I heart Ken!

The best there is and the best there ever was! :thumbs:

 

[Amin]

I don't think of Steve Huff as my competition, and I wouldn't be rude to him regardless.

 

[aDam007]

My experience with color is different. I feel the SL color - under most conditions - is quite good while I have been not 100% with Sony color.
Reasons to keep the SL over a SOny would be (IMO)
- better viewfinder
-better midrange zoom lens
-faster AF
-if you own M lenses better IQ

Reasons to get the Sony:
more MP
smaller
lower price
more Af lenses available at the moment

I've done side by sides with the A7II and the SL. I have two 50APO lenses, I had one on each camera. Spent two hours shooting random things. The sensor colors are EXACTLY the same. EXACTLY. This isn't a good thing.. I much prefer the M240 colors.. And I much much prefer the S-006 colors.. Pity, but true. Leica can and probably will fix this over the next 6 months.

The only way I would concede that the colors are different (more agreeable in the SL's favour) are when you have the A7II mounted with (insert any native FE lens here) and the SL with the native zoom. Then, I would concede that the colors are better from the SL. Though if you could get the SL zoom on the A7II, they would be the same.


Yes, I can agree the EVF is the best. But I've already said that numerous times around the web. The zoom is good, though not what I would have wanted from Leica. The AF is definitely faster and more reliable in good light, and backlit situations (very important to note). And yes, the M lens IQ is better for some wider lenses.. Some are the same.


I'm keeping the SL.. No doubt. But I'm only keeping it because I'm looking forward to trying the 50 Summilux-L. If that lens fails to meet my expectations (it's getting the boot). And in that case, I'll just stick with my Nikon kit for AF and will continue to use my M and S-systems for everything not OCF or where I need faster AF.

Shame, as this WAS the camera I was waiting for... Just wish it would have launched with the 50prime so I could make my decision quicker.

 

[Paratom]

I've done side by sides with the A7II and the SL. I have two 50APO lenses, I had one on each camera. Spent two hours shooting random things. The sensor colors are EXACTLY the same. EXACTLY. This isn't a good thing.. I much prefer the M240 colors.. And I much much prefer the S-006 colors.. Pity, but true. Leica can and probably will fix this over the next 6 months.

The only way I would concede that the colors are different (more agreeable in the SL's favour) are when you have the A7II mounted with (insert any native FE lens here) and the SL with the native zoom. Then, I would concede that the colors are better from the SL. Though if you could get the SL zoom on the A7II, they would be the same.


Yes, I can agree the EVF is the best. But I've already said that numerous times around the web. The zoom is good, though not what I would have wanted from Leica. The AF is definitely faster and more reliable in good light, and backlit situations (very important to note). And yes, the M lens IQ is better for some wider lenses.. Some are the same.


I'm keeping the SL.. No doubt. But I'm only keeping it because I'm looking forward to trying the 50 Summilux-L. If that lens fails to meet my expectations (it's getting the boot). And in that case, I'll just stick with my Nikon kit for AF and will continue to use my M and S-systems for everything not OCF or where I need faster AF.

Shame, as this WAS the camera I was waiting for... Just wish it would have launched with the 50prime so I could make my decision quicker.

Hi there,
I didnt do any side by side comparisons (I gave my whole SOny kit away to help paying for the SL and 24-90) and only can talk about from my impression from using the A7/A7s/A7II for a certain period but never owned the A7rII.
I know that I sometimes found the Sony colors showing a little less life in skin tones than I would wish for and that I feel the shots from the SL have a certain depth and look colorwise quite good (as long as I can judge from using the camera just for very few weeks and only in certain conditions). But I dont doubt your findings and in the end I also didnt use the SOny enough to bring the best out of the files. For me I get better along with the SL than with the Sony in regards of speed,UI and IQ but I am not saying it is better for others.
I still see some room for improvement of the SL user interface as well.


I fully agree about the 50mm prime, I am waiting for that lens as well, even though I wish it was a little smaller, maybe a 50 APO-Summicron with AF

 

[Vivek]

Colors are fine with the Sony cams and also there is nothing magical about SL's AWB.

I have difficulty believing that the SL' s CDAF is faster than that of Sony's PDAF (where available).

