The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica SL (601) ..Oct 20th?

algrove

Well-known member
If Leica was after a Sony alternative, they would simply make a version of the Q with interchangeable lens, sell it cheaper than the Q (since there would be no lens in the equation) and then none would complain about size or bulk or price... But obviously they had different in mind... a real pro product! After all they can offer the interchangeable lens Q anytime they want in the future in much the same mount...
I'm confused. So Leica has touted the S system as a Pro system for years with not high success especially in the last year where few S006 sales occurred while S users awaited the S007.

So now they believe that Pros will now flock to this system? I can see it as a backup to an S especially where a photographer has many S lenses.

Agree that the T lens line is tapped out for now, but that could be revived with the introduction of an ILC AF Q system.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
I'm confused. So Leica has touted the S system as a Pro system for years with not high success especially in the last year where few S006 sales occurred while S users awaited the S007.

So now they believe that Pros will now flock to this system? I can see it as a backup to an S especially where a photographer has many S lenses.

Agree that the T lens line is tapped out for now, but that could be revived with the introduction of an ILC AF Q system.
It's not only an S body back-up, it also is an alternative for low light to the CCD "S", an MFDB for Sinars (with the same S lenses and full communication interface) and an excellent motion video camera (that can be combined with a Sinar View camera for demanding video applications) additional to the system... all done with the same lenses and some more that are forgotten in the back closet... it's a pro cross-platform for in-family pro users that can now add professional tasks and apply on to those (impossible up to now) tasks their existing lenses... All using in-family equipment... genius marketing move... just think how much money a P-1 MF camera user needs to perform the same tasks an S-user and 3-5 lenses can do by just adding this and a Sinar camera to his system... If the P1 user uses his back on a view camera, he needs the camera and 3-4 different lenses than the ones he owns and still what he owns is incompatible with high quality motion video...

EDIT: IMO, it's not the additional sales that this body will do... It's more that S-sales will (at least) double (getting sales from competition) because this body exists...
 
Last edited:

Ken_R

New member
If Leica was after a Sony alternative, they would simply make a version of the Q with interchangeable lens, sell it cheaper than the Q (since there would be no lens in the equation) and then none would complain about size or bulk or price... But obviously they had different in mind... a real pro product! After all they can offer the interchangeable lens Q anytime they want in the future in much the same mount...
That would have been wise. I would have bought one in a heartbeat.

The SL, looks a bit odd. Guess one has to use it to appreciate what it offers but on paper it's a hard sell.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
That would have been wise. I would have bought one in a heartbeat.

The SL, looks a bit odd. Guess one has to use it to appreciate what it offers but on paper it's a hard sell.
Don't worry... the customers that Leica aims for have it already in their plans! ;) The rest will have to wait for an interchangeable lens Q... It's Leica that gives the priority in which customers to serve first! :)
 

Pelorus

Member
Fascinating read so far. Here's another perspective.

I'm a long time Leica M (film) user, as well as Hassy - 503CX and SWC/M. I recently made a decision to shift to digital (never one to do things fast) and chose an Alpa with a Leaf Aptus II 7 back.

My wife is a completely non-technical photographer with a great eye. She's used all the cameras I have as well as a variety of P&S.

Last weekend I was sent on a scouting expedition to generate options for a new camera for her. Selection criteria were good image quality, interchangeable lenses and above all NOTHING that distanced her from the actual photograph. If I wasn't clear on that it meant simple like a Leica M. The goal was also a smaller camera than the Alpa that we can both share.

Off I went. I tried a whole variety of cameras including the A7IIR or whatever it's called, the OM-D M1 and M5 or whatever they are called and lots of others between in the APS-C world.

I came away completely bluffed. Most of them were too small for my (admittedly very large) hands and NONE of them met the fundamental criteria - of not distancing the operator from the picture. Many were so complex and so arcane in terms of UI that both I and multiple sales people just gave up.

I didn't have money burning a hole in my pocket but it was a genuine quest for which the discussions have been going on for some time. After my abortive expedition we had another discussion about the possibilities of the digital M, but the reality is ageing eyes and spectacles don't make great friends with an M.

