Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 72

Thread: Why the SL?

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    12,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    40

    Why the SL?

    Question directed at the SL owners, in particular seasoned folks like Peter A and (Para)Tom.

    Feel free to compare it with other brands, systems, types, in evy aspect.

    Peter A prompted me to start this thread and I am happy to oblige.

    TIA!
    Sale Items (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/gear-fs-...8806-sale.html)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Thanks for the thread Vivek - great idea for a thread and I look forward to people's responses. The SL for me is a the most fun I have had with a camera since I bought my first Leica M some 20 or so years ago.

    For me the decision was made regarding the SL when I looked through the viewfinder. Bright high resolution viewfinder matched with focus zoom makes manual focusing a joy - not a hardship. My Sony has this functionality but now no longer the best viewing experience. Simple as that for me. The consequences of easy viewing and easy focus - means that the utility and amenity of all my M glass is now far superior to not only the Sony via adaptor route - but also the M route. There are improvements that can be made to the viewfinder experience though - it isn't perfect - just better than anyone else right now. I won't even comment on where that left my Nikon system - suffice to say it is now all gone - i can no longer consider the viewfinder experience offered by DSLR's to be something I have to 'put up with' or workaround. The Sony and the SL give me access to a the best manual focus glass avaliable in Leica and Zeiss and over time will give me access to the best autofocus 35mm lenses avaliable from Leica.

    That is the start of my response - it is easier to see through the EVF of the SL than a traditional DSLR and it far easier to nail critical focus as well.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,476
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Thanks for the thread Vivek - great idea for a thread and I look forward to people's responses. The SL for me is a the most fun I have had with a camera since I bought my first Leica M some 20 or so years ago.

    For me the decision was made regarding the SL when I looked through the viewfinder. Bright high resolution viewfinder matched with focus zoom makes manual focusing a joy - not a hardship. My Sony has this functionality but now no longer the best viewing experience. Simple as that for me. The consequences of easy viewing and easy focus - means that the utility and amenity of all my M glass is now far superior to not only the Sony via adaptor route - but also the M route. There are improvements that can be made to the viewfinder experience though - it isn't perfect - just better than anyone else right now. I won't even comment on where that left my Nikon system - suffice to say it is now all gone - i can no longer consider the viewfinder experience offered by DSLR's to be something I have to 'put up with' or workaround. The Sony and the SL give me access to a the best manual focus glass avaliable in Leica and Zeiss and over time will give me access to the best autofocus 35mm lenses avaliable from Leica.

    That is the start of my response - it is easier to see through the EVF of the SL than a traditional DSLR and it far easier to nail critical focus as well.
    Peter,

    I quite have to agree! Also for me the SL EVF is the far most advanced EVF even compared to the Fuji XT2, which is pretty good as well. The whole EVF experience has changed my photography so significantly that I almost cannot work (do no longer want to work) with OVFs, even the excellent one in my D810. Time will tell how long I will stay in the Nikon system, especially as there are nowadays more than one mirrorless alternatives offering already what I could cover with my Nikon system.

    Coming back to the SL, this is IMHO the best FF mirrorless currently available, especially if one owns a ton of M glass like I do. What made me so far stay out of this system is the missing lenses for wildlife, as I need something at least equivalent to the Nikkor 80-400 VR or even better some 150-600. This is the reason I am currently parking at the Fuji X system, that gives me not only perfect 24MP with great Fuji colors, but also a wildlife combo (XT2 with Fujinon 100-400 that translates to 150-600 in FF).

    But as soon as Leica would offer such a lens equivalent I would totally switch over to the SL and never look back!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Peter,

    I quite have to agree! Also for me the SL EVF is the far most advanced EVF even compared to the Fuji XT2, which is pretty good as well. The whole EVF experience has changed my photography so significantly that I almost cannot work (do no longer want to work) with OVFs, even the excellent one in my D810. Time will tell how long I will stay in the Nikon system, especially as there are nowadays more than one mirrorless alternatives offering already what I could cover with my Nikon system.

    Coming back to the SL, this is IMHO the best FF mirrorless currently available, especially if one owns a ton of M glass like I do. What made me so far stay out of this system is the missing lenses for wildlife, as I need something at least equivalent to the Nikkor 80-400 VR or even better some 150-600. This is the reason I am currently parking at the Fuji X system, that gives me not only perfect 24MP with great Fuji colors, but also a wildlife combo (XT2 with Fujinon 100-400 that translates to 150-600 in FF).

    But as soon as Leica would offer such a lens equivalent I would totally switch over to the SL and never look back!
    Hi Peter

    Yes there are 'native' lens gaps all over for the SL - especially in 300-600 range, however there is a plethora of great manual focus telephotos from Nikon and Canon that can mount for specialist photography as long as manual focus is preferred. Doug from Wildlife photography has posted his thoughts on the SL and bird photography - highly recommended reading. The Fuji is a great camera in that format. There never will be one camera for every possible shooting requirement. All that said - the Leica 90-280 is a fantastic lens - with one caveat and that is it is prone to flaring when pointed towards intense sunlight, like always one has to work within any limitations that the gear imposes.

    -Pete

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Hi Peter

    Yes there are 'native' lens gaps all over for the SL - especially in 300-600 range, however there is a plethora of great manual focus telephotos from Nikon and Canon that can mount for specialist photography as long as manual focus is preferred. Doug from Wildlife photography has posted his thoughts on the SL and bird photography - highly recommended reading. The Fuji is a great camera in that format. There never will be one camera for every possible shooting requirement. All that said - the Leica 90-280 is a fantastic lens - with one caveat and that is it is prone to flaring when pointed towards intense sunlight, like always one has to work within any limitations that the gear imposes.

    -Pete
    Novoflex has a Canon EF to Leica SL mount adapter that supports AF with most EF lenses. And, according to the latest Leica blog mail I received this morning, Novoflex will release a Nikon E to Leica SL mount adapter that supports Nikon E lenses, making lenses like the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR usable. If it follows the pattern of the Canon adapter, image stabilization won't be supported, but aperture control and autofocus should be.

    G
    Last edited by Godfrey; 14th September 2016 at 06:25.
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    For me, the Leica SL is the digital replacement for my Leica R system bodies. It allowed me to take 100% advantage of my existing lenses, both R and M. It's performance with these lenses is better than any other camera I've adapted them to, in every way.

    Beyond that, the SL is the right size and weight, has the right controls, and produces excellent image quality. It's shutter is very quiet and very smooth. It is built like a tank and should prove extremely durable. The viewfinder is excellent. It's economical on power and has the features I wanted in a top of the line system camera. It handles superbly, with plenty of space for my hands so that I can hold it very steadily.

