Why the SL?

[Paratom]

Bob, I seem to share the same thoughts. It really seems to me that Leica has almost shafted the S-system in favour of the SL. Because they believe it's the way forward. Be it issues with the S construction, cost of manufacturing vs market demand or whatever the reason.

It's not Leica's fault, to be fair it was just bad timing. The S-system came out when DSLRs were on their way out. And no I don't mean the DSLR is dead, I just mean that no new system would be designed with a mirror at this stage in the game. Even Sony dragged their feet with the TMT camera update (A99II). And probably really only did it because they had the resources and know-how. And really just didn't want to shaft their customers. I liked the A99 for what it was, I had ALL the Zeiss-Sony lenses. But ultimately the system lasted less then a year in my kit, the urge to switch to the A7 series was to strong. And Sony made it so easy with that adapter. To be fair the A7 series didn't last to long in my bag either.. But I'm not really a fan of Sonys colours, that's not a surprise coming from me.

Really what Leica will need to do moving forward is make a mirrorless MFD camera with an adapter for S lenses and an updated line of compact S lenses. But to be honest, I don't think they even have the resources to tackle that kind of a project right now. So the best we can hope for is adapting lenses to the SL. And good native SL lenses with an updated SL body down the road.

To me, none of this adapting makes a lot of sense due to my issues with the sensor. And the fact that I'd rather my AF to be fast if I'm carrying something so big. So I think it's just easier for me to move back to my comfort zone and shoot on an M240-P + a select few M lenses. Anyway rangefinders make me the happiest. So that's probably what I'll do for my travel/fun photography.

In the meantime I won't need to bother lusting over the newest and best from Leica since I'll have another system to handle my work needs. Probably the new GFX from Fuji by the looks of it. And the X-T2 for anything fast moving, since that little camera can hustle.


BTW, something positive about the SL (I'm trying something new here)... I think the 35FLE really works well on that camera. It's one of the better lenses you can adapt IMHO. Something about the colour of the lens that really seems to jive with the sensor. And I guess another positive. The 75APO is defective by design. So having an EVF will allow you to learn/manage the flaws of the lens. Essentially being able to see the scene unfold, allows you to avoid catching the 75APO on bad angles. And believe me for anyone who's not used the 75APO, it can be one of the most amazing rendering lenses, and one of the worst pieces of metal and glass to ever come from Germany. You really just need to know how to handle it. That and if I ever get asked to do more corporate video work. I can just use the SL, since it supposedly has awesome video capabilities (I wouldn't be able to confirm or deny, as I've not really bothered with it to much yet).

Adam, the 35FLE has been the lens I have used most between the 24-90. Excellent for low light.

I dont really see the benefits of an EVF over the excellent OVF of the Leica S.
I also find the lens range of the S very complete - besides my wish for a TS lens in the wide angle range.
Lets see how compact the Fuji and Hassy lenses are compared to the S lenses.
I still find the S system very very good, if they fix the AF motor issue and improve service in USA (my experience in Germany with service is good).
The SL is a very good camera, flexible, fast etc. etc,
My heart is still more with the M and the S.
I even decided to get a M262 since I allways feel the M 240 feels a little like a brick.
The simplicity of the M is always a joy for me. I use auto iso, then just set f-stop, focus, click, thats it.

 

[aDam007]

Adam, the 35FLE has been the lens I have used most between the 24-90. Excellent for low light.

I dont really see the benefits of an EVF over the excellent OVF of the Leica S.
I also find the lens range of the S very complete - besides my wish for a TS lens in the wide angle range.
Lets see how compact the Fuji and Hassy lenses are compared to the S lenses.
I still find the S system very very good, if they fix the AF motor issue and improve service in USA (my experience in Germany with service is good).
The SL is a very good camera, flexible, fast etc. etc,
My heart is still more with the M and the S.
I even decided to get a M262 since I allways feel the M 240 feels a little like a brick.
The simplicity of the M is always a joy for me. I use auto iso, then just set f-stop, focus, click, thats it.

