Leica SL (601) ..Oct 20th?

[uhoh7]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/2

Doesn't look so good in comparison to pretty much anything of this generation, especially at ISO 3200 & 6400. Surprised at how well the A7II did in comparison.

The A7II is the same sensor and ISO performance as the original A7, but with IBIS. I never shoot my A7 over 1200 because to my taste it gets ugly. I'd rather just use fast glass and keep the ISO down. All reports I have heard are ISO is not as good as the Q, but OK.

Having seen the work DPR does with their review cameras for many years, I don't take them seriously any more.

I would guess SL ISO performance is similar to A7II. I don't hear rave reviews about A7r2 ISO either.

If the A7r2 was not hamstrung by a quirky sensor cover, highly variable native glass, poor batteries, poor RAWS, awful interface I would be more impressed with the pixel count. It does offer the ability to crop well into any image, and it's ahead of the SL without doubt in that department. Otherwise, for me, it's a paper tiger.

That's not to say I don't see great photography with all the Sonys here. I credit the shooters more than the gear.

 

[Ario Arioldi]

The least they could do was to mount Leica prime corresponding to the Zeiss when doing this test, and then re-do it once the native prime is available.

But then also the use of adapted lens could be questionable. Which lens M? R? Which adaptor? Any testing metod has some weak point.

 

[lambert]

Photos with the SL are taken with a zoom lens at maximum extension, stopped down one stop from wide open. Photos from the other three cameras are taken with primes lenses stopped down more than three stops from wide open. If this didn't lead to differences in resolution, I should throw away my prime lenses.

It's not unreasonable to expect a (slow) $5000 zoom lens to perform on-par with a prime lens when shot at f5.6. If not, on what basis is the price justified?

 

[Vivek]

That's not to say I don't see great photography with all the Sonys here. I credit the shooters more than the gear.

Lately, your posts have become "interesting". You would diss Sony but would use their cameras every day. You would praise Leica but will not buy their new offerings.

It's not unreasonable to expect a (slow) $5000 zoom lens to perform on-par with a prime lens when shot at f5.6. If not, on what basis is the price justified?

Also, Jono said that it is their best zoom to date. Is everyone saying that my Zony lens is better than this? :bugeyes:

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

In the DPR "studio test", they compare the Leica zoom vs best available primes on the other cameras, but they are also using the Vario-Elmarit at 90 mm, which is probably its sharpest focal length. So the comparisons are done at distances in which the test target fills the frame for each camera, with focal lengths ranging from 28 to 90 mm. That's a further source of confusion.

Incidentally, check out Sandy McGuffog's blog at http://chromasoft.blogspot.co.il/2015/10/how-much-lens-correction-is-there-on.html , for information on what is corrected in software at the wide end of the Vario-Elmarit 24-90.

scott

 

[6x6]

I have been following the SL release and debate with a great deal of interest. I think Leica has been clever, as this camera is a fantastic compliment to the Leica S system. If the adapter for the S lenses works well (I know minus the CS shutter) then they will have created two very complimentary systems. I think the camera will help in the sales of Leica S cameras too. Investing in a Leica S with a 30mm, 45mm, 70mm and 100mm lens system is now even more attractive because their prime S lenses will work with the smaller and more portable SL. In fact it makes the CCD version of the S system very attractive because at low ISO's I'd assume the 006 and 007 to be very similar. Then for higher ISO, faster work the SL can be utilised. Price wise a S 006 + SL is about the same as a S 007. Just imagine the 70mm or 100mm S primes for portraits on the SL.

Their biggest mistake is not having the adapters ready at launch. Thats a big mistake. I would have been all over this if they had the S adapter at launch. I currently run a P40+ and Phase System. I'm still seething about the non-compatibility of the XF, so this has really caught my attention.

Also I am happy that this camera release has started to shift the debate about new cameras to issues that are more important (to me anyway). Camera interface; viewfinder; ergonomics; ease of use; and the key element, lenses. I'm so bored of pixel peeping and comparisons at 100%. Its not photography. Look at many of the historical photographers, half their greatest work is out of focus!

Just an after thought, but you can see that Leica are starting to use elements of each camera system they release to inform their other systems. So the SL has lots of S DNA. I would wager that the next S camera is a mirrorless system with a big sensor. Especially if EVF technology gets better in the next couple of years (which is obviously will do).

 

[lambert]

As I said I was not too impressed by this new Leica zoom and I can look myself as soon as samples are provided, thanks to Jono and thanks to dpreview!

It definitely shows weakness and there are many other zooms meanwhile around which are at least on par WRT IQ, but as they are not Leica zooms they are generally much cheaper. And a cheaper zoom one would tend to easier forgive some weakness.

This is not just incredibly expensive. It is also massive and heavy, tipping the scale at just over 2.5lb. I have paid over dibs for Leica M lenses in the past due to their exceptional performance, but $5,000 :wtf:

 

[synn]

I currently run a P40+ and Phase System. I'm still seething about the non-compatibility of the XF, so this has really caught my attention.

Not to pick on this line as you know your requirements best, but wouldn't a trade in for an XF and maybe a refurbished IQ 140 be more cost effective than selling your entire rig and building an S system from scratch?

 

[6x6]

Not to pick on this line as you know your requirements best, but wouldn't a trade in for an XF and maybe a refurbished IQ 140 be more cost effective than selling your entire rig and building an S system from scratch?

In terms of the whole system, yes the cost would be higher. However on a body only basis a trade in to an IQ250+XF is a lot more expensive than a S 006+SL. I believe an IQ140+XF would be around the same price as a S 006+SL. Give or take £1,000. I appreciate that this is all exclusive of lenses. However I get two cameras and the possibility to use the same prime lenses. I also currently have a small camera system for walkarounds that could then be sold off.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Not to pick on this line as you know your requirements best, but wouldn't a trade in for an XF and maybe a refurbished IQ 140 be more cost effective than selling your entire rig and building an S system from scratch?

No... Simply because an XF + IQ 140 would cost him a difference that would be as much as adding an S007 body and he would still have exactly the same IQ... While if he adds an S-body, will improve IQ & ISO performance than the P-40+ and then sell the current body and back and finance a couple of lenses (or even build a whole series of lenses if he goes for C645 or Hassy glass) and then even pocket the money by selling his Phamyia lenses too...

But most important, he would avoid being trapped in a closed system that would require him to "bleed" again sooner or later and only use his lenses for a single purpose.... While with the S, he will be able to use the glass on a Sinar view camera (with full interface communication) add an SL to use as an MFDB on the Sinar and have a back up body too, have high quality video and probably finance all this (depending on the lenses value) by using the pocketed money from selling the lenses.

I guess cost effectiveness is related to more things than been stuck with an expensive system that is designed to only perform better than a DSLR (in only some aspects) and is "closed" to what it does... It's a matter of perspective ...see?

Just to give you an example (that has attracted a lot of customers to Leica and it will add even more with the introduction of the SL)... Ever wondered why Contax 645 S/H prices went of the roof after Leica releasing the C-adapter? It's not only because the majority (out of the best) wedding photographers are using it to shoot weddings with film... It is also because after the S-007 announcement the Leica dealers are full of pre-orders (ask a dealer to confirm this) from the same wedding pros world wide that can now integrate an S-007 into their system by only adding an S-007 body and get rid of their DSLRs altogether using the money to finance the S-007... Now Leica introduced the SL that will allow them to also shoot with their existing lenses, add a back up body and even add HQ video in their work... see?

 

[6x6]

I guess what I am saying is that the release of the SL improves the value proposition of both the S 006 and S 007 cameras. In general the higher the ISO the lower my requirements for megapixels. That's my requirement. So the SL fits in very well with the S 006/7. If only they had released the S adapter at the same time. Poor business decision.

I will wait for the S adapter and test it for my purposes. If it's good, I'm in.

 

[turtle]

I've seen comment suggesting that the 24-90mm is not great at 90mm and others saying its where the lens is strongest. I'm a bit confused about that bit. PC Mag's test suggests its strongest right in the middle and deteriorated a bit between 70mm and 90mm.

It is a max. of about f3.1 at 35mm and f3.6 at 50mm already. That does make it a fairly different proposition to a constant f2.8 and I cannot help but feel a regular 24-70 f2.8 would have been preferable (and smaller?). Here's the LinK: 24-90mm SL lens test at PC Mag. I've never really read their reviews before, but in comparing the Leica optic to Canon, Nikon and Sigma, I can't say anything stands out as exceptional about the optical performance of the Leica. I can imagine there are differences in look, but in resolution terms, the big brands' pro zooms are easily as good and in some cases better.

 

[Ario Arioldi]

There are several downloadable raw files at http://dpnow.com/9567.html. Shots taken outdoor with the Vario Elmarit and with a Summicron 35 ASPH.
The amount of distortion correction done by Lr/ACR on the basis of the exif data at 24mm is quite substantial.

 

[Ario Arioldi]

I've seen comment suggesting that the 24-90mm is not great at 90mm and others saying its where the lens is strongest. I'm a bit confused about that bit. PC Mag's test suggests its strongest right in the middle and deteriorated a bit between 70mm and 90mm.

Looking at the MTF graphs published by Leica it seems to me that 90mm is the sharpest focal lenght.

 

[T.Dascalos]

I guess what I am saying is that the release of the SL improves the value proposition of both the S 006 and S 007 cameras. In general the higher the ISO the lower my requirements for megapixels. That's my requirement. So the SL fits in very well with the S 006/7. If only they had released the S adapter at the same time. Poor business decision.

I will wait for the S adapter and test it for my purposes. If it's good, I'm in.

+1

I guess you are 100% spot on... The SL looks to have been released as to miximize the S-006 / 007 sales and also the integration of S-user lenses with the Sinar cameras (with the SL used as an MFDB) for those who want to add a view camera ability in their system (since the interface required is the same as the SL to S lens adapter)... If Leica was after "just a mirrorless" they could have released a - cheaper to - Leica Q version without the lens....

By the way, the rumor some try to spread that the S-lenses leaf shutter won't work with the adapter, is pure fiction that they made up... I had to call Leica and ask them about that, their comment was "pure fiction... none is authorized to comment on an unreleased product yet, as he can't possibly know what the project manager will come up with, we won't restrict capabilities out of any of our products if we can apply them"....

You are right on the S-adapter delay, but I think that it has to do with the Sinar interface being developed in parallel to it... So I guess there should a small size (like Actus or Universallis) view camera coming soon from Sinar, with the SL in mind instead of an MFDB...

The S-007 demand is "off the roof" at the moment from wedding pros that want to use their existing line of C645 lenses on it so the demand can't be damaged from the S-adapter absence and I suspect that SL will have a good start by the owners of R&M lenses as to keep it in demand until the release of the S-adapter... but again, it would be best for Sinar to have a finished product as to accurately adapt a view camera to it... isn't it?

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Looking at the MTF graphs published by Leica it seems to me that 90mm is the sharpest focal lenght.

I didn't know those were available, but after going over them, I think the best showing in either the infinity or the 1 m distance would be obtained at 50 mm and f/5.6. The mtf's do show weaker edges at the two extremes of the zoom focal range. So how do we get DPR to redo that shot?

scott

 

[anGy]

The integration of Sinar in Leica gave birth to the sinar p MF-L adapter for sinar P tech cams.
It's always good to have options and this is certainly great for people already having a Sinar P and a Pack Shot activity.
But this has rather limited interest for other users (no wide angle option for the Sinar P + Leica S, it stops at around 60mm focal length if I recall).
So a new Sinar system that would be compatible with a Leica body and offering real wide angle options (at least 24mm) and portability should be most welcomed. If no DB is used but a Leica SL body in place, would it only be physically possible to build such tool ?
(the rear element of a Rodenstock 32mm (23mm eq. with a Phase One back) comes really close to the sensor)

Only option that comes to mind is the 'Alpa FPS' like adapter from Sinar; Do you have other information ?

 

[turtle]

While zooms are typically weakest at the long end, this is not always the case - the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L II being such an example.

Out of interest, how many people here would have preferred a 24-70 f2.8 rather than the 24-90mm f2.8-4 for the SL? I wonder if there is more interest in the extra focal length or speed? I'd go for speed personally, but interested to know of many people would rather the extra reach (hence the popularity of the 24-105 f4 lenses from Canon/Sigma).

WRT sharpness it would obviously be weakest at the long end, this is normal. ..

 

[jonoslack]

In the DPR "studio test", they compare the Leica zoom vs best available primes on the other cameras, but they are also using the Vario-Elmarit at 90 mm, which is probably its sharpest focal length. So the comparisons are done at distances in which the test target fills the frame for each camera, with focal lengths ranging from 28 to 90 mm. That's a further source of confusion.

scott

Hi There Scott
I haven't done the tests myself, but I'm sure someone (I think it was Ming Thein) said that 90mm was actually the worst focal length on the zoom, and that it was best around 50mm (why on earth did they use 90?)

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

I could never fall in love with the concept of adapted glass, no matter how hard I tried... BTW the same issues are there of course far all the adapted lenses to other mirrorless cameras, most prominently the A7-series. Nice playing around, but not more, at least for me. And almost all of the results I have seen show exactly this! But some folks are still happy with that approach.

Well Peter
There is the issue of the adapter not being made properly . . . . but of course that's just as likely with the camera's mount or the lenses. Admittedly it adds in two more faces - but hey, the Leica adapters seem to be really well made.

If you're using an SLR with a mirror, then that's another variable.

Of course, the real problem is that the lenses weren't designed for the camera, and the camera wasn't designed for the lenses, and I quite agree, that throws the whole thing out of the window - don't use adapted glass . . . . . . . . .

Unless of course the adapter recognises the lens and behaves accordingly (populating the exif, applying lens corrections where necessary and adjusting the Auto Iso etc. on the basis of the focal length and aperture). The SL does this - both for M and for R lenses. So although you have the potential engineering issue with a badly made mount (surely a small risk in this day and age) you could consider in this case these lenses to be 'accomodated'.

Seems to me that dPreview should have used a Leica 50 if they wanted a level playing field, and shooting the zoom at 90mm was certainly an odd decision.

all the best