    It realizes all that I have wanted in a 35mm format, digital systems camera, and at a price lower than I expected to pay for such a thing.

    G

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?



    I've "shut the gate" on optical viewfinders in 35mm format cameras. I made this snap with the SL and a tri Elmar at 16mm - f8 gives you the best edge to edge performance as far as sharpness goes. ISO 200. I can see everything I need to see without taking my eye away from the viewfinder with this camera - much like all EVF style cameras except brighter and with leica's in built profile for the lens. With some attention to highlights in PP the 'look' isn't that far from M9 /ccd sparkle - with the benefits of CMOS tech. SO like Godfrey has mentioned a second bonus ( for me) is I can use my M lenses even ultra wides - not too shabby really - tbh - much easier to use than an M for me.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    The SL sensor performs well at reasonably high ISO settings:


    Leica SL + Summicron-R 90mm f/2
    ISO 20000 @ f/4 @ 1/80

    full resolution:
    https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8440/2...075f6d85_o.jpg

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Hi Vivek. Good question.

    I am a longtime M-shooter, but for the last 10 years I allways also had a DSLR for Tele and faster things (kids/sports).
    The idea to buy the SL was to have a camera with Zoom, AF, with the advantage to use some of my M primes as well (who needs AF in a 21mm lens?).

    Compared to Canikon DSLRs the SL also has the advantage for me to have the same menue system and (nearly as) simple user interface like other Leica cameras.
    And the profiles and color tweaking is close to the other Leica cameras.

    In regards of color and overall IQ I prefer the SL over Nikon. Also both zooms are excellent, Very natural color. I also like the form factor of the SL. It would be nice if the lenses were somewhat smaller, but the 24-90 range is very flexible.
    The AF is very good, but C-AF not up to a pro-dslr IMO.
    I wish there would be smaller AF primes, I rather had a 50/2.0 than a monster big 50/1.4.
    (If I compare the M with 50 APO vs SL with 50/1.4 in regards of size...)

    In my house the biggest "enemy" of the SL is the T. I now use the T much more than the M and the SL.
    Its not as fast as the SL but mostly fast enough, and the size of the T system (specially the size of lenses is great for vacation and casual, specially if you compare the 50-135T vs the 90-280 SL lens)The T 35/1.4 is my favorite and offers great rendering.

    In the end I believe the SL makes mainly sense for people who want to use their R-primes or for people who want AF and Zoom but are ready lug around heavy lenses.(compared to M and T)

    I like the camera but I guess overall I am more a prime guy.
    And I am afraid the next primes for SL might be to big for my taste.
    So I am still not sure if I use the SL enough that I will own it forever.
    I do however prefer it over the Canikons I had.

    At the moment I feel I should use the M more often again and I am looking forward regarding the new T announcement.

    If all this sounds a bit undecided and confused, than it mirrors my opinion. Not a fault of the SL but of me owning too many systems.
    Last edited by Paratom; 15th September 2016 at 11:58.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Doug from Wildlife photography has posted his thoughts on the SL and bird photography - highly recommended reading.
    http://www.wildlightphoto.com/SL/index.html

    One additional advantage of the EVF is focus magnification when using T/S lenses (I've recently purchased a Canon FD 35mm TS). Adjustment of tilt is simple and precise. The SLR's optical viewfinder is history for me.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    http://www.wildlightphoto.com/SL/index.html

    One additional advantage of the EVF is focus magnification when using T/S lenses (I've recently purchased a Canon FD 35mm TS). Adjustment of tilt is simple and precise. The SLR's optical viewfinder is history for me.
    Doug,
    did you move to the SL?
    Tom

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    It looks like the rumor is that there four additional new SL lenses introduced at Photokina, along with the Summilux-SL 50mm that was announced with the SL introduction:

    http://leicarumors.com/2016/09/15/fi...one-zoom.aspx/

    Summicron-SL 35Mm
    Summilux-SL 50Mm
    APO-Summicron-SL 75Mm
    APL-Summicron-SL 90Mm
    Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35Mm

    If true, that constitutes four more reasons for the SL.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Doug,
    did you move to the SL?
    Tom
    I'm using the Sony a7II for the moment. There are lots of good reasons to use the SL instead but the things that stop me are the lack of a full-time viewfinder exposure preview mode option and the lack of a stabilized sensor. The initial cost is still somewhat an obstacle for me but less so than in the recent past.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    I'm using the Sony a7II for the moment. There are lots of good reasons to use the SL instead but the things that stop me are the lack of a full-time viewfinder exposure preview mode option and the lack of a stabilized sensor. The initial cost is still somewhat an obstacle for me but less so than in the recent past.
    Leica have gone the more conservative in lens stabilization route - and a point of difference for their lens line. Doug, I can't see you replacing Sony given your specific needs with long telephoto lenses you already have. Leica can fix the live view exposure issue- and they should - but they were always going to go in lens stabilisation.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    I'm not a fan of the sensor. Or the company. But I'd say the EVF is pretty compelling. It looks nice looking through the SL. The ergonomics are subjective but I like them. The lenses would be my main draw to the system. Though I have yet to use lenses that draw me to the system. So in theory it's the native SL lenses that would make the system worth it. Let's just hope that the new ones are a step above the basic T and TL lenses I've been using.. As none of them IMHO (T and even SL zooms for that matter) are worth the Leica badge.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    I'm not a fan of the sensor. Or the company. But I'd say the EVF is pretty compelling. It looks nice looking through the SL. The ergonomics are subjective but I like them. The lenses would be my main draw to the system. Though I have yet to use lenses that draw me to the system. So in theory it's the native SL lenses that would make the system worth it. Let's just hope that the new ones are a step above the basic T and TL lenses I've been using.. As none of them IMHO (T and even SL zooms for that matter) are worth the Leica badge.
    Wow, I find the 24-90 and 90-280 among the best Zooms I have used.

    Have you tried the 35/1.4TL? I use it on the T and find it to have that "special" look.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Leica have gone the more conservative in lens stabilization route - and a point of difference for their lens line. Doug, I can't see you replacing Sony given your specific needs with long telephoto lenses you already have. Leica can fix the live view exposure issue- and they should - but they were always going to go in lens stabilisation.
    Never say never... I'd consider the more 'conservative' approach to be not mucking with the optics and use sensor stabilization. 23 elements in 17 groups for the 90-280? What could possibly go wrong?

    Do you recall the pundits who said there'd never be adapters to use Hasselblad H or Contax 645 lenses on the SL? It wasn't until the second generation that Sony a7-series cameras got sensor stabilization. The SL (601) is a first-generation product.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Wow, I find the 24-90 and 90-280 among the best Zooms I have used.

