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!

Two different views on the Leica SL

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
I'm certain that a heavier camera body damps the effect of the shutter, and I do believe that it reduces camera shake as more energy is required to move it (more mass=more inertia
I guess there are two components to camera shake; firstly, just holding it up to the eye, and secondly the action of the mirror and the shutter. The latter might well be damped by a heavier camera and Mr Newton's law. Earlier Leicas had a horizontal shutter, thus a movement at right-angles to the movement for lifting and steadying. Now, they have vertical shutters – I don't know if they are any lighter.

I was thinking more of the first problem. Lifting a camera to eye level and keeping it there needs two 'sets' of muscles working together; those moving upwards and those moving downwards. When lifting upwards the 'downers' have to 'pay out rope' to permit movement; the uppers and the downers work in a continuous state of dynamic tension. And when the camera is held at eye level, this dynamic activity continues, even if we aren't aware of it. I'm suggesting that the greater the weight/mass of the camera, the greater the effort, and the greater the tension between the two muscle groups. We can sometimes be aware of this when trying to lift something really heavy.

Mind you, I've never seen if this has been tested; I imagine a heavy camera and a light one of the same size. It's easy to measure any movement (when trying to hold them steady) with lasers – similar to charting eye movements when looking at a picture.

Camera shake has always been a problem for me, and it's not getting any better.

Anyone know if camera shake has been empirically tested?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi Brad,
thank you for your view on the SL where I agree with many points.

I totally agree that today the SL can not compete with Nikon/Canon as a sports camera due to lack of AF-lenses.
Regarding the ability to track fast moving subjects I have not yet maid my mind but I am afraid you are probably right that it is not a D4s or a d1x.
On the other side it is pretty fast and maybe just enough for many occasions.

For me as a user of S and M system (and also T) one big advantage is that the files from the SL with the profiles of lightroom come out a lot like the images from the S in regards of color and contrast. I really like the way Leica tweaks the colors and found to be more happy from the beginning with SL color compared to what I achieved earlier from Sony A7/A7s/A7II.

The same is valid for the user interface, to have comparable user interface in the MF (S) camera and in the FF-DSLR.

I also like the flexibility, I just bring the SL+ Zoom+ 2 fast M lenses instead of a M and a Nikon DSLR. in the evening I bring the SL with the fast M primes, during day outside I use the SL with the Zoom.

SO yes, like others said, it is not the best camera in one category, but it is quite good in many categories.
It is pretty good for video, it is pretty fast for action, it offers a pretty good IQ for a fast camera (and its pretty expensive ;) )
I was not sure if it is for me but at the moment I use it more than any other camera.

The big Pro I see is built and feel, the viewfinder, speed, and color as well as the IQ of the Zoom.
Where I see room for improvement are the position of the video buttons, and please please more native lenses, and please also some smaller sized f1.8 or f2.0 primes.
Maybe then I would even consider to drastically reduce my beloved M system.
 

JorisV

New member
in the evening I bring the SL with the fast M primes, during day outside I use the SL with the Zoom.
I guess a lot of people will argue that the SL with zoom (about 2kg) is too heavy as a walk around system.

I usually take the Leica Q (640g) or the Leica Q in combination with the Leica T and zoom (639g).

Everybody is likely to have a different opinion about this though.

Best, Joris.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I guess a lot of people will argue that the SL with zoom (about 2kg) is too heavy as a walk around system.

I usually take the Leica Q (640g) or the Leica Q in combination with the Leica T and zoom (639g).

Everybody is likely to have a different opinion about this though.

Best, Joris.
Hi Joris,
it is very individual and also depends what you do and expect. For example when I go x-country skiing or ride the bike or if I am on a business trip I rather bring a smaller camera like the T (which I like a lot). If I just go for a one hour walk the weight is not an issue for me. I wouldnt mind of the zoom was slower and lighter though.
I think in case of the Sl its a very nice size, but the zoom is pretty big.
Best, Tom
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I decided to "get out of Dodge" for a few days and was dithering about what to take along. The SL was a given, finally chose the 15, the 50, and the 180 so I'd have the ability to be completely crazy in what I wanted to shoot. :)

G
Back home now... I used mostly the 15mm, but got a few shots with the 50mm that I enjoy... like this lovely old Stearman just waiting to be fired up.


Leica SL + Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4
ISO 64 @ f/1.4 @ 1/100

The SL is an amazingly competent and camera.

enjoy!
G
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
As far as value propositions go, I think it's pretty cool that someone that is into great looking (nearly medium format size) Leica files can pick up a used S(006) and possibly two used S lenses for just a little bit more than an SL and the 24-90 zoom. The image quality from the (006) is crazy good. :)
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
I guess there are two components to camera shake; firstly, just holding it up to the eye, and secondly the action of the mirror and the shutter. The latter might well be damped by a heavier camera and Mr Newton's law. Earlier Leicas had a horizontal shutter, thus a movement at right-angles to the movement for lifting and steadying. Now, they have vertical shutters – I don't know if they are any lighter.

I was thinking more of the first problem. Lifting a camera to eye level and keeping it there needs two 'sets' of muscles working together; those moving upwards and those moving downwards. When lifting upwards the 'downers' have to 'pay out rope' to permit movement; the uppers and the downers work in a continuous state of dynamic tension. And when the camera is held at eye level, this dynamic activity continues, even if we aren't aware of it. I'm suggesting that the greater the weight/mass of the camera, the greater the effort, and the greater the tension between the two muscle groups. We can sometimes be aware of this when trying to lift something really heavy.

Mind you, I've never seen if this has been tested; I imagine a heavy camera and a light one of the same size. It's easy to measure any movement (when trying