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!

Fun with the Leica SL (digital)

M

mjr

Guest
I'm sorry to say that I don't really agree with Guy, he's not there to be blamed, it's not his job, his job is to be the voice of calm and authority in situations where such a voice is necessary. If he's blamed in this situation it's because his response to unnecessary posts from Godfrey and others was to join in with the hole pointless thing rather than dealing with the situation. I don't believe it helped in any way and just added fuel to the fire.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic but it's fair to expect moderators to take the higher moral ground and in this case it was a mistake not too. We're all human, things go wrong but Guy is not the martyr in this case because someone needs to be, he was at fault too.

The idea of arguing on a forum is pretty absurd if you think about it but no less likely to happen, best thing to do is ignore it or learn from the experience and get back to the business of talking about whatever it is you get from the excellent pastime!

Happy picture taking!

Mat
 

johneaton

Member
I've been away for the past few days, so missed all the excitement. I come to GetDPI and this forum in particular on a regular basis because I respect and value the opinions, perspectives and work of the people on it -- Jono's reporting on his experiences with the SL is just the most recent (perfect!) example of what I mean. I too miss Godfrey and his contribution, but I also have a great deal of sympathy for Guy in doing a job that we can make almost impossible.

Hopefully we're all grown-ups -- let's try and remember that and act like it :). Looking forward to many, many more informative, entertaining and useful posts!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Btw these images are too good. We really need a hack shooter to debate this camera. Lol . That's what we usually get to go by, these are too good.

Jono you exceeded the usual junk images from OEMs. ROTFLMAO


I love the reflection shots
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Because of the ruckus, i checked the prices of the SL (and the Q) here. While the Q is available readily for €4K, the price for the awaited SL is a bit over €7K. Can anyone explain why that is the case? :confused:
I assume higher built cost, for example for the more solid body and more refined sealing, larger and higher resolution viewfinder, top display, faster processor, gps, ... and I assume it just costs money to develop a new system from ground up.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I assume higher built cost, for example for the more solid body and more refined sealing, larger and higher resolution viewfinder, top display, faster processor, gps, ... and I assume it just costs money to develop a new system from ground up.
Thanks, Tom. :)

It is the Summilux that comes with the Q that got me confused.

- - - Updated - - -

If one could buy a camera and was allowed to post images from the SL...
+1
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thanks, Tom. :)

It is the Summilux that comes with the Q that got me confused.

- - - Updated - - -



+1
Yes, and the one and only Summilux with f1.7 that I know.

I think we all know that Leica does not offer the most cost effective products.
In case of the Q I see it competes with the Rx1 so it has to be priced not too far.
The SL seems to be supposed to compete with pro level DSLR, so I think the price is not so far off.
The T looks like a bargain.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I saw a short review of another summilux 15/1.7 (m43) the other day.
 

lambert

New member
Yes, and the one and only Summilux with f1.7 that I know.

I think we all know that Leica does not offer the most cost effective products.
In case of the Q I see it competes with the Rx1 so it has to be priced not too far.
The SL seems to be supposed to compete with pro level DSLR, so I think the price is not so far off.
The T looks like a bargain.
I can't see how the SL can compete with pro-level DSLR's, unless you're happy to shoot mostly stationary subjects. DSLR's are in a league of their own with respect to shooting sports. I haven't seen a single image from the SL to suggest otherwise.

The SL is a mirrorless camera and the competition is the A7RII. Like the Q vs RX1R, Leica should be pricing the SL kit to be price competitive with the A7RII. In Australia, the SL+24-90 sells for $18k vs $5.5k for the A7RII+24-70!
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
I wanted to post an image, given that the thread has slid off course a bit. Yet, I do not have an SL yet, though will have my first taste tomorrow at my local Leica dealer....

All of that said, the Leica Q likely has a similar sensor, so I figured to post a photo from the Q, in lieu of my pending SL purchase....

Speaking of sliding back on course, here's one taken by slip and slide...the SL should hopefully good at capturing fast moving people such as my daughter...

 

lambert

New member
I wanted to post an image, given that the thread has slid off course a bit. Yet, I do not have an SL yet, though will have my first taste tomorrow at my local Leica dealer....

All of that said, the Leica Q likely has a similar sensor, so I figured to post a photo from the Q, in lieu of my pending SL purchase....

Speaking of sliding back on course, here's one taken by slip and slide...the SL should hopefully good at capturing fast moving people such as my daughter...
Lovely Shot. The SL will likely also do well in these scenarios. But I was responding to the point that the SL will compete with pro-level DSLR's. I have yet to see a mirrorless, particularly one with the SL's limitations (i.e. contrast detect AF with no AF or AE at 11fps) compete with a pro-grade DSLR for sports photography.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I can't see how the SL can compete with pro-level DSLR's, unless you're happy to shoot mostly stationary subjects. DSLR's are in a league of their own with respect to shooting sports. I haven't seen a single image from the SL to suggest otherwise.

The SL is a mirrorless camera and the competition is the A7RII. Like the Q vs RX1R, Leica should be pricing the SL kit to be price competitive with the A7RII. In Australia, the SL+24-90 sells for $18k vs $5.5k for the A7RII+24-70!
Why should Leica price the SL competitive to the A7R II if they can sell it for twice the price? To start with, I assume it's a better camera for some people (probably myself included), secondly, many are willing to pay extra for what the Leica brand is or is presumed to be. While I agree that a pro-level DSLR would mostly be better for most sports, the SL might be useful for some sports as well, depending of how the viewfinder works.

