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!
Two different views on the Leica SL
- Thread starter bradhusick
- Start date
I don't like bashing other people. So I'll leave it at this. Steve has ulterior motives, evident in the way he writes his articles. He could be the nicest guy in the world. But at the end of the day, he's a salesman. You do what you do to support your family. Nothing wrong with that. But you have to know being a public figure opens you up to criticism. And believe me, there's a lot to criticise with his work, methodology and bi-polar nature.
Sure we're all passionate about camera gear. And sometimes opinions change. But for most of us, there is no financial gain from changing opinions and views... With him, there is, so it comes off a lot less genuine. Without getting into specifics let's just say I take notice of his less then genuine nature and I'm only a casual (if ever) viewer of his site.
To add.. He does make money when you click and or when you purchase. For purchases it's between 2%-5% (usually). Sometimes you can get offers up to 12% But since you all think your Leica dealers make nothing on Leica sales (bullshit, but I'm going by a topic we had here a few months ago where I couldn't convince anyone of this). So I'm not going to start up with this again. Let's just say, nobody is making money off of anybody. And that everyone is honest and has no ulterior motives
Anyway the SL is what it is.. A EVF camera that has a great UI and good ergonomics. It's severely lacking in native AF lenses and that's the most disappointing aspect. Also for tons cheaper you can get a A7II and adapt all your M and R lenses and end up with the same results.
As for sharpness of the A7rII. I've noticed suspect behaviour at 100% viewing magnification (mostly with M glass. 50APO even). I do not notice this with the SL. Though to be honest, the only CMOS that looks good at 100% to my eye (both on screen and print) is the M240.. But the MP makes up for the difference in "quality" so take it as you will.
sergio lovisolo
Member
Could you please go more in details of this?
Thanks
I hesitate to get into detail over what I've found.. It will start a Sony vs Leica bashing session. And then I'll have to run a bunch of tests to prove it. And then I'll have to fight with a bunch of people who disagree with my methodology and it really won't be worth my time/effort.
I'll add that I'm no longer for or against Sony/Leica... The SL has severely diminished my love for Leica. And it's weird to say this because ergonomically, it's one of the most fantastic cameras.. A joy to use. Second only to the M. I actually really enjoy the SL in use, I was just expecting something different sitting in front of the computer, staring at the files (something cleaner). Maybe it needs a firmware update, maybe I need to curb my expectations.. Who knows?
For a R user, why the heck not? It makes sense. Unless of course you don't care for the UI/ergonomics, then a A7rII or A7II makes sense also. As for the SL zoom vs other zooms (Nikon, Canon, ZA, FE, ZFE whatever, I've used them all).. I'd take the SL zoom in nice light any day of the week.
I will add that all this has made it more clear to me then ever that I need to reduce my gear collection. Last year I sold of SOOO much stuff (mostly older film gear, but quite a bit of excess lenses/duplicates), and this year it's clear I need to do the same. But be more brutal and business like then my current passion driven consumption.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into more detail about the A7rII vs X-Leica camera. Sorry it's just not constructive.
Someone else who has more time to fight with people over the results is welcome to do the testing
jonoslack
Active member
Tell me about it! I've been there and done that - it never helps, and results are always up for interpretation (and differences small enough to encourage them)
I find this really strange - I'm deeply impressed with the files (similarly those of the Q). I guess this stuff ends up very subjective (what do you use for processing?).
I quite agree with you about ergonomics and use though.
Let's hope nobody has the time. . . .Anyway, I'm not going to get into more detail about the A7rII vs X-Leica camera. Sorry it's just not constructive.
Someone else who has more time to fight with people over the results is welcome to do the testing
Steve Huff is possessed by an Evil Spirit! This explains everything.Steve Huff's site is pretty predictable IMO. He uses exactly the same tactics as Ken Rockwell, praising some things through the roof (Sony, Olympus, Leica) while bashing others (Fuji, Panasonic).
Plus adding once in a while some controversy which leads new people to his site. This thread is probably quite good for him
And if you don't agree with him he will block you as Amin says, even if you are not being insulting, I have exactly the same experience...