 

[aDam007]

Hi there,
I didnt do any side by side comparisons (I gave my whole SOny kit away to help paying for the SL and 24-90) and only can talk about from my impression from using the A7/A7s/A7II for a certain period but never owned the A7rII.
I know that I sometimes found the Sony colors showing a little less life in skin tones than I would wish for and that I feel the shots from the SL have a certain depth and look colorwise quite good (as long as I can judge from using the camera just for very few weeks and only in certain conditions). But I dont doubt your findings and in the end I also didnt use the SOny enough to bring the best out of the files. For me I get better along with the SL than with the Sony in regards of speed,UI and IQ but I am not saying it is better for others.
I still see some room for improvement of the SL user interface as well.


I fully agree about the 50mm prime, I am waiting for that lens as well, even though I wish it was a little smaller, maybe a 50 APO-Summicron with AF

The 50APO w/fast AF... I'd be into that!!

You might like the skin tons better because you're using the zoom? It's a good lens. I must say, it's very clean without being clinical. That's probably why you've fallen in love with the SL.

- - - Updated - - -

Colors are fine with the Sony cams and also there is nothing magical about SL's AWB.

I have difficulty believing that the SL' s CDAF is faster than that of Sony's PDAF (where available).

It's twice as fast or more.. And that's primarily due to the way the lens was designed.

OH and FYI, Leica is saying that the tele-zoom will be even faster due to the way it was designed as well.

 

[Vivek]

It's twice as fast or more.. And that's primarily due to the way the lens was designed.

OH and FYI, Leica is saying that the tele-zoom will be even faster due to the way it was designed as well.

Then it is a keeper! Don't ever let it go!

 

[aDam007]

Then it is a keeper! Don't ever let it go!

Yes but.. Since the lens isn't a fixed aperture zoom. When you're in shittier lighting conditions the tele end suffers from not being able to hit focus well, or at all.

Had Leica made the lens a bit bigger and made it a constant f/2 (pipe dream) I would have actually been able to use it successfully for what I'm trying to use it for.

Unfortunately by the time Leica releases the 50Lux-L the camera will be outdated already. And several other possibly more compelling options will be available to the consumer. So if the 50Lux isn't stellar, then I'm out. Until further development, I consider it a failure for what they're boasting they've achieved.


The good news is, you can shoot straight into harsh sun and it has no problem achieving focus. I tried this side by side with the A7 series w/minimal luck from the Sony. It's just low light where the SL falls apart (due to the lens being slow).

 

[fotografz]

Not a Steve Huff fan or detractor ... he's just another source of info. The exchange posted here didn't seem all that rude, and the one poster never did answer whether they had actually held, shot or used the SL in any way. Seems like a hissy fight between bloggers adding nothing to understanding the SL for those interested in this new camera.

If the colors and color rendering of the SL are indeed EXACTLY the same as Sony, then I'm crossing the SL off any consideration list since I'm not a fan of Sony's native rendering (so far).

A 24-90 fixed f/2 lens would be a dream all right ... a nightmare to be specific. It'd be Giganticus-Humungus. Look at any AF lens line-up ... when you go from a f/2.8 version to a f/2 version of a focal length, the size takes a disproportionate hit. Probably why NikCanSony never pushed past 24-70/2.8 ... a 24-90/2.8 would already be bigger, and a f/2 version would go off the charts.

Marc

 

[Paratom]

All I know that I have struggled more with getting Sony A7/A7II and A7s Images and (skin) color to my taste vs what I need to get SL Images to my taste.

Regarding the Zoom, yes some more Speed would be nice to make the lens more usefull for indoors, but I also agree the size is at the Limit allready.
So for indoors without Flash a fast prime should be the better solution, and for outdoors the range of the Zoom is quite usefull. Maybe I would prefer a 24-70 with constant f2.8 as a compromise.

 

[Vivek]

All I know that I have struggled more with getting Sony A7/A7II and A7s Images and (skin) color to my taste vs what I need to get SL Images to my taste.

Things change for the better.

I don't have the A7r II but have the RX1R II (similar tech) and it is pretty good. The AF (PDAF) is so good that I do not use manual focus (for the first time) at all!

The SL will mature in years to come, no doubt about that.

I glanced through another forum and one of the mods there is claiming that the 24mp resolves more than 42mp and is getting slammed by some of the participants there.

Can anyone here support that claim (24 Leica is sharper than 42 Sony)?