If Leica does deliver a simpler, more direct camera with the SL, if it can effectively use my legacy M glass - including things like the 21 Elmarit Asph - then this might be a winner. I don't like the price, but I'm sure as hell not going to drop cash on anything I laid my hands on last weekend before this was announced. For us photography is about the process and that means that to some extent it is about the tools.
 

aDam007

New member
Uhhhh it sounds like you are never going to be satisfied with anything frankly. I loved my A7 and I love my A7II even more. End of story. I didn't need to try every damn model because I know what my needs are before buying. If you really think the 55 & 35 aren't good enough you're just pixel peeping and you will never be satisfied with your images from any lens made by anyone. Pick a horse and run with it.
I'll let you know when the SL arrives..
And it's not pixel peeping when you're actually printing your images.
But you might want to do a quick google search about the 35/2.8 color gradient banding :D Very bad in prints.
 

aDam007

New member
Not a plug or anything like that but a fact. The new A7rII is a completely different and far better cam than the A7,A7r,A7II so if you had those previously I would not compare it to the new SL at all, not even close to what the new cam is and its new features and such. Seriously for your own comparison completely ignore those older models they truly do not represent Sony at this point. I know some gave up with those models and frankly I completely understand the reasons, it bugged me too. Not now though as the new body is a completely different beast and it works it's fixed its better and it actually performs as expected. I just noticed a lot of folks are comparing older models and that's just not a comparison to making a good buying decision. Carry on

Popcorn is still cooking.

Now my only other bitch in life has always been Leicas slowness to bring lenses to market. Now with there move to there bigger facility I hope that has changed for the better. I do hope so

Hi Guy,

I did use the A7rII but at that point I was so jaded by the fact that Sony doesn't give a damn about it's UI that it wasn't a pleasant experience for me. The EVF is much improved, as is the overall feel (both in terms of responsiveness and handling). That and I am not a fan of any of the Sony-Zeiss lenses. The Batis lenses did intrigue me, but I feel Zeiss seems to be catering to the Steve Huff crowd these days. More so then to the CY-ZE/ZF crowd. I'm not the only one who feels that way. Again not to say I haven't seen AMAZING things with this combo. But I just don't feel the size and weight is a compelling enough reason for me to use a system that A) I don't like the colors [and yes that is subjective] and B) I don't like the UI and ergonomics [button placement and function].



Leica is down right ridiculous about their SL lens timetable. From a marketing standpoint I get it.. I can explain it, but I feel it's a bit sly (I would say underhanded, but I believe Leica believes the zoom is good, thus they're doing us a favour). AND it might not be Leica's intention, they might just have slow manufacturing, but it's a smart move none the less.

1) SL comes out, early adapters will buy it.
2) variable aperture zoom is less compelling due to it not being seen as a class leading industry standard.
3) early adapters won't care because they have no other choice for an AF lens.
4) Leica probably built a KILLER zoom. So they're banking on early adapters showing the community how good it is.
5) Leica knows that the 50SL will outsell the zoom probably 5 to 1 if it is released at the same time as the SL+zoom.
6) Not many people will rave about the zoom, most internet chatter will be about the 50SL vs Otus etc etc..
7) Leica wants people to buy the zoom, because they believe it's worth buying.

You kinda get where I'm going with this right?

I mean that or they're not up to the task of manufacturing lenses quickly enough to meet the expected demand of the SL, and feel a zoom is more diverse. But by that logic, reading the forums.. All they really have to do is give me and maybe 2-3 other photographers the camera and they've supplied their market. So not that hard to build/manufacter 5 or 6 sets of SL :D
 

aDam007

New member
Completely agree. I am beyond disappointed. And this new system is full of compromises imho...

Dr. Kaufmann: We present to you, the all new "no compromise" Leica SL!!

Reporter: Very nice, and what lenses come with it?

Dr. Kaufmann: At launch only the 24-90mm f2.8-f4.0

Reporter: A variable aperture zoom?

Dr. Kaufmann: Oh, yes we find it a good compromise between size and IQ

Reporter: But you said "no compromise" just a second ago...

Dr. Kaufmann: ......

:ROTFL: That is funny in the literal sense.. But realistically I get where they're coming from. I wouldn't really even call it a "compromise" between size and weight. I'd use the term synergy. Since you have to understand that when CaNikon were making their 2.8 zooms they had **** high ISO. F/2.8 - F/4 is the second scariest sounding jump after F/1.4 - F/2.0... But if you think about it. It's only 1-stop. And sometimes it makes all the difference. But ponder this.. Canon's 50L actually lets in less light then their 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 or any other manufactures 50/1.4 lens. They just "push" the ISO a bit without letting the user know to TRICK the user into believing they're getting better light transmission. So who knows what's going on with your lenses and their actual light efficiency.

Now I don't know the T-value of the zoom. Assuming it's pretty low with all those elements, and the distance the light has to travel. BUT in synergistic fashion the sensor should compensate for it not being a 2.8 zoom (by allowing the user to go up in ISO without sacrificing to much quality). The lens is wieldable at this size/weight and it's probably going to out perform most primes. Time will tell.. And since it's the only AF lens available at the moment of launch. I'm sure a lot of people will be using it. And we'll know quick.

Also for a moment ponder this about the A7s and any other camera that can do massively high ISO... It looks like ****. It really does. Shooting people with candle light just because you can doesn't make it good. It's like those guys who get a girl naked stick her in the corner of a room next to a dim lit lamp with all these unflattering shadows then call it ARTISTIC. I shoot a LOT of ballroom weddings/events. I can comfortably use my D750 on 6400 ISO. I don't, because at that point all the hard lights are dominating the face. So what I do is try to strike a balance between the ambient light, and my flash bounced off an appropriate surface which will allow me to evenly and softly illuminate the face. 90% of the time, I'm on 1600 ISO. So you take my 1.4 prime which I end up using on f/2 because ALL DSLR/Mirrorless systems suck at focusing in low light and I need the DOF security and you now make it a 2.8 (the zoom does that on the wide end) I only really have to bump the iso up to 3200 at most. And the SL does good 3200 and has two new flashes which should work as the specs suggest.
Now on the tele end it's an F/4 but generally speaking the lights in the background are now blurred out because I'm shooting someone across the room. So there's more lightness to the background. I can tilt my flash forward facing and I get more power and control over the light. I can shoot and rely on the flash power a bit more in this situation.. More then a stop, but I only need the stop because its f/4. And if the background isn't great, I can bring up the shadows in post (batched) with one click. The contrast on the lens seems good, so it won't look bad like when I shoot other zooms and even some primes. 5D3 Canon is horrid when you bring up the shadows.. Yet it's the wedding camera of choice.

That and technically on the wide end, I tend to shoot groups of 3 or more. And having the added DOF f/4 is a bonus.

And lastly, I have a noctilux. And from the photos I've seen, it balances quite well on the SL. And if the EVF on the Q is anything to go by.. The Noctilux will be quite a companion for the SL. Simple to focus.. Admittedly I have no problems focusing it on my M240 and had little to no problems with it on the A7 series cameras in good light. But the A7 series cameras tend to fall apart in bad light, not ideal for the precision needed for a Noctilux while subjects are moving about.
 

aDam007

New member
Who said I don't use and enjoy some Leica cameras? I just don't look at everything they do as exempt from criticism. And I look at people who complain about lenses that have been universally praised at being full of it really. Like if the 55/1.8 isn't good enough for you, it's not the lens, it you.
COMPLETELY agree with you.. It's not the lens it's ME. I've been saying that all along.

I don't like the lens. It's not a bad lens. I just don't like it. WTF is wrong with that? Want me to show you a lens that gets universal praise among the Cine community? I bet you would think it's crazy to spend $15k on it, because your 55FE is better.. But that's BETTER FOR YOU. And for your needs, wants, desires. It's not better for the Cine guy.

Maybe I'm to fussy for my own good. Maybe things like color banding erk me more then they do you. Maybe what I shoot/process shows the bad aspects of the lens. Whilst the way you shoot/process doesn't. Do I have to change the way I shoot because a lens isn't designed for it?
 

aDam007

New member
Guy

This is a bit of an elephant in the room. All the excitement of a new product has to be tempered by the fact that it will be months before they are in peoples hands. Yes, a few will be lucky in November and then you will have to be prepared to wait months before one you order is available. I received an email from a well respected store here in the UK which I have used many times and have nothing but good things to say about informing me about pre-orders. But it really means joining a waiting list which on past performance could mean a 3-6 months wait.

I'm not saying that didn't happen with the A7RII but now I can go to many stores here in the UK and buy one from stock and this only 2-3 months after launch. The Leica Q which was launched at the same time is still a 3 month wait according to several stores I approached about 3 weeks ago and I doubt if there has been a sudden surge of product coming into dealers since.

There is something distinctly odd about a company that consistently offers products that are not easily obtainable.

LouisB

Try to buy an Hermes Birkin :D
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Adam, what is the this "color banding" that you talk about? please show a sample or two to illustrate it. I have not heard of any lens being a source of banding in a digital file. Never heard of "color banding".

TIA.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm very very familiar with Leica DMR, M8 and M9 than I was out onto MF. After I left I honestly lost interest in Leica and mainly it was late product and such and the products just did not fit me anymore as well or they where late on the tech. Money obviously was a big issue. I can't do what I was able to do over 5 years ago my life and family dynamics which is health issues keeps me out of the luxury items. I have to think within budget and folks you know as well as I , Leica is not within a typical budget. I just can't be that much of a gear slut as I was. I don't feel though I am suffering in anyway real way either. It's a lot of money for that extra 1 or 2 percent. Anyway I see the allure but I do see where Leica blew it and that was the adapters they should be out immediately with release. They would give all the other system users a chance to swap immediately which would lead to more sales out of the gate.

See some of these things are what bugged me about Leica, it's a snails pace attitude that made it hard for a working Pro to just buy everything at once. Same issue with Sony too but Sonys A7 was a whole new concept which I understood.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Here are the sizes compared:



The link:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.393,639.496,557.479,ha,t

If size and weight are the main criteria, Sony wins comfortably. It's much smaller and at around 1 kilogram weighs half of what the Leica and Nikon alternatives do. However, since I've already chosen the Nikon over the Sony, I apparently don't care to much about that. Important also is that the Leica lens has more reach than the Zony and is a stop faster at the wide end.

I remember an interview with a lens designer a few months ago, can't remember who, who said that by making a lens constant aperture, they always give away around one stop at the wide end. Zoom lenses are naturally faster at wide angles, but they limit that to make them constant.

The debate about this lens reminds me a bit of the debate around the PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 for 4/3, a lens that I have and love dearly. It's a monster compared to the tiny 4/3 format, although only half the weight of this lens. It is however the best zoom lens I've ever used, always sharp corner to corner, regardless of aperture and focal length. And it's a great range, usable for interiors and great for portraits too. In reality, the only lens I need 90% of the time.

If I were to buy into this system, which would require financial luck of epic proportions, the three lenses currently in the program might be the only lenses that I need. One for general use, one for air shows and sports (if the viewfinder and AF can live up to that kind of use) and one for wide apertures. Most of the time, I would only carry two of them, and possibly an adapted telephoto prime. The Zeiss 21mm can obviously also be adapted.

I understand the argument about weight. Many of us are past 60, and I'm getting closer myself. Still, I don't have a problem with heavy stuff, and use the good, old 80-200 AF-S hand held regularly. Maybe Leica didn't target old folks with this camera, but see it as what they think the new generation of professionals need. It has the "modern look" to complement modern designer gadgets, and although many complain about the grip, it can't be worse than the first generation A7, which basically didn't have one.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Adam, what is the this "color banding" that you talk about? please show a sample or two to illustrate it. I have not heard of any lens being a source of banding in a digital file. Never heard of "color banding".

TIA.
Nor have I and Sonys color is very good.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Here are the sizes compared:



The link:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.393,639.496,557.479,ha,t

If size and weight are the main criteria, Sony wins comfortably. It's much smaller and at around 1 kilogram weighs half of what the Leica and Nikon alternatives do. However, since I've already chosen the Nikon over the Sony, I apparently don't care to much about that. Important also is that the Leica lens has more reach than the Zony and is a stop faster at the wide end.

I remember an interview with a lens designer a few months ago, can't remember who, who said that by making a lens constant aperture, they always give away around one stop at the wide end. Zoom lenses are naturally faster at wide angles, but they limit that to make them constant.

The debate about this lens reminds me a bit of the debate around the PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 for 4/3, a lens that I have and love dearly. It's a monster compared to the tiny 4/3 format, although only half the weight of this lens. It is however the best zoom lens I've ever used, always sharp corner to corner, regardless of aperture and focal length. And it's a great range, usable for interiors and great for portraits too. In reality, the only lens I need 90% of the time.

If I were to buy into this system, which would require financial luck of epic proportions, the three lenses currently in the program might be the only lenses that I need. One for general use, one for air shows and sports (if the viewfinder and AF can live up to that kind of use) and one for wide apertures. Most of the time, I would only carry two of them, and possibly an adapted telephoto prime. The Zeiss 21mm can obviously also be adapted.

I understand the argument about weight. Many of us are past 60, and I'm getting closer myself. Still, I don't have a problem with heavy stuff, and use the good, old 80-200 AF-S hand held regularly. Maybe Leica didn't target old folks with this camera, but see it as what they think the new generation of professionals need. It has the "modern look" to complement modern designer gadgets, and although many complain about the grip, it can't be worse than the first generation A7, which basically didn't have one.