    Have you tried the 35/1.4TL? I use it on the T and find it to have that "special" look.
    Wrote a long response.. The short answer is easier. I still have the 35TL, one of the things I'm having a hard time selling off (not because I like it, because nobody wants to buy T lenses until they see the new T2 camera).

    I don't think the rendering is special, but I do think the lens is pretty good considering the crop factor. But it's overpriced and the AF is to slow, even on the SL. So I'd rather use a 50Lux-asph and manual focus.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    The SL is a superb mirrorless camera that will take better pictures with your M lenses than non-Leica cameras such as Sony, at least at the edges at widest angles, and great pictures with the zooms that it offers. But at a price.

    The main current competitors are

    = the Sony (A7ii, A7rii) which offer a greater range of superb lenses (including from Zeiss), better tech (OBIS, 42mpix, eye focus, etc) and less weight in the body but a the Sonys offer a less engaging shooting experience than the SL (including the digital viewfinder) and a more weight to get from 24-280mm.

    = the forthcoming Hasselblad mirrorless, which has 50mpix, and lenses of comparable, or lower, prices to the SL. A specialty camera.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    Never say never... I'd consider the more 'conservative' approach to be not mucking with the optics and use sensor stabilization. 23 elements in 17 groups for the 90-280? What could possibly go wrong?

    Do you recall the pundits who said there'd never be adapters to use Hasselblad H or Contax 645 lenses on the SL? It wasn't until the second generation that Sony a7-series cameras got sensor stabilization. The SL (601) is a first-generation product.
    The dirty little secret or elephant in teh room as far as 35mm high megapixel counts go is that resolution soon finds out the flaws in autofocus. I want and need a camera which I can nail focus with fast galss - without sweating it. The SL delivers.

    Perfection in 35Mm body was the R9 and motordrive combo. All this fascination with miniaturization - only to be confronted with the reality of if you want fast quality glass and autofocus- lenses are fat and heavy. No way can I suffer a Nopctilux on a Sony body - it just doen't work. How about an Otus 55 or 85 - good luck trying to focus that on a CaNikon!

    I really wanted the Sony to be my system - but the body was too small and is too small for me to use and be happy doing so. Is the SL worth 2X the copst of a Sony A7r11? I think so given its better ergonomics and viewfinder. It was an easy decision for me to make selling off all my Nikon kit. Yes the zooms are complicated designs- but I can vouch for their stellar performance - compared to CaNikon offerings - the 90-280 is an outstanding lens- I can post hundreds of 'trite' snaps evidencing beautiful bokeh stunning sharpness all delivered hand held walking around. I wonder if a telconverter will ever appear? yes I am somewhat miffed about the variable aperture- but in real terms 280 @ F4 is fine.

    The announced 16-35 will round out the standard zoom range - but the real treat will be the primes. yes it is a first generation body. Give me live view histogram, let me configure the preview information I want - rather than having to scroll between 4 different views thanks and please 35megapixels in the next incarnation.

    It is a good first effort - fingers crossed I don't have the issues many S users have had with their lenses - so far so good. I am holding off totally exiting my M system - for now - but like the mirror box , I think the days of a rangefinder (for me) are now limited - and I suspect judging by teh fact that down here I am told 3/4 SL buyers are all long time M users- Leica is well aware of the need to offer something better.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    I'm not a fan of the sensor. Or the company. But I'd say the EVF is pretty compelling. It looks nice looking through the SL. The ergonomics are subjective but I like them. The lenses would be my main draw to the system. Though I have yet to use lenses that draw me to the system. So in theory it's the native SL lenses that would make the system worth it. Let's just hope that the new ones are a step above the basic T and TL lenses I've been using.. As none of them IMHO (T and even SL zooms for that matter) are worth the Leica badge.
    As a long time user of Leica lenses - I would have to disagree with that statement. Are you speaking of autofocus lenses- there are currently only two you can buy and both zooms are better than anything from Canikon- I know - because I've had to suffer using that stuff. Are you talking manual focus lenses via adaptor ( like all the M /R lenses) or the Zeiss manual focus optics in Milvus or Otus form ? - well the SL allows for a far better focusing experience than anything else out there- again I know because I use all that stuff. How about actually making a Noctilux no longer a lottery as far as focus goes - again the SL does that.

    What it doesn't do is provide an infinitely customizeable user interface - yet nor does it offer the 40 megapixel chip in the Sony - yet. People are focusing in Sony comparisons - but Leica had Nikon and Canon more in its sights - for now.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    The Hasselblad X1D will end up costing about the same as the Leica SL does and is not as versatile due to it being a lens-shutter camera. I'd love the big sensor and its high pixel count for other reasons anyway, but it's not a competitor to the SL being a different format and system notion. It does feel for all the world like a slightly rounder version of the Leica SL in the hand. A lovely camera.. Hopefully it will be shipping soon.

    The Sony A7 series is not at the same level on build quality, ergonomic design, or imaging performance with Leica R and M lenses. I've had both systems, and greatly prefer the Leica. When I had it, I tried several of the best Sony/Zeiss lenses and preferred the Leica R lenses to them. The all-up cost is not that different for me, since I already had the Leica R and M lenses and only bought the Leica SL24-90 in native mount for the SL. This lens outperforms anything I've seen in comparable focal length range/speed from Sony.

    This is why I have the SL: better design, better build, better imaging, tremendous versatility, and compatibility with all my present lenses, as well as any lenses I'll buy in the future.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    Wrote a long response.. The short answer is easier. I still have the 35TL, one of the things I'm having a hard time selling off (not because I like it, because nobody wants to buy T lenses until they see the new T2 camera).

    I don't think the rendering is special, but I do think the lens is pretty good considering the crop factor. But it's overpriced and the AF is to slow, even on the SL. So I'd rather use a 50Lux-asph and manual focus.
    I see. What do you plan to use after selling all the Leica equipment if I may ask?

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    As a long time user of Leica lenses - I would have to disagree with that statement. Are you speaking of autofocus lenses- there are currently only two you can buy and both zooms are better than anything from Canikon- I know - because I've had to suffer using that stuff. Are you talking manual focus lenses via adaptor ( like all the M /R lenses) or the Zeiss manual focus optics in Milvus or Otus form ? - well the SL allows for a far better focusing experience than anything else out there- again I know because I use all that stuff. How about actually making a Noctilux no longer a lottery as far as focus goes - again the SL does that.

    What it doesn't do is provide an infinitely customizeable user interface - yet nor does it offer the 40 megapixel chip in the Sony - yet. People are focusing in Sony comparisons - but Leica had Nikon and Canon more in its sights - for now.