And I will keep my personal opinion about his other website to myself. Feel free to judge for yourself...:
I was attacked by an Evil Spirit or Entity. See the video. | Huff Paranormal
Additional Personal Thoughts On The SL:
:lecture:Not all that long ago Leica had most all of it's golden eggs in one basket ... The M system. It had to abandon the R system for financial reasons at the time, not to mention that the DMR was a collaboration between Imacon and Leica, and Imacon merged with Hasselblad effectively ending the collaboration. The M was difficult to convert to digital because of the sensor technology required ... The M8 was a cropped frame, lower meg, IR challenged, wobbly legged entry at best. That single basket of eggs showed Leica's vulnerability ... (history also showed how important faithful Leica Rangefinder customers were in helping bridge the gap ... a rangefinder is a rangefinder is a rangefinder!)
Enter the White Knight ... Kaufman Ka$h and vision.
Leica begins diversifying with bigger cameras and smaller cameras while continuing to evolve it's main M system.
The SL is just another in that line of diversified thought aimed directly at a select audience ... not everyone:lecture:
So it is natural that there will be those enthusiasts for whom it fits a need and a certain pride of ownership, and those who question it ... i.e..; "Two different views on the Leica SL".
Leica has avoided the megapixel race to the loud opposition of those who place a lot of credence on "more is better". The FF 18 meg M9 CCD only evolved to 24 meg CMOS. The S has stayed 37.8 meg through 3 iterations of the camera including the latest CMOS version. I happen to agree with them.
So a FF 24 meg SL is fine with me, and probably fits the "real world needs" of most photographers even though they would NEVER admit it.:grin: IMO, "Coulda/Woulda/Shoulda" has way to much sway on the decision process these days. So people get more than they need for 2% of their "maybe/you never know" work at the detriment of the other 98% of use. But that's just me I guess.
Leica is slow. New Leica systems aren't for type AAA personalities who have their zipper down before they get to the urinal. Early adopters of the S system needed the patience of Job. The S is a dual shutter camera, but the CS lenses took forever to be available. I'll probably have a beard to the floor before this SL system has a good range of AF Leica SL dedicated optics.
However, I could easily put this camera to work today. All I need for weddings/event and corporate assignments is a 24 meg SL camera and this 24-90 zoom with Leica's new SF40 or SF64 speed light.
It wouldn't be a practical financial choice, nor a responsible one (being so new) ... but that never stopped me:ROTFL:
- Marc
:lecture:Not all that long ago Leica had most all of it's golden eggs in one basket ... The M system. It had to abandon the R system for financial reasons at the time, not to mention that the DMR was a collaboration between Imacon and Leica, and Imacon merged with Hasselblad effectively ending the collaboration. The M was difficult to convert to digital because of the sensor technology required ... The M8 was a cropped frame, lower meg, IR challenged, wobbly legged entry at best. That single basket of eggs showed Leica's vulnerability ... (history also showed how important faithful Leica Rangefinder customers were in helping bridge the gap ... a rangefinder is a rangefinder is a rangefinder!)
Enter the White Knight ... Kaufman Ka$h and vision.
Leica begins diversifying with bigger cameras and smaller cameras while continuing to evolve it's main M system.
The SL is just another in that line of diversified thought aimed directly at a select audience ... not everyone:lecture:
So it is natural that there will be those enthusiasts for whom it fits a need and a certain pride of ownership, and those who question it ... i.e..; "Two different views on the Leica SL".
Leica has avoided the megapixel race to the loud opposition of those who place a lot of credence on "more is better". The FF 18 meg M9 CCD only evolved to 24 meg CMOS. The S has stayed 37.8 meg through 3 iterations of the camera including the latest CMOS version. I happen to agree with them.
So a FF 24 meg SL is fine with me, and probably fits the "real world needs" of most photographers even though they would NEVER admit it.:grin: IMO, "Coulda/Woulda/Shoulda" has way to much sway on the decision process these days. So people get more than they need for 2% of their "maybe/you never know" work at the detriment of the other 98% of use. But that's just me I guess.
Leica is slow. New Leica systems aren't for type AAA personalities who have their zipper down before they get to the urinal. Early adopters of the S system needed the patience of Job. The S is a dual shutter camera, but the CS lenses took forever to be available. I'll probably have a beard to the floor before this SL system has a good range of AF Leica SL dedicated optics.