I'm more a fan of OVF and RF then EVF. But also personal preference I guess.
I also find the SF-64 flash works better in TTL mode on the S-006 then SL, which is funny/weird right?

I'm fairly certain the Fuji lenses and Hassy lenses won't be as good as the S lenses.

Does the M262 actually feel lighter but still solid? I was thinking M-D since I don't look at my screen. But gonna probably settle on another M240-P because I don't like the red dot and REALLY like sapphire glass. Since I've not had problems with it. Whereas I have with the regular glass screens.

A few more photos with the 50Lux-SL are out and about on the net. Not really what I'm looking for in a lens. But also again, not really the best way to judge a lens. I will have to wait and play with one for myself.

Wish the 100S was a faster to focus lens. And of course didn't break down every 6 months.

 

[Godfrey]

...
The SL is a very good camera, flexible, fast etc. etc,
...
I even decided to get a M262 since I allways feel the M 240 feels a little like a brick.
The simplicity of the M is always a joy for me. I use auto iso, then just set f-stop, focus, click, thats it.

The SL is my primary tool these days. As I have said before, it does exactly what I'd wanted, I like the design a lot, and find that it performs brilliantly.

I currently have both M-P typ 240 and M-D typ 262. Both are excellent, but the M-P is up for sale now. In the M line, I greatly prefer the utter simplicity of the M-D.

G

 

[Paratom]

Does the M262 actually feel lighter but still solid? I was thinking M-D since I don't look at my screen. But gonna probably settle on another M240-P because I don't like the red dot and REALLY like sapphire glass. Since I've not had problems with it. Whereas I have with the regular glass screens.

The exposure metering of the M is far from Nikon or Olympus or the Leica SL.
Therefore for me the display is important. When I shoot in a certain light I check exosure on the display and then set exp comp. I have some idea (-0.3/0.7 in bright contrast situations, +0/0.3 when shooting into light, and 0 in low light low contrast) but checking is more precise. I dont check for each image but just at the beginning of a series.
Thats why the MD is not an option for me.
I am pretty sure the 262 will still feel solid, but can tell you more next week.
In a way its weird to buy a 262 when one has a 240, but it often just feels a little like a brick and I also never use the EVF anyways, so the 262 offers even more simplicity (less menue options, less buttons).
Whenever I use the SL I think it works fine but I dont feel the simplicity of the M.
However I also can say if I was pro and had to make sure I get each shot I would feel better to use the SL.

 

[aDam007]

The exposure metering of the M is far from Nikon or Olympus or the Leica SL.
Therefore for me the display is important. When I shoot in a certain light I check exosure on the display and then set exp comp. I have some idea (-0.3/0.7 in bright contrast situations, +0/0.3 when shooting into light, and 0 in low light low contrast) but checking is more precise. I dont check for each image but just at the beginning of a series.
Thats why the MD is not an option for me.
I am pretty sure the 262 will still feel solid, but can tell you more next week.
In a way its weird to buy a 262 when one has a 240, but it often just feels a little like a brick and I also never use the EVF anyways, so the 262 offers even more simplicity (less menue options, less buttons).
Whenever I use the SL I think it works fine but I dont feel the simplicity of the M.
However I also can say if I was pro and had to make sure I get each shot I would feel better to use the SL.

Honestly the metering in the M has never bothered me. I suppose I just got use to it. Wouldn't have a problem with the M-D. Aside from being worried that the RF mechanism would fall out of alignment while I'm on assignment.

 

[Godfrey]

The exposure metering of the M is far from Nikon or Olympus or the Leica SL.
Therefore for me the display is important. When I shoot in a certain light I check exosure on the display and then set exp comp. I have some idea (-0.3/0.7 in bright contrast situations, +0/0.3 when shooting into light, and 0 in low light low contrast) but checking is more precise. I dont check for each image but just at the beginning of a series.
Thats why the MD is not an option for me.
I am pretty sure the 262 will still feel solid, but can tell you more next week.
In a way its weird to buy a 262 when one has a 240, but it often just feels a little like a brick and I also never use the EVF anyways, so the 262 offers even more simplicity (less menue options, less buttons).
Whenever I use the SL I think it works fine but I dont feel the simplicity of the M.
However I also can say if I was pro and had to make sure I get each shot I would feel better to use the SL.