    I thought I made it clear when I said zooms and TL lenses.
    You can disagree all you want. It's your choice. But as it stands right now, Leica needs to make lenses that bring people back into the fold. Because I haven't seen good lenses with interesting rendering from Leica since R and M. Heck I haven't seen good rendering from any brand lately.

    Nothing about the SL other then ergonomics makes me want to pick it over a Canon or Nikon or Sony.. And especially not over an M.
    I mean, the SL lenses aren't bad, but they're nothing special. Either are the T lenses.

    Why not just use your M if you're going to shoot M glass? M glass works better on an M and rangefinder focusing should be easier then EVF focusing if you've been an M user long enough. I mean heck, a lot of people on here claim to be in bed with Leica for decades, but then cannot focus a rangefinder better then an EVF? I can focus my RF faster then the T lenses can AF.

    I just don't get it. Until Leica produces some amazing glass, with great characteristics I'm not interested. And no the T lenses aren't great, they're basic with basic characteristics. Fuji has better glass then Leica T hands down.

    As for the S-system. The lenses are good on the S-system.. The rendering of the S lenses works well with the larger sensor and the distance to subject benefits of the S. But once mounted on the SL, most of the S lenses loose a lot of that charm IMHO. And frankly AF is poor at best when mounted on the SL. Nothing aside from static subject shooting is feasible. Might as well just MF the lenses, in which case that can be done on any system with a dummy adapter (I made a dummy adapter that I was using on the SL for months before the SL adapter hit the market.)

    What I'd love to see out of this new glass... M or R like rendering. Rather then Leica buying into the hype and producing lenses that look like Sigma Art series rendering just so you can win over DXO scores.


    I'm Just gonna have to wait and see if the rendering is what I like. But with the insane pricing that you see in HK. I'll not be able to sell my SL+Zoom for any reasonable price anyway. So I'm in no hurry to sell the setup now, just going to keep it until a few more SL lenses have come out then reevaluate.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    I see. What do you plan to use after selling all the Leica equipment if I may ask?
    For the time being the XT-2 + Fuji lenses.. Great little setup, and I'm seeing less and less of a reason to stick with Leica these days. And to fulfil my Leica needs I'll probably buy another M9P or M240P and keep the 50Lux as a one lens solution for the times when I feel like using a rangefinder camera (just because I like rangefinders). And then my attachment to Leica will be minimal until their CS/repairs improve and their lens lineup sparks interest in the brand for me again.

    Will keep on eye on future developments from Fuji with their medium format camera. And other makers like Hassy etc. because with the sale of all my Leica gear, I have tons of options open to me now.

    And let's be honest, nobody really makes a bad camera these days.. And it seems that Leica isn't even making their own lenses now in the sense that these designs are being developed by Panasonic for the most part. What is Karbe doing.. Sipping Mai Tais on a beach somewhere?

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    For the time being the XT-2 + Fuji lenses.. Great little setup, and I'm seeing less and less of a reason to stick with Leica these days. And to fulfil my Leica needs I'll probably buy another M9P or M240P and keep the 50Lux as a one lens solution for the times when I feel like using a rangefinder camera (just because I like rangefinders). And then my attachment to Leica will be minimal until their CS/repairs improve and their lens lineup sparks interest in the brand for me again.

    Will keep on eye on future developments from Fuji with their medium format camera. And other makers like Hassy etc. because with the sale of all my Leica gear, I have tons of options open to me now.

    And let's be honest, nobody really makes a bad camera these days.. And it seems that Leica isn't even making their own lenses now in the sense that these designs are being developed by Panasonic for the most part. What is Karbe doing.. Sipping Mai Tais on a beach somewhere?

    wow, I was guessing you move to the Hassy x1, but I am surprised that you move to Fuji. Not because I think Fuji was a bad system (I think its excellent and as you say today many brands offer great systems), but because I really wonder if you find the special "mojo" you miss in the newer Leica lenses in the Fuji.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    I thought I made it clear when I said zooms and TL lenses.
    You can disagree all you want. It's your choice. But as it stands right now, Leica needs to make lenses that bring people back into the fold. Because I haven't seen good lenses with interesting rendering from Leica since R and M. Heck I haven't seen good rendering from any brand lately.

    Nothing about the SL other then ergonomics makes me want to pick it over a Canon or Nikon or Sony.. And especially not over an M.
    I mean, the SL lenses aren't bad, but they're nothing special. Either are the T lenses.

    Why not just use your M if you're going to shoot M glass? M glass works better on an M and rangefinder focusing should be easier then EVF focusing if you've been an M user long enough. I mean heck, a lot of people on here claim to be in bed with Leica for decades, but then cannot focus a rangefinder better then an EVF? I can focus my RF faster then the T lenses can AF.

    I just don't get it. Until Leica produces some amazing glass, with great characteristics I'm not interested. And no the T lenses aren't great, they're basic with basic characteristics. Fuji has better glass then Leica T hands down.

    As for the S-system. The lenses are good on the S-system.. The rendering of the S lenses works well with the larger sensor and the distance to subject benefits of the S. But once mounted on the SL, most of the S lenses loose a lot of that charm IMHO. And frankly AF is poor at best when mounted on the SL. Nothing aside from static subject shooting is feasible. Might as well just MF the lenses, in which case that can be done on any system with a dummy adapter (I made a dummy adapter that I was using on the SL for months before the SL adapter hit the market.)

    What I'd love to see out of this new glass... M or R like rendering. Rather then Leica buying into the hype and producing lenses that look like Sigma Art series rendering just so you can win over DXO scores.


    I'm Just gonna have to wait and see if the rendering is what I like. But with the insane pricing that you see in HK. I'll not be able to sell my SL+Zoom for any reasonable price anyway. So I'm in no hurry to sell the setup now, just going to keep it until a few more SL lenses have come out then reevaluate.
    I guess the obvious question to ask if I were in your position of unhappiness - is why buy the camera in the first place? I took a year to decide whether I wanted to use this camera. I dont understand disagreements about cameras - people choose what they like and shoot with what they like.

    Leica has delivered an fantastic lens mounting system for M and R glass as well as a future line of autofocus 35mm primes - already announced. One either likes the system its architecture and the easy access to a huge range of optics it provides ( already) or one doesn't. Clearly you don't which is fine, making mistakes in camera choices is all part of the journey - no system suits all people.

    Perhaps you should cut your losses now and move back to Sony/Nikon or whatever gives you more pleasure, utility and fun?

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    aDam007,

    So why did you buy the SL in the first place? That's what this thread should be exploring.