However, I could easily put this camera to work today. All I need for weddings/event and corporate assignments is a 24 meg SL camera and this 24-90 zoom with Leica's new SF40 or SF64 speed light.
It wouldn't be a practical financial choice, nor a responsible one (being so new) ... but that never stopped me:ROTFL:
- Marc
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
V
Vivek
Guest
Not sure he is the only one possessed.
Speedgraphic
Member
Like others have said Steve blocked me from his site when my comment didn't line up with his marketing messaging. This was about the same time Seal was writing posts on his site calling anyone who didn't use the M9 fools.
bradhusick
Active member
"However, I could easily put this camera to work today. All I need for weddings/event and corporate assignments is a 24 meg SL camera and this 24-90 zoom with Leica's new SF40 or SF64 speed light."
this is the most constructive comment I have read on this thread in a week.
C'mon people, if you don't like another site, get over it. Don't go there. And stop whining. Nobody is forcing you to support another site. If you'd like to start a thread in the gossip section on "Why I hate so-and-so" then do it.
this is the most constructive comment I have read on this thread in a week.
C'mon people, if you don't like another site, get over it. Don't go there. And stop whining. Nobody is forcing you to support another site. If you'd like to start a thread in the gossip section on "Why I hate so-and-so" then do it.
Very sound logic.. I was the hopeful optimist like you. Until I bough the system. And almost got suckered into buying the flash. It's terrible BTW. I have a i40 m4/3 version of the flash.. It works better on the SL in A mode then the SL's dedicated SF-40 does in TTL mode. If this (TTL) isn't a deal breaker for you, there are tons of cheaper better flashes then the i40 or SF-40 and especially then the SF64. I could recommend a few.
I was so disappointed the day I tried the SF-40.
A firmware update is definitely needed in order to make use of the TTL aspect of the flash. Heck, I think Leica should BEG profoto to co-develop a TTL-SL remote for Leica and the B1. That would be fantastic
BTW, I've used the camera now on serval jobs. Nothing wrong with it. It gets the job done for 80% of the work I do.. Unfortunately I bought it with the hopes of being able to do that other 20% since that's where my S-system is lacking. Remember I wanted the SL as a replacement for my DSLR systems. To bad the SL doesn't have one of those Canon 600EXRT lasers built into it, instead of that useless orange search light.
Again not a bad camera... I just think it needs 2-3 native AF prime lenses to be the system I want it to be. Heck if you count the Q as an SL lens, you're doing ok.. I find the Q to focus faster better and more accurately then anything I have owned, save for maybe the DARKEST of fast moving situations.. Where even a 1Dx would have problems if not for the EXRT600 speed light's laser grid thing. The Q is also great in backlight.. Something the SL is admittedly good with.
BTW, it's probably the best camera I've used as far as locking focus in extreme backlit situations... NO problems from the camera.. None what so ever.. Very important for outdoor weddings if you're style is what's currently in fashion.
Jonathan, I'm really unsure what I dislike about the SL. I'm not trying to be difficult, or to have a contrary view. I'm just not happy with the files. Very similar reason to why I'm unhappy with the Sony sensors I've used thus far.
It's almost as if, I've used a better sensor in optimum light. But then I'm given new sensors that aren't as good in optimum light, but are good in other situations... Almost like a trade off of sorts. It doesn't feel bad, but like I'm trading something more important for something less important.
I sort of felt that way about switching from the M9 to the M240. But the cleanliness of the sensor made it acceptable to have a less contrasty OOC raw and less appealing colors. But now that I'm so use to the M240 colors, I know something's missing when I use other sensors. I use to think I was being a brand snob... I tried to convince myself of this by buying Sony cameras and spending $$$ on profiling hardware/software. Trying my best to get things to look the same. But in the end, I couldn't jive with Sony sensors (I couldn't even get the colors to match). And it's a similar feeling with this SL. Maybe time will fix it, but in order for that to happen I have to abandon my M240 cameras.. Like sell them all off (similar to what I did with the M9). And I'm not sure if I'm ready to do that for a camera like the SL.
The S-006 is different. It doesn't feel like anything else I've used. I wouldn't say it feels like film, I wouldn't say it feels like digital. I would say it feels like unique technology. Whereas the S-007 feels like digital (good quality digital, but digital).