Hmm. I haven't had any problems with my M-D metering system setting the exposure right on the mark, even in direct comparison to the SL or Nikon D750. An exposure meter is an exposure meter ... understand what it sees and how it calculates exposure, use that to set exposure—you'll get it right every time.

G

 

[Paratom]

I like to nail it as much as possible in the first step. If i didnt have a display to check I woul probably underexpose 90% of my images by -0.3 just to make sure to make sure to not loose images throuh blown highlights. Anyways, 262 md is not an option for me even though I cansee its appealing for some.

 

[aDam007]

I like to nail it as much as possible in the first step. If i didnt have a display to check I woul probably underexpose 90% of my images by -0.3 just to make sure to make sure to not loose images throuh blown highlights. Anyways, 262 md is not an option for me even though I cansee its appealing for some.

Ultimately I'd just pick up another M240-P if I were going to go back to the Leica M.
I have no issues with the M246 aside from the fact that it's black and white Oddly enough though, it worked for it's intended purpose. I was trying to convince myself to like black and white images. And ever since owning and using the camera. I now convert more of my color photos to black and white, because I somehow like the look of black and white now. Whereas before I did it as last resort to salvage a good moment with terrible colours (like if a stupid videographer ran up with his terrible on camera light. Or someone guest was using AF assist lights or etc).

 

[Paratom]

Yesterday I went to a sports event (running) where my kids and friends took part. I brought my T which I normally like a lot. Mistake.
For sports like this, where you want to hit these short moments (start/end etc.) I wished I had brought my SL and made me remember one of the reasons why I bought the SL. I really love the M, like the T, but for some things the SL helps to get the shot.

 

[aDam007]

Yesterday I went to a sports event (running) where my kids and friends took part. I brought my T which I normally like a lot. Mistake.
For sports like this, where you want to hit these short moments (start/end etc.) I wished I had brought my SL and made me remember one of the reasons why I bought the SL. I really love the M, like the T, but for some things the SL helps to get the shot.

Not disputing the AF in good light. Like all modern cameras the AF is fast in good light. Dare I say almost the fastest I've used (w/the 24-90).
Event lighting, that's a different story. I think the smaller aperture really hurts the SL for indoor shooting. Perhaps the 50LUX-L will be better suited for indoor shooting (using the 35TL however is not advised indoors with the SL, not a great performer AF wise, even outdoors if I'm being honest).

The 60TL is actually faster then the 35TL if you're not going from near macro range to portrait distance (in that case it gets confused easily). If the 60TL is going from mid distance to candid to mid distance to candid etc.. It's actually faster then the 35TL by a noticeable amount. I wouldn't say sports fast, but it can definitely capture people walking down the street at a brisk pace. Whereas the 35TL I find is very hit or miss. I think they need an internal focus limiter for the 60TL. That would help the lens a lot. As in, a quick menu option on/off that disallows focusing closer then say 1m.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,
I agree that focus accurancy with manual lenses on the SL is very good, at least for static subjects.
The big disadvantage compared to a rangefinder is the fact that one can either use focus magnification and focus or frame, but not both at the same time.
Once you have focused and back to framing you need to make/be sure that your subject doesnt move anymore. Or try to focus without magnification (which might work fine in some cases).
In regards of Leica lenses vs Zeiss....if I would spend the money and carry the weight of a Otus55 or a Leica 50/1.4 SL, I would for sure prefer to have AF. No wait, I rather would carry a S+70mm. If I was using a manual focus lens on the SL I would prefer a M lens over big fat Otus. I think that M-lenses 35mm and longer work very good on the SL.
But at the same time, if I was using a manual focus lens in the 35-50mm range I would prefer a Leica M body over the SL.
One thing I eally like with the SL is face detection for AF. Just yesterday I took images of my kids in action and I believe to have caught some moments where I would have to have a lot of luck to catch those without AF.
Tom

I use the 24-90 Leica zoom for when I need autofocus, but most of my shooting is with manual M lenses. I must admit I have a 50mm 'fetish' I have the Nocti and the lux and I have an Otus551.4 - it is a killer lens tbh - but yes large. Some of the new Zeiss Milvus formulaitons in the wide angles ( 18 and 15 @ 2.8) look to be outstanding lenses - superior to the Leica M wides - and a lot cheaper. The Sl body makes manual focusing 'exotics' a pleasure.