    G

  29. #29
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    I would not presume to speak for Adam but following his blog and posts for a significant amount of time I wish
    to speak on his behalf.

    He was one of the strongest supporters of the S system and had wonderful compelling pictures with the
    camera and lenses ... SL and M in addition to the S.

    Then Leica ... don't live in the Fatherland don't expect much support seemed to raise its ugly head and
    with a dealer who seemed to shirk any responsibility for support he essentially got the Leica shaft.

    Months without feedback and then the ultimate blow ... response that you should feel lucky that you have
    our most exclusively wonderful yet defective lens ... best in the world and when we deign it necessary we just might address your issues.

    Nothing is more constraining than a wounded spirit or ego ... we end up making decisions that may be less than
    rational.

    Leica lenses and occasionally their cameras are stellar ... but with all the management upheaval a number of devotees
    have been throw to the curb ... I assume that Adam is still nursing a number of existential bruises .... and may
    not wish to pay homage to the Leica Clique that currently is mis managing the store.

    Shame as he is a gifted photographer ... but one can only take so much abuse before he needs to clear the area.

    I have parted ways with the S and M as you have Peter .... the Q confounds my low estimation of the hive mentality at
    Leica ... as I assume the SL has for you.

    Truth is any modern camera system can afford a decent image ... you just have to work at some harder than others.

    And with corrosion and lens issues Leica needs to manage its store and reputation a bit better than it has ... for all of
    us not in the EU .... professional or not no one will genuflect to a hierarchy that is above approach/rapproach.

    And Adam ... we get it ... but the negative bias is getting a bit long in the tooth.

    Wish Leica was more like the Apple store ... everyone goes home happy.

    Sorry for the run-on ....

    Regards and my utmost respect to both PeterA and Adam...

    Bob
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    I thought I made it clear when I said zooms and TL lenses.
    You can disagree all you want
    .......
    Why not just use your M if you're going to shoot M glass? M glass works better on an M and rangefinder focusing should be easier then EVF focusing if you've been an M user long enough. I mean heck, a lot of people on here claim to be in bed with Leica for decades, but then cannot focus a rangefinder better then an EVF? I can focus my RF faster then the T lenses can AF.

    I just don't get it. Until Leica produces some amazing glass, with great characteristics I'm not interested. And no the T lenses aren't great, they're basic with basic characteristics. Fuji has better glass then Leica T hands down.

    As for the S-system. The lenses are good on the S-system.. The rendering of the S lenses works well with the larger sensor and the distance to subject benefits of the S. But once mounted on the SL, most of the S lenses loose a lot of that charm IMHO. And frankly AF is poor at best when mounted on the SL. Nothing aside from static subject shooting is feasible. Might as well just MF the lenses, in which case that can be done on any system with a dummy adapter (I made a dummy adapter that I was using on the SL for months before the SL adapter hit the market.)

    What I'd love to see out of this new glass... M or R like rendering. Rather then Leica buying into the hype and producing lenses that look like Sigma Art series rendering just so you can win over DXO scores.


    I'm Just gonna have to wait and see if the rendering is what I like. But with the insane pricing that you see in HK. I'll not be able to sell my SL+Zoom for any reasonable price anyway. So I'm in no hurry to sell the setup now, just going to keep it until a few more SL lenses have come out then reevaluate.
    Hi,
    agree about your statement about using M glass on the M. At least for 35 and 50mm lenses. For longer glass it is different.

    I have been usinging rangefinder for over 20 years, some years a M6 was my only camera. I did however experience focus inaccurancies again and again when using rangefinder. Some lenses have gone to calibration 3 times. Thats one of the reasons why I also decided to use Summicrons and slower lenses mainly (except my 35FLE for low light).

    I also agree on your last sentence. But I believe thats a problem of customer request. Today winning testchart competitions and pixel peeping awards seems to have become a very important buyer decision factor. Also technology allows to produce lenses on a high level and a very "neutral" rendering. But those "perfect neutral" lenses without faults maybe dont show the "character" which gives the special thing to an image.

    I have been close to buy one or 2 of the "Mayer Görlitz" re-incarnations of older lens designs for that reason. Maybe overpriced but probablyfun to experiment with.

    Still i prefer a sharp lens with good bokeh without character (T-Zooms) over a mushy lens without caracter.

    We still dont agree on the 35TL but I guess we dont have to agree on everything.

    One word about the SL: If you criticize the modern lens designs having lost chracter, would be the SL a good way for you to be able to use all kinds of new and also older lenses from all kinds of brands?

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    I understand: Adam has some issues with Leica due to some negative experiences with the equipment and/or the service. So he's pissed off at them.

    There's no way to say this that doesn't come off sounding like a put-down, although that's not the intent: I see no reason why this should incite persistent claims that the lenses aren't so special. I mean, if you bought the equipment because the imaging qualities were wonderful, or you expected them to be wonderful, just because you had some bad experiences with the equipment or the company doesn't mean that those qualities changed. It's not good to get so emotionally involved and lose your objectivity.

    I had a similar experience with Land Rover. My 2003 Freelander was a delightful piece of machinery, it performed as I expected most of the time. But it turned out to eat brake pads, had a transmission that I usually had to take manual control of to get it to shift reasonably, and service costs were out of sight. So while I enjoyed it and it met what I was looking for at the time, I'd never recommend it to others without informing them of my experiences in using it.

    That's what I mean about addressing the question, "why did you choose the SL in the first place?" How well it met those expectations and notions is the follow up to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    ..
    One word about the SL: If you criticize the modern lens designs having lost chracter, would be the SL a good way for you to be able to use all kinds of new and also older lenses from all kinds of brands?
    Exactly. If I want the technically most neutral and accurate rendering, I use the SL24-90. If I want a more classic, "characterful" imaging look (that is, one full of aberrations and technical problems that somehow aesthetically work together in a pleasing way), I fit my R and M lenses. It is this versatility that appeals to me strongly.

    (R lenses are more ergonomic on the SL and handle better. While I can (and have) used my M lenses on the SL, I find I usually switch to the R lens instead.)

    G

  32. #32
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    12,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    40

    Re: Why the SL?

    It appears that the SL is good enough for a NASA project.

    Perhaps some of you might have seen the report.

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,592
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    The US government continually makes bad buying decisions.

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    12,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    40

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    The US government continually makes bad buying decisions.
    Lou, This has nothing to do with a US govt. purchase. The project was done by students from a Puerto Rican university in collaboration with Leica.

    Sure, the SL payload was put on NASA rocket (most likely the ride was free).