My only comment here is my bags have gotten a lot smaller. A lot smaller
 

uhoh7

New member
If Leica was after a Sony alternative, they would simply make a version of the Q with interchangeable lens, sell it cheaper than the Q (since there would be no lens in the equation) and then none would complain about size or bulk or price... But obviously they had different in mind... a real pro product! After all they can offer the interchangeable lens Q anytime they want in the future in much the same mount...
I believe the SL in no way precludes this course. In fact the less than successful crop/budget Leicas suggest we may well see exactly this before too long, not replacing the RF M but as a smaller and cheaper alternative.

People are constantly begging for an interchangeable Q. If they keep it up one will come, from Leica or someone else.

Half the disappointment is that the SL is not this camera, but of course, it was never intended to be. It's the new R, that also loves M glass. :)

I'm really happy with my own M9/A7.mod combo right now, except both could be smaller and lighter for somebody who is often in the backcountry and likes to have the good stuff always handy.

A digital Barnack. That's all. :)
 

aDam007

New member
This is just mental acrobatics. The idea that you can't compare a Leica to any other camera is the only way you can cognitively disconnect critical thinking. The M240 can't be compared to pretty much anything because it's the only RF out there, same with the mono, same with the S in a way. But their is NOTHING unique about the SL. Every make has something that does a version of what it does. Many reviews have posed the question, where does this fit in? Leica says, well it's a PRO camera (whatever that means) we're competing against other PRO cameras. Well, according to the specs every other tool is a better choice for almost any job. You can't use the 11fps because the AF is crippled, you have to wait a year for a 50/1.4 or use a gigantic variable aperture zoom, or spend a crap ton of money for lenses that are non-native to the format.... What's the point? Why put yourself through that? I'm sure it's a perfectly competent camera but at the same time it's just not special. And a 12 grand camera and lens should be pretty eff'ing special.

I'm basing this on user reports and specs. I WILL BE THE FIRST TO BASH THE SL IF IT DOESN'T PERFORM AS INTENDED. Trust me, I have no love for a company that takes my money then screws me with **** product.

But to me the camera is pretty F*ing special.


1) Colors typical of Leica without having to spend HOURS getting the colors the way I want. (Yes my brain is tuned to Leica colors, my fault)

2) Best AF in the industry, even in low light. I always shoot single shot. I predict the moment, I don't let my camera machine gun around. I have NEVER once used anything but single shot in my life and I've owned every DSLR out there. IF this camera performs as good as the Q, I can confidently say that it bests even a 1DX in tricky light, as I've used the 1Dx and the Q in tandem. As I've used the D750 and it's worse then the Q by far.

3) Best EVF in the industry. I don't really care about EVF or OVF or WYSIWYG (I shot manual and I pay attention to the room I'm in). Though I do love RF for the frame and focusing. I care about making it simple to get the shot. And this EVF is going to make it simple to get the shot IF I decide to shoot manual focus because A) the AF isn't working as it should [happens a lot with DSLRS even my 1Dx did this]. B) I'm using a lens that's MF and I do this on occasion because I love the look of some MF lenses. Say a bride getting ready. I'd probably grab the Noctilux or 50Lux.. Yes when the 50SL comes out, if it's as beautiful as the 50Lux-M I'll buy it and won't need manual focus. But until it does, this camera is my best option (aside from RF cameras) to get an image with a manual lens.

4) Dual card slots - I've used my M for weddings, but being paranoid I have 20+ 16GB and 32GB 95mbps extreme pro cards in both and I switch them every 50-100 shots (or when time permits) just because IF something goes wrong with one of my cards (I use two cameras at all times).. I don't loose the wedding images for the couple. With the A7 I always have a database error that really f*cks with my SD card management system and day.

5) Indisputably the best UI and ergonomics of anything digital ever. Again maybe subjective, but I shoot in very fast paced situations so I'm willing to fight anyone on this point. The camera just NEVER gets in the way.. If the UI is like the S-system then it's brilliant to say the least.

6) You're basing the best points from the A7rII and the A7sII. They're TWO DIFFERENT CAMERAS. If you bought both of them. And you were willing to switch off, then fine. I'm not. I'd rather one camera. It's much less of a headache in post.
 
Adam, what is the this "color banding" that you talk about? please show a sample or two to illustrate it. I have not heard of any lens being a source of banding in a digital file. Never heard of "color banding".

TIA.
I googled it. I guess it's a thing if you're into weird lens tests. Meanwhile people are making amazing images with this lens and not doing pointless tests. :loco:
 
Top