My Mp240 is hardly used these days- since the Sl purchase - I cant see much difference between the chips and their rencering wither on C1 or Lightromm to be honest. The rangefinder is fun - but the SL is easier and more accurate in most shooting circumstances if one cares about accurate focus with fast lenses.

I wish the SL was 35 megapixels - my only criticism except for limitations about EVF modes.

 

[jrp]

Some of the new Zeiss Milvus formulaitons in the wide angles ( 18 and 15 @ 2.8) look to be outstanding lenses - superior to the Leica M wides - and a lot cheaper. The Sl body makes manual focusing 'exotics' a pleasure.

My Mp240 is hardly used these days- since the Sl purchase - I cant see much difference between the chips and their rendering wither on C1 or Lightromm to be honest. The rangefinder is fun - but the SL is easier and more accurate in most shooting circumstances if one cares about accurate focus with fast lenses.

I agree with most of this, but I don't think that you should take compactness (in the M lenses) for granted. That is their USP. The best bigger Zeiss / SL lenses perform at similar levels, but they're not much good if you can't be bothered to take the with you, or even change to them. http://www.dearsusan.net/2016/09/30/choosing-lenses-how-to-save-cash-and-your-back/

 

[biglouis]

I decided that I really had to check out the SL, so yesterday I made the trip to a local supplier and finally looked and felt one over (sounds vaguely rude!).

First impressions. Incredibly well made. Matchless, actually, with respect to any other camera I have held. Unless you really do need more the 24mpx which I still find hard to believe unless you are doing something like wildlife - I'd expect this camera to last at least 5 years or even 10. Yes, the sensor technology will change enormously in that period but for 99% of my photography this would suffice.

Secondly, with the 24-90 attached, as soon as I tried to pick the combination up my back muscles started to go into spasm. I could not seriously use this combination. With an M lens attached (with adapter) it was mildly unpleasant to lift but not overly, though.

Thirdly, I really liked the un-cluttered knobs, dials and menus. This is why I chose a Leica Q over a Sony RX1R when I had the chance.

What I want is a really grown up mirrorless and I can see where Leica is filling that gap - single-handedly which is much to their credit. It looks like Hasselblad with X1D will also do this but for the price of the body alone I could get a SL and at least one or two M lenses (second hand prices). In fact all I need is a CV15mm, 21mm, 50mm (the 2.8 Elmar is my favourite) and 90mm (last generation Elmarit or the Macro M) - my Q will do 28-35mm happily.

Bottom line, though, I do not think this is the camera for me. I am now dedicated to mirrorless technology. I am not going back to an OVF. I'd rather have no viewfinder and just a rear LCD screen. My kit comprises the Q, a Panasonic GX8 and associated Lumix and PanaLeica lenses and several Sigma DPx and a Quattro compacts.

That said I do wonder whether just go M and use the live view with a Hoodman Loupe for critical stuff (which I do sometimes even with the Q and GX8).

The only thing putting me off is the weight. I'll have to go back and play with one again and see if I can really put up with it. I can't understand why Leica have done this. They have taken the best FF sensor available on the market (imho) and encased it in the equivalent of a (very nicely finished and designed) concrete block. They could have used lighter materials - not sure why they had to do it this way.

Anyway, just my two cents.

LouisB

 

[fotografz]

A very close friend and highly regarded photographer has been using the SL for a while now. He brought it over for me to try out. Obviously, a couple of hours goofing off with the SL isn't a definitive evaluation of anything.

However, his intense use of the kit and blunt feed-back carries a fair amount of sway with me.

Generally, he likes the camera (as a first gen model). The 24-90 is nothing to write home about in any way, but the longer zoom is much better. He especially likes the movie functions for some dance work he's been doing. He has used his M Noctilux and appreciates the ability to focus it accurately.

My impression of the kit was ergonomically simple and clean, unlike the Sony A camera's "jet cockpit" tomfoolery. The whole kit is massive, heavy and unwieldy for a mirrorless and the results you can get ... and I'd find small M lenses on it to be like a size 10 face with a size 2 nose. Sorry, I'm a visual guy and grossly unbalanced stuff irritates me no matter how well it works.

I could easily overlook some of this, and consider a SL. But Doug's evaluation of the actually shooting experience (which hopefully gets attention in firmware) would have to be addressed, and I'd have to contend with Leica's 3rd world lighting solutions. Adding IBIS in v2.0 would also be highly desirable. To date I've not been a fan of the rendering from this sensor, but as it gets into more hands that situation seems to be mitigated a bit ... TBD.

All due respect to the fans and enthusiastic adopters ... many whom are long time friends here on GetDpi ... but ...

I WILL NOT KEEP QUIET, AND WILL INFECT EVERY THREAD ABOUT LEICA I CAN FIND! I WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE GOOD NIGHT.


It is the only recourse left those left in the lurch. If that makes others uncomfortable, so be it.

To those who say "grousing is getting old so just move on and enjoy your photography", must have something that allows them to do that and/or money to burn ... I don't. I have $70K+ invested in unreliable, so called professional equipment from a company that has been unable to fix the problems and is totally lacking in communication and service abilities. While I give them credit for "good will" fixes, I'm now into 2nd failures of S lenses already fixed ... currently two failed lenses: one lost at Leica, and the other sitting in my studio waiting to be sent in and then lost by Leica. Keep in mind that these failures are of their making mechanically and for service. I used my earlier S lenses for years without failures and any service needed was slow but reasonably responsive.

To those who say sell it and get something else, I can't because who the hell would buy it unless I bend over and sell it at such a loss as to negate a year's worth of hard work and profit.

10 years ago I could absorb such a hit, now I cannot ... or better said, WILL NOT! Besides, if something else better was to my liking I would have bought it prior to all this. The S is the system I thought would last me for a long time like those who postulate that the SL is. Good luck with that.

So forgive me raining on everyone's parade with their shiny new SL or T or instant toy camera ... I can only hope a few years from now you are not in my place and that of Adam, or the myriad others who have been fuked by Leica without even having been taken to dinner first ...

- Marc

 

[MGrayson]

Marc,

If it makes you feel any better, S repair and customer service is getting a lot of attention right now - to the point that other professionals I know are complaining that the effort isn't going into improving tethering, which is their main problem with using the S system for their work. I've tried to get the message about your recent experiences up the Leica chain as far as I can reach. ("If Marc isn't defending your system, you guys are in trouble.") The response came back "We know Marc and we're working on it as hard as we can."

I wish I could say something more positive than that they hear you. I'm in the "don't need the S to earn a living" category, so I can take a wait and see attitude. I *want* it to get fixed because there's nothing I've ever touched that I've liked better, both in use and results. I don't want to carry around slower smaller lenses. The X1D does nothing for me ergonomically, and if I wanted a CMOS, I'd get an (007). I wouldn't mind more MP, but don't feel constrained by what it delivers.

And please, keep ranting. Coming from you, it means something.

--Matt

 

[Godfrey]

Sorry Marc, but:

I love the SL JUST AS IT IS and wouldn't have them change a thing.

The size and weight balance perfectly with its lenses and my R lenses.
The way it works is so close to perfect for the way I shoot, I'm stunned how they got it so right.
The performance is right on the money.

Et cetera. :angel:

Seriously, "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." :toocool:
What's happened with the S system and its AF problems is not an issue with the SL.

G

 

[biglouis]

So forgive me raining on everyone's parade with their shiny new SL or T or instant toy camera ... I can only hope a few years from now you are not in my place and that of Adam, or the myriad others who have been fuked by Leica without even having been taken to dinner first ...

- Marc

Well, that kinda destroyed any latent interest I might have had in the SL :facesmack:

 

[docmoore]

My impression of the kit was ergonomically simple and clean, unlike the Sony A camera's "jet cockpit" tomfoolery. The whole kit is massive, heavy and unwieldy for a mirrorless and the results you can get ... and I'd find small M lenses on it to be like a size 10 face with a size 2 nose. Sorry, I'm a visual guy and grossly unbalanced stuff irritates me no matter how well it works.

I could easily overlook some of this, and consider a SL. But Doug's evaluation of the actually shooting experience (which hopefully gets attention in firmware) would have to be addressed, and I'd have to contend with Leica's 3rd world lighting solutions. Adding IBIS in v2.0 would also be highly desirable. To date I've not been a fan of the rendering from this sensor, but as it gets into more hands that situation seems to be mitigated a bit ... TBD.

.......

So forgive me raining on everyone's parade with their shiny new SL or T or instant toy camera ... I can only hope a few years from now you are not in my place and that of Adam, or the myriad others who have been fuked by Leica without even having been taken to dinner first ...

- Marc

I recently added a Noctilux 0.95 to my Leica M-D .... my replacement for a small S system that continued to nag at me as it has for others with ... AF failures and sensor problems. I found that I had moderate ability to capture critical focus
even with a 1.4 magnifier on the M.

Live view and focus magnification seemed the answer ... or sell the Nocti ...

Due to continued poor service in the US with Leica and in agreement with Marc that the SL is way to big ... not to mention lenses that seem as large as the S system lenses ... I returned to Sony. Had a A7s ... now I am using the A7Rii ... and may play with the
TechArt AF adapter ... although I use MF 90% of the time ... as rocks, trees, and the occasional cow tend not to outrun my focusing skills with the EVF. I need to play a bit more with color out of the camera but it is a much more esthetic answer for
me than the SL ... and the rumored A9 may improve on that a bit. Half the price ... much higher resolution and room for cropping. Once I set the menus I tend to change little that is not available from the fiddly little buttons.

I loved ... truly loved my Q but I feel the SL is a bit over the top ... size weight and price.

But I do get its attraction for those who use it. I loved the four button approach on the S ... it is how I use the A7Rii ...

I do feel that Marc you could drop the S and benefit ... just pare down a bit ... H6D with 24 50 II and 100 ... A7Rii for intermediate focal lengths and longer lenses, as I know your post process skills can make any camera output stellar. Too many of us have had such bad experience and feelings with Leica service ... not the Platinum service of the original S2-P. A complete redesign of the AF mechanism of the S lenses should have happened early ... prior to them losing control of the process and killing any customer goodwill.
Taking two months ... really six in some cases to repair a lens that is defective at no cost is not doing the customer a favor.

The truth of the matter in my mind is that S system has been relegated to a back status as the SL Q T and new M have been given resource and priority. So much for catering to the professional who makes his living from his investment in Leica hardware.

Bob

 

[JoshMerwin]

An interchangeable lens Q would be a dream camera! I'm also wondering if the SL lenses are pre-build for a future medium format S mirrorless image circle. As many have said, they are just so big and the point for mirrorless for many of us was the size advantage it allowed. In my somewhat limited experience with the SL, it was the best 35mm cameras I have used. I just prefer to shoot medium format when you when you compare the price and size, with the X1D coming out (soon?!). And then I have the Panasonic gh4, soon to be gh5 for most of my video stuff with the Leica lensesfor that, which are great.

 

[D&A]

That was my thought too of which Iexpressed in the X1D thread here on Getdpi. Namely that the SL body and soecifically its lenses seemed to be designed with the future in mind, not only for higher resolution 35mm full sized sensors but for cropped MFD.

I wouldn't even be surprised seeing the SL evolve in that direction sometime in the future.

Dave (D&A)