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    I guess the obvious question to ask if I were in your position of unhappiness - is why buy the camera in the first place? I took a year to decide whether I wanted to use this camera. I dont understand disagreements about cameras - people choose what they like and shoot with what they like.

    Leica has delivered an fantastic lens mounting system for M and R glass as well as a future line of autofocus 35mm primes - already announced. One either likes the system its architecture and the easy access to a huge range of optics it provides ( already) or one doesn't. Clearly you don't which is fine, making mistakes in camera choices is all part of the journey - no system suits all people.

    Perhaps you should cut your losses now and move back to Sony/Nikon or whatever gives you more pleasure, utility and fun?
    Peter, I am not Adam but if I understand right it was not a problem of wrong decision but a problem of bad service from Leica. I understand his frustration in this regard and if I had such bad experience with service my reaction might be similar.

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,270
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Peter, I am not Adam but if I understand right it was not a problem of wrong decision but a problem of bad service from Leica. I understand his frustration in this regard and if I had such bad experience with service my reaction might be similar.
    Hi Paratom - yes there seems to be a lot of unhappy Leica S users out there - because of lens focus mechanism failure. Very poor quality control / parts sourcing from Leica - I too would be upset, hopefully Leica fix this issue for all owners- just as they have fixed the issue of corrosion in M9/MM chips.

    However the negatives associated with the S system ( be what they may be for those who have experienced them) won't affect my view on the SL, a view which was formulated after careful testing over a year - before I bought into it. I no longer have a need for the M rangefinder apart from happy snaps and nostalgia - the rangefinder has found its focus limitations with the advent of 24 megapixel chips. if I want or need dead on accurate focus with 50mm and upwards lenses - they get put on the SL. The M (of course) still delivers better edge to edge performance in M wides - because the chip was designed to cater better for light fall off from M wides.

    Which leads to the question - is a Zeiss Milvus 15/18 2.8 ( just announced) a better proposition than the superb Elmars or WATE on the SL ? IS the Otus 55 and 85 ( or Milvus 85 ) a better proposition than the M50 lux/ Nocti or 75 cron? Is the Milvus 100 planar better than than the 90AA on an SL?

    I suspect the answer (from a purely technical point of view) is yes.

    I am not convinced about the 'merits' of autofocus primes coming from Leica. The cost / performance differential between Leica and Zeiss in Nikon mount is extravagant. However all these opinions are personal. Everyone shoots differently.

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Hi Paratom - yes there seems to be a lot of unhappy Leica S users out there - because of lens focus mechanism failure. Very poor quality control / parts sourcing from Leica - I too would be upset, hopefully Leica fix this issue for all owners- just as they have fixed the issue of corrosion in M9/MM chips.

    However the negatives associated with the S system ( be what they may be for those who have experienced them) won't affect my view on the SL, a view which was formulated after careful testing over a year - before I bought into it. I no longer have a need for the M rangefinder apart from happy snaps and nostalgia - the rangefinder has found its focus limitations with the advent of 24 megapixel chips. if I want or need dead on accurate focus with 50mm and upwards lenses - they get put on the SL. The M (of course) still delivers better edge to edge performance in M wides - because the chip was designed to cater better for light fall off from M wides.

    Which leads to the question - is a Zeiss Milvus 15/18 2.8 ( just announced) a better proposition than the superb Elmars or WATE on the SL ? IS the Otus 55 and 85 ( or Milvus 85 ) a better proposition than the M50 lux/ Nocti or 75 cron? Is the Milvus 100 planar better than than the 90AA on an SL?

    I suspect the answer (from a purely technical point of view) is yes.

    I am not convinced about the 'merits' of autofocus primes coming from Leica. The cost / performance differential between Leica and Zeiss in Nikon mount is extravagant. However all these opinions are personal. Everyone shoots differently.
    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
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    I guess the obvious question to ask if I were in your position of unhappiness - is why buy the camera in the first place? I took a year to decide whether I wanted to use this camera. I dont understand disagreements about cameras - people choose what they like and shoot with what they like.

    Leica has delivered an fantastic lens mounting system for M and R glass as well as a future line of autofocus 35mm primes - already announced. One either likes the system its architecture and the easy access to a huge range of optics it provides ( already) or one doesn't. Clearly you don't which is fine, making mistakes in camera choices is all part of the journey - no system suits all people.

    Perhaps you should cut your losses now and move back to Sony/Nikon or whatever gives you more pleasure, utility and fun?

    Leica M gives me the most pleasure, utility and fun. But I grew tired of shooting weddings with it. It gets tiring after a while. For corporate work the S-system is sufficient, and for travel/corporate travel the M can S will do what I need.
    The S-006 would give me a lot of pleasure, utility and fun as well if it didn't break on me all the time. 120% failure rate on lenses, YAY!

    As for the SL, to be honest I was told that they had fixed the pricing issues in HK (basically HK sells things for way lower then MSRP). And that the SL+Zoom would have a static price worldwide save for a few hundred $$ here and there for exchange rate fluxes and taxes. I took Leicas word on this (not the word of a sales man mind you, the word of a higher up). I bought the SL thinking I could sell it if it wasn't my cup of tea.. AS I was already hesitant to buy the zoom due to the fact that I'm not a zooms guy. And I actually ordered it sight unseen as I was away working on an assignment for 3 months. Turns out by the time I get the camera, it's $5,000 cheaper from my HK dealer. I was pretty annoyed but the price kept dropping and the SL sensor really didn't do it for me. I'm just not a fan of the colors and the way it renders at higher ISOs. And I'm pretty pissed off with Leica for lying to me.

    Anyway, bottom line at this point if I sell it, it's an $8,000 minimum loss for a camera I rarely used. And all because I was lied to by Leica. So I'd rather just keep the camera and see how the 50Lux works out for me. Worse case scenario I sell it all cheap lesson learned. In fact I've already sold off most of my M lens kit, and most of my S lens kit. And some M bodies and S bodies.. I've minimised my Leica set to almost bare minimum for joy. And well under minimum work requirements (I'm now using back to using Nikon for work while I test Fuji extensively).


    To be honest, Sony delivered that mounting system. We just get caught up with the Leica branding and fail to see it. Sure the A7II EVF isn't as good in low light, and it's not ergonomically fantastic. But with the filter stack mod, the A7II and the SL are almost identical colour wise and IQ wise. The edges aren't there yet, but Leica is already moving away from lens designs where a thin filter stack is an advantage. Which suggests that ultimately Leica is moving away from thin filter stacks themselves. BTW I've run the tests as I had both cameras and two sets of the 50APO lens. So I was able to shoot side by side in an organically instant fashion. It was shocking how identical they were with regards to colour.