The comparison with the Q is irrelevant. It's a different market, and it's easier to make a camera with an integrated lens. Point and shoot cameras where always more expensive than SLRs. Another side to this is that the sales price of a product rarely reflect the production cost these days, but the price that the manufacturer expects the market to be able and willing to pay.

When reading all the negative comments about the price of the SL, I wonder why I don't see similar complaints about BMW prices vs. Toyota. For most people, a Toyota is a better, more practical car. Still, BMW has no problem selling their cars at twice the price, and the owners seem to be happy and come back to be "taken for a ride" again and again and again.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Exactly! If I had the choice between a great viewfinder that updates instantly and great AF-C when shooting sports, I'd go for the viewfinder almost every time. I can shoot sports without AF, and if AF-S is fast enough, which it is on some mirrorless cameras, I don't always bother with AF-C at all. However, if I can't see what I'm doing, I will miss part of the action. Viewfinder blackouts and electronic viewfinders that change to "review mode" during bursts are the biggest hindrance for using mirrorless cameras for sports, not lacking AF. If Leica has fixed this, this camera becomes even more interesting. I know Sony hasn't:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii
 

uhoh7

New member
I can't see how the SL can compete with pro-level DSLR's, unless you're happy to shoot mostly stationary subjects. DSLR's are in a league of their own with respect to shooting sports. I haven't seen a single image from the SL to suggest otherwise.
Well, if one bought those two zooms, especially the long one, I don't see why it could not shoot sports with enough light.

Where Canikon is really ahead are all those great long lenses, like the 500/4s etc. Also the nice 300/2.8s

It's really a matter of shooting to your setups strengths, and as Doug's link shows, the SL, properly deployed would be fine in many sports situations.

Most pros shooting sports have two bodies anyway. Would be very nice to have a camera with such incredible prime options at sporting event as one of those bodies.

Also nice would be a A7sII with a great native high quality long lens, because you can access such huge DOF.
 

Bernard

Member
I can't see how the SL can compete with pro-level DSLR's, unless you're happy to shoot mostly stationary subjects. DSLR's are in a league of their own with respect to shooting sports.
I'm not sure that sports shooters are a big part of the professional DSLR market. They get lots of headlines, but the Olympic 100 meter final only comes around every 4 years.

None of the working photographers I know that run "pro" DSLRs use them for sports or for AF tracking at 10+ FPS. They run those cameras because they are tough as nails, responsive, have great battery life, and keep their interface consistent over the years. Those qualities are probably descriptive of the SL, but not of any Sony camera other than their broadcast stuff.

So you are right. You won't see many SLs covering Rio 2016, or even Tokyo 2020. But that hardly means it isn't a "pro-level" camera.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm not a big fan that you need a DSLR to shoot sports. Hell I did it with MF cameras. Slowest dog around but it's more on the shooter than on the gear. Timing is everything. I would have no issue doing it with this SL or my A7rII as long as you have a lens you need in that distance range given sideline limitations and such. Sure canon/Nikon maybe easier because they do have long glass and such. But that would not stop me at least.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hello.

My access was re-enabled yesterday. I've read all of the thread since the silliness.

Jono: excellent SL photographs! And Ashwin, I enjoyed your photos too. Thank you both.

I see the inevitable digression to more "this vs that" and somewhat outlandish speculation continues. Like Guy and a couple other folks, I have not needed an umpteen FPS, AF SLR camera to shoot sports ... In the 1980s, I covered the first US Motorcycle GP at Laguna Seca (a paid professional gig) with a Mamiya 1000S 645 camera and sold many photos from that shoot. In the late 1990s, I photographed the Manx Gran Prix on the Isle of Man using a Leica M6TTL and a 135mm lens (possible mainly because you have incredible track access on the open road events) and again sold a large number of photos from that shoot. A couple of years later, I did the same at the Isle of Man again with a Sony DSC-F707 digital camera ... far more challenging than either of the film cameras due to the very poor responsiveness of digital cameras of that time ... and successfully managed a nice portfolio of shots even with it that sold well also.

It's my belief that becoming over-dependent upon cameras which do everything for you stifles creativity as a photographer. As anyone on this forum who knows me can say, I love learning and using new technology and seeing how it presents advantages to my photography. But I also never center my dependence and use of equipment based simply on what it does for me automatically ... I want control and responsiveness, good imaging quality for my range of use, and clean ergonomics first. I'll use automation and conveniences when they add to my capabilities and ability to get the photographs I want, and ignore them when they don't. It's that simple.

I don't have a Leica SL to show pictures from yet. Mine should arrive sometime next week. I am having fun with the SL so far, however, as I'm studying the manual and learning all about how it works, and what its deficiencies in control and configuration capability are. Handling it last Friday, I learned a tremendous amount in a very short time about its physical layout and feel (nearly all positive), and I also learned a few items of its current firmware implementation that I feel can be improved upon. I have those all written down and will send some feature enhancement requests to Leica as soon as I have my own camera to double-check that I have not mis-understood something first.

I don't see much point to speculating about the SL, or comparing it to other cameras, until I have it in my hands. Comparisons and questions, speculations about the camera/the business/ad nauseam, to my way of thinking, belong in other threads titled for that purposes and discussions.

So I haven't much more to say about the SL until mine arrives. There is a lot of active and interesting discussion about the SL camera elsewhere that I'm participating in. Since I can't show photos yet, I won't contribute further to this thread here until such time as I can (except maybe to give an 'attaboy' or ask a question about a posted photo).

See you then.

G
 
Last edited:
Top