On another note. I brought my SL out with me to an event tonight (personal, I wasn't working). Usually I bring an M.. It's a cool fashion accessory. People talk to me about it. People smile when I take photos of them (even if I don't know them). Girls and guys totally dig the M-P.
Tonight was different. I felt almost embarrassed to bring the SL+M lens to my eye. People looked away. Nobody smiled at me.. Worst candid pictures ever. Strangely awkward night for me. Though on the flip side.. I walked around with the SL+zoom the other day. And I think everyone thought I was a tourist. Nobody batted an eye when I shot them with my big zoom lens. They kinda just minded their own business... But it still didn't feel as raw and candid as it does when I'm shooting with the M.. But it wasn't like tonights bad experience.
ADam007 wrote---->>>>A firmware update is definitely needed in order to make use of the TTL aspect of the flash. Heck, I think Leica should BEG profoto to co-develop a TTL-SL remote for Leica and the B1. That would be fantastic<<<<<
As far back as I can remember when the SF-24 was 1st released and subsequently different Leica bodies and flashes all capable of TTL, I rarely have experienced any up to the task of consistantly "good" TTL flash exposure. Sometimes it was downright awful and I always resorted to A mode (with any given portable flash unit used with a TTL capable Leica body. I often reached for an older Nikon or Metz flash (for Nikon) capable of A mode. Its unfortunate, for basic consistant TTL flash performance in 2016, it should be a given that it will be accurate and simply dependable.
I also agree with your perceptions that image output from certain Leica digital cameras felt more like film in many ways than some other Leica bodies. The S006 vs 007 is a good example and I too felt to a degree, somewhat the same with the M9 vs. M240. Whether one wants to ascribe that to CCD vs. CMOS, associated electronics along with firmware, I'll defer that to past and future discussions.
We come back to the "no one camera is a " do all, do everything" photographic tool nor is a given camera going to be unversally liked". Compromises and acceptance of thrm often have to be made, especially when a client and job is on the line as well as.well.as ones budget. Our perceptions of whats acceptable and needs at a given time photographically speaking, also come into play.
Dave (D&A)
As far back as I can remember when the SF-24 was 1st released and subsequently different Leica bodies and flashes all capable of TTL, I rarely have experienced any up to the task of consistantly "good" TTL flash exposure. Sometimes it was downright awful and I always resorted to A mode (with any given portable flash unit used with a TTL capable Leica body. I often reached for an older Nikon or Metz flash (for Nikon) capable of A mode. Its unfortunate, for basic consistant TTL flash performance in 2016, it should be a given that it will be accurate and simply dependable.
I also agree with your perceptions that image output from certain Leica digital cameras felt more like film in many ways than some other Leica bodies. The S006 vs 007 is a good example and I too felt to a degree, somewhat the same with the M9 vs. M240. Whether one wants to ascribe that to CCD vs. CMOS, associated electronics along with firmware, I'll defer that to past and future discussions.
We come back to the "no one camera is a " do all, do everything" photographic tool nor is a given camera going to be unversally liked". Compromises and acceptance of thrm often have to be made, especially when a client and job is on the line as well as.well.as ones budget. Our perceptions of whats acceptable and needs at a given time photographically speaking, also come into play.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Are the files different from the Leica Q files? I really like the Leica Q.
Yevgeny NP
Member
Wow!
He sells the ghost detectors! How wonderful!
Does he sell an Encyclopedia?
I understand that many people love the enthusiastic approach to the equipment and want to get an assurance from a known and knowing person. But Ghosts? Seriously!?!?
Hi there,
on thing I dont understand: if you are not happy with the files, why would you hope for the 50 and other native lenses. They will not change anything in regards of the files/the sensor.
My feeling is the files from the SL are a bit more neutral and cooler than those from the M when one chooses the standard settings in LR, but for my part I feel they are pretty good.
I dont have the S006 any more but the S007, and yes, with the smooth transitions and shallow DOF it is still a step above the SL. I dont know yet if I like the S007 low ISO files 100% as much as the ones from the S006, but so far I am pretty happy even with the low ISO files. And the ability to use the S in high ISO range is just a big plus for me.
Back to the SL, I find the SL files in terms of color are closer to the S than the M files.
One big advantage of the SL I see for people who also use other Leica systems.
I can put my M 21/35 or 50mm lenses on the L in lower light, or in the future I could out the S 100/2.0 on the SL for portrait (even though I guess I would rather use it on the S).
With the 24-90 the SL is great for me when I go outside with the kids, just the range I need, weatherproof, and fast. The user interface is similar to the S, so easy to adapt.
Your experience with the M vs SL "shooting" people. I sometimes wonder if this is more in the photographers head and not so much the people who are photographed. A friend of mine shoots professional with Leica S - weddings, events, industrial, and the S is even larger than the SL. He gets very open and natural images.
But I know what you mean, I also dont feel good targeting a monster lens on people I dont know.
The T and M are great for such occasions.
on thing I dont understand: if you are not happy with the files, why would you hope for the 50 and other native lenses. They will not change anything in regards of the files/the sensor.
My feeling is the files from the SL are a bit more neutral and cooler than those from the M when one chooses the standard settings in LR, but for my part I feel they are pretty good.
I dont have the S006 any more but the S007, and yes, with the smooth transitions and shallow DOF it is still a step above the SL. I dont know yet if I like the S007 low ISO files 100% as much as the ones from the S006, but so far I am pretty happy even with the low ISO files. And the ability to use the S in high ISO range is just a big plus for me.
Back to the SL, I find the SL files in terms of color are closer to the S than the M files.
One big advantage of the SL I see for people who also use other Leica systems.
I can put my M 21/35 or 50mm lenses on the L in lower light, or in the future I could out the S 100/2.0 on the SL for portrait (even though I guess I would rather use it on the S).
With the 24-90 the SL is great for me when I go outside with the kids, just the range I need, weatherproof, and fast. The user interface is similar to the S, so easy to adapt.
Your experience with the M vs SL "shooting" people. I sometimes wonder if this is more in the photographers head and not so much the people who are photographed. A friend of mine shoots professional with Leica S - weddings, events, industrial, and the S is even larger than the SL. He gets very open and natural images.
But I know what you mean, I also dont feel good targeting a monster lens on people I dont know.
The T and M are great for such occasions.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Wow, this thread is still going. Been out past the "back forty" and back again; I have no idea where all the bile and nonsense centered around this camera is coming from.
For me: Two months on using the Leica SL (almost exclusively with the R lenses I bought it to use with) and I'm delighted with it. The DNG files are excellent and process beautifully in LR6.3 (and even in Apple's Photos app). Even the JPEGs are right in there.
I don't see much difference in the quality of the files compared to the M-P typ 240 ... I had that out over the weekend and the exact same technique used in processing them processes the SL files perfectly (as in, I made a preset from an M-P file and applied it to a similar subject matter SL file to get a nearly identical result). And, as I've said before, I like what comes out of the M-P much more than what came out of other cameras when using these lenses. The SL goes beyond the M-P.
I like the ergonomics and controls of the SL, even moreso than the ergonomics of the M-P. There's enough grip and body space for my fingers to use the camera the way I always used a 35mm film SLR ... I'm not constantly dodging buttons, knobs, and dials (or hitting them inadvertently). Fitted with 24/35/50/90/135 mm lenses, it's very much like carrying my old favorite Nikon F3.
For my photography, 24 Mpixel is enough, if not already more than enough. End of discussion.
The only thing that I haven't quite absorbed into my consciousness yet is the SL's exposure behavior with AutoISO. On the SL, the AutoISO setting for minimum exposure is a hard limit: It does not override and run a longer exposure when illumination is low. I have to remember to switch to a fixed ISO setting in very low light, and I often forget still. And then I forget to switch it back to AutoISO. Eh, I'll get it eventually; it hasn't been much of a problem in my shooting.
I haven't used it with flash yet, I haven't done anything with video yet, and I haven't taken the dedicated 24-90 lens out much yet either. I have spent a lot of time enjoying it set to square format with the ultra-wide 15mm and 19mm lenses: it reminds me so much of shooting with the Hasselblad SWC that way, but with accurate TTL focusing.
I have to say that, at this point, I couldn't care less whether anyone else on the planet likes the SL or whether anyone else's favorite camera du jour performs better or worse. With two months and a couple thousand exposures worth of using it behind me, I like the SL: it's the right camera for me, and it makes beautiful images for me. If I could have only one camera, it's the one I'd choose and I'd regret nothing about tossing the rest (although I would surely miss my Polaroid SX-70s).
Thank you, Leica, for producing the SL.
G
For me: Two months on using the Leica SL (almost exclusively with the R lenses I bought it to use with) and I'm delighted with it. The DNG files are excellent and process beautifully in LR6.3 (and even in Apple's Photos app). Even the JPEGs are right in there.
I don't see much difference in the quality of the files compared to the M-P typ 240 ... I had that out over the weekend and the exact same technique used in processing them processes the SL files perfectly (as in, I made a preset from an M-P file and applied it to a similar subject matter SL file to get a nearly identical result). And, as I've said before, I like what comes out of the M-P much more than what came out of other cameras when using these lenses. The SL goes beyond the M-P.
I like the ergonomics and controls of the SL, even moreso than the ergonomics of the M-P. There's enough grip and body space for my fingers to use the camera the way I always used a 35mm film SLR ... I'm not constantly dodging buttons, knobs, and dials (or hitting them inadvertently). Fitted with 24/35/50/90/135 mm lenses, it's very much like carrying my old favorite Nikon F3.
For my photography, 24 Mpixel is enough, if not already more than enough. End of discussion.
The only thing that I haven't quite absorbed into my consciousness yet is the SL's exposure behavior with AutoISO. On the SL, the AutoISO setting for minimum exposure is a hard limit: It does not override and run a longer exposure when illumination is low. I have to remember to switch to a fixed ISO setting in very low light, and I often forget still. And then I forget to switch it back to AutoISO. Eh, I'll get it eventually; it hasn't been much of a problem in my shooting.
I haven't used it with flash yet, I haven't done anything with video yet, and I haven't taken the dedicated 24-90 lens out much yet either. I have spent a lot of time enjoying it set to square format with the ultra-wide 15mm and 19mm lenses: it reminds me so much of shooting with the Hasselblad SWC that way, but with accurate TTL focusing.
I have to say that, at this point, I couldn't care less whether anyone else on the planet likes the SL or whether anyone else's favorite camera du jour performs better or worse. With two months and a couple thousand exposures worth of using it behind me, I like the SL: it's the right camera for me, and it makes beautiful images for me. If I could have only one camera, it's the one I'd choose and I'd regret nothing about tossing the rest (although I would surely miss my Polaroid SX-70s).
Thank you, Leica, for producing the SL.
G
The "hard limit" on the shutter speed is one of the better features of the SL. So many camera's don't do this and it drives me nuts.
I'd rather a grainy photo because I had to bump it one or two extra stops in LR then a blurry image.
I was just expecting better from Leica. That's all.. It's not a bad camera, and I do use it for work.
As for Tom's question. The 50Lux-L might have some qualities that endear me to the system. Because right now, I'm faster with RF focusing. So M lenses are pointless on the SL (though pretty easy to use w/the updated firmware). The 24-90 although a good zoom, doesn't suit the purpose of buying into the SL system. And I love the S-006 sensor so much, I don't even use the S-007. So although I'm curious how the 100/2 will look on the SL (and how fast it'll focus), I know I'm going to prefer the colors of the S006.
Realistically for me. The SL is a way to get the M colors and quality (quality being rendering, bokeh, signature, drawing style, whatever etc) in an AF package. I was hoping that the sensor would be a little more to my liking. Maybe they'll fix it, maybe not. Maybe the 50Lux-L will be amazing... Maybe it'll be another Sigma Art disaster. Time will tell..
And about shooting... I had a small M lens on the SL.. I think it has more to do with the look, and peoples associations. I've been shooting events/weddings etc for a long time. I can tell when something's off.. Tonight, it was the camera.
IF I were at a wedding, and I were the known photographer. It wouldn't have been a problem. But tonight I was off duty.. Just some random fellow with a camera. In these situations, the camera matters. At least here in Asia it does
Anyway, it's 5:30am... Just finished editing some client work. Off to bed before the birds wake up!!