    Look at the end of the day, if you like the SL and the colours and the lenses... GREAT. I just don't.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    wow, I was guessing you move to the Hassy x1, but I am surprised that you move to Fuji. Not because I think Fuji was a bad system (I think its excellent and as you say today many brands offer great systems), but because I really wonder if you find the special "mojo" you miss in the newer Leica lenses in the Fuji.

    Not the same "mojo" but they have their own interesting quirks which put them above some of the newer lens offerings from other brands. And right now I'm really not sure what I'll end up with. I have the funds to pickup most anything now that my Leica gear has been for the most part sold off. So I might consider the new Fuji MFD if the lenses render in a pleasing way. The X1D doesn't have fast enough lenses for my preferences. That and no adaptability since it doesn't have a shutter and relies on the LS in the lenses.

    To be completely honest, I'll probably end up buying back an M240-P and keeping the 50Lux-ASPH (even though the mid zone dip is a PITA). Selling the M246 and the remaining lenses 35FLE, 50APO, 75APO just because I want minimal involvement with Leica. And again if the 50Lux-SL performs I'll just keep the SL for use with it. And will use it when I'm sick of RF focusing, or when I'm on vacation and don't mind the added weight for the convenience of AF. BUT I have a feeling the 50Lux-SL won't be to my liking and I'll just end up selling the system off cheap and reverting back to the little M one lens kit.

    And although the T+35 is a fair option.. I'm worried that A) I won't like the new T2 sensor and B) I don't really see an advantage over the Fuji System other then the fact that the T2 will probably look cooler and will have that Luxury (I make a lot of money) Red Dot, that to be honest I end up putting tape over anyway.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    I would not presume to speak for Adam but following his blog and posts for a significant amount of time I wish
    to speak on his behalf.

    He was one of the strongest supporters of the S system and had wonderful compelling pictures with the
    camera and lenses ... SL and M in addition to the S.

    Then Leica ... don't live in the Fatherland don't expect much support seemed to raise its ugly head and
    with a dealer who seemed to shirk any responsibility for support he essentially got the Leica shaft.

    Months without feedback and then the ultimate blow ... response that you should feel lucky that you have
    our most exclusively wonderful yet defective lens ... best in the world and when we deign it necessary we just might address your issues.

    Nothing is more constraining than a wounded spirit or ego ... we end up making decisions that may be less than
    rational.

    Leica lenses and occasionally their cameras are stellar ... but with all the management upheaval a number of devotees
    have been throw to the curb ... I assume that Adam is still nursing a number of existential bruises .... and may
    not wish to pay homage to the Leica Clique that currently is mis managing the store.

    Shame as he is a gifted photographer ... but one can only take so much abuse before he needs to clear the area.

    I have parted ways with the S and M as you have Peter .... the Q confounds my low estimation of the hive mentality at
    Leica ... as I assume the SL has for you.

    Truth is any modern camera system can afford a decent image ... you just have to work at some harder than others.

    And with corrosion and lens issues Leica needs to manage its store and reputation a bit better than it has ... for all of
    us not in the EU .... professional or not no one will genuflect to a hierarchy that is above approach/rapproach.

    And Adam ... we get it ... but the negative bias is getting a bit long in the tooth.

    Wish Leica was more like the Apple store ... everyone goes home happy.

    Sorry for the run-on ....

    Regards and my utmost respect to both PeterA and Adam...

    Bob

    You said it better then I did. And yes, I'm pretty much done with Leica and Leica bashing. Sometime I get caught up... Thanks for the reminder that I should just move on and enjoy my photography again!
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Hi,
    agree about your statement about using M glass on the M. At least for 35 and 50mm lenses. For longer glass it is different.

    I have been usinging rangefinder for over 20 years, some years a M6 was my only camera. I did however experience focus inaccurancies again and again when using rangefinder. Some lenses have gone to calibration 3 times. Thats one of the reasons why I also decided to use Summicrons and slower lenses mainly (except my 35FLE for low light).

    I also agree on your last sentence. But I believe thats a problem of customer request. Today winning testchart competitions and pixel peeping awards seems to have become a very important buyer decision factor. Also technology allows to produce lenses on a high level and a very "neutral" rendering. But those "perfect neutral" lenses without faults maybe dont show the "character" which gives the special thing to an image.

    I have been close to buy one or 2 of the "Mayer Görlitz" re-incarnations of older lens designs for that reason. Maybe overpriced but probablyfun to experiment with.

    Still i prefer a sharp lens with good bokeh without character (T-Zooms) over a mushy lens without caracter.

    We still dont agree on the 35TL but I guess we dont have to agree on everything.

    One word about the SL: If you criticize the modern lens designs having lost chracter, would be the SL a good way for you to be able to use all kinds of new and also older lenses from all kinds of brands?

    I'm still happy with the M. And calibration issues are fine if they're fixed in a timely manner. Since honestly I understand the limitations of RF technology. Which is why I always had 3 M camera bodies on a job, with one sitting at home. And two of every lens that I NEEDED to do said job (mainly 35/50/75).

    I am not a fan of the SL colors and IQ. Else I wouldn't mind using it with R lenses. Call me a dinosaur (even though I'm still quite young) but I'm more a fan of the R lenses on the D700

    That and I honestly still love RF focusing/shooting.

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I understand: Adam has some issues with Leica due to some negative experiences with the equipment and/or the service. So he's pissed off at them.

    There's no way to say this that doesn't come off sounding like a put-down, although that's not the intent: I see no reason why this should incite persistent claims that the lenses aren't so special. I mean, if you bought the equipment because the imaging qualities were wonderful, or you expected them to be wonderful, just because you had some bad experiences with the equipment or the company doesn't mean that those qualities changed. It's not good to get so emotionally involved and lose your objectivity.

    I had a similar experience with Land Rover. My 2003 Freelander was a delightful piece of machinery, it performed as I expected most of the time. But it turned out to eat brake pads, had a transmission that I usually had to take manual control of to get it to shift reasonably, and service costs were out of sight. So while I enjoyed it and it met what I was looking for at the time, I'd never recommend it to others without informing them of my experiences in using it.

    That's what I mean about addressing the question, "why did you choose the SL in the first place?" How well it met those expectations and notions is the follow up to that.



    Exactly. If I want the technically most neutral and accurate rendering, I use the SL24-90. If I want a more classic, "characterful" imaging look (that is, one full of aberrations and technical problems that somehow aesthetically work together in a pleasing way), I fit my R and M lenses. It is this versatility that appeals to me strongly.

    (R lenses are more ergonomic on the SL and handle better. While I can (and have) used my M lenses on the SL, I find I usually switch to the R lens instead.)

    G

    But wait... I'm not saying the SL is bad because I'm angry with Leica.. If that were the case I'd bash the M240 and M glass wouldn't I?

    I'm saying that the SL sensor is crap, with crap colors. And the 24-90 zoom isn't special at all. The rendering is pretty terrible and the colors from that lens are equally as bad. Makes for a bad system IMHO.

    Maybe you expect and need different things from Leica then I do.. But they're not providing me with what I would expect from Leica. I wouldn't even have cared if I paid twice as much as everybody on this forum. If the system was what I wanted, I would own two, heck three bodies no issues. It's just not what I want.

    Maybe most of this is firmware, maybe it's getting fixed like the M240 got fixed (though I didn't have many issues with the M240 early on, I can concede that they did adjust it positively).


    AND I've also mentioned many times that I am waiting to see how the 50 Lux pans out. EVEN with all my problems with Leica corporate I'd still be willing to give the 50Lux a chance.

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    612
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    You know.. I'm starting to think that either you all are crazy. Or I have a defective SL.
    I'd send it in if I knew Leica would actually look at it

    Anyway, that was the last thing I'm going to say about Leica until I have a 50Lux-SL in hand. Happy shooting everyone!

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,573
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    I'm still happy with the M. And calibration issues are fine if they're fixed in a timely manner. Since honestly I understand the limitations of RF technology. Which is why I always had 3 M camera bodies on a job, with one sitting at home. And two of every lens that I NEEDED to do said job (mainly 35/50/75).

    I am not a fan of the SL colors and IQ. Else I wouldn't mind using it with R lenses. Call me a dinosaur (even though I'm still quite young) but I'm more a fan of the R lenses on the D700

    That and I honestly still love RF focusing/shooting.
    I am not unhappy with SL color but I never understood why people say the M sensor to be outdated and so much worse than the Q and SL sensor. Indeed I prefer the M 240 color over the SL color as well.
    And like you I also still like RF + primes.

    For my taste the 50/1.4 SL lens is too big and expensive by the way, so for now I think I will skip it.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    You know.. I'm starting to think that either you all are crazy. Or I have a defective SL.
    I'd send it in if I knew Leica would actually look at it

    Anyway, that was the last thing I'm going to say about Leica until I have a 50Lux-SL in hand. Happy shooting everyone!
    Don't know Adam ... I wonder if it is a Northern Latitude blue light thing ... I took a Q to Scotland and was gobsmacked at how good
    the color rendition was ... plus great sharpness and contrast.

    I ended up dialing up saturation and clarity to a level I have never ever done before as it just seems to work.

    Bear in mind I was not shooting portraits but the camera lens and sensor seemed stellar. And they say it is similar of analogous to that of
    the SL.

    I love the EVF in the SL but you might as well carry MF due to its size ... and the AF lenses rival the S lenses for weight and size.

    Give me a interchangeable lens Q with the new EVF and I will sell everything else.

    Fuji seems to get color science correct for the most part ... probably all those years tailoring their emulsions for pros. Just too many little
    things like small sensor X-Trans RAW developing for me.

    Everyone has a differing sensitivity to color and some are much more acutely aware of subtle shifts ... I assume that you have either the
    good fortune or the bad fortune to fall into that category ... great for work but makes choices difficult if things are not spot on.

    I am hoping that the small X1D will have the packability of a travel camera and maintain decent color and usability. If not I may
    settle for a M-D or MM1.

    So many choices appear on a near distant horizon ... nothing at present is clear enough to decide.

    Bob
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,532
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by aDam007 View Post
    But wait... I'm not saying the SL is bad because I'm angry with Leica.. If that were the case I'd bash the M240 and M glass wouldn't I?

    I'm saying that the SL sensor is crap, with crap colors. And the 24-90 zoom isn't special at all. The rendering is pretty terrible and the colors from that lens are equally as bad. Makes for a bad system IMHO.

    Maybe you expect and need different things from Leica then I do.. But they're not providing me with what I would expect from Leica. I wouldn't even have cared if I paid twice as much as everybody on this forum. If the system was what I wanted, I would own two, heck three bodies no issues. It's just not what I want.

    Maybe most of this is firmware, maybe it's getting fixed like the M240 got fixed (though I didn't have many issues with the M240 early on, I can concede that they did adjust it positively).

    AND I've also mentioned many times that I am waiting to see how the 50 Lux pans out. EVEN with all my problems with Leica corporate I'd still be willing to give the 50Lux a chance.
    You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't match my experience at all. The SL and its native zoom make the Sony look like crap as far as I'm concerned, and the Sony is built like crap too, in comparison ... if you want to use such language. I don't normally. I think the Sony is a decent piece, but lacking in many ways that are important to me. Most important to me is how it works with my R system lenses ... they're much more valuable than an individual camera body, no matter what body you're talking about. I have not had a single problem with the in-camera JPEG colors, or with the raw files after processing them to my whim.

    BTW: I have no idea why someone would ask someone in Leica corporate what independent vendors in Hong Kong are going to do regards pricing and selling equipment. Leica can't control that at all. Even if Leica refuses to sell gear to them, they'll get it some other way and there's no legal way to change that.

    by Paratom: ... I am not unhappy with SL color but I never understood why people say the M sensor to be outdated and so much worse than the Q and SL sensor. ...
    I agree with you on the sensor quality. The SL picks up a stop, maybe a little more, on sensitivity but isn't all that different otherwise. Both out-perform the A7 by a good bit with my lenses, which is why I ditched the A7 after I got the M-P; the SL and now the M-D continue that nicely.

    G

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,592
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    Don't know Adam ... I wonder if it is a Northern Latitude blue light thing ... I took a Q to Scotland and was gobsmacked at how good
    the color rendition was ... plus great sharpness and contrast.

    I ended up dialing up saturation and clarity to a level I have never ever done before as it just seems to work.

    Bear in mind I was not shooting portraits but the camera lens and sensor seemed stellar.Bob
    Such a shame another was not announced at Photokina instead of a toy polaroid. Like you the Q has been stellar.

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...louis-foubare/

  48. #48
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    12,724
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    40

    Re: Why the SL?

    It is not a toy. It is hip. I like the way it looks.

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,592
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    I buy cameras as tools and for me there is no utility in a hip toy which gives postage stamp sized prints.

  50. #50
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why the SL?

    Yes quite hip ...

    I will buy one for my daughter ... perhaps I will seem a bit more with it ... probably not.

    Mint I think.

    Bob

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    I buy cameras as tools and for me there is no utility in a hip toy which gives postage stamp sized prints.
    Stocking stuffer ... beats another lame tie.

    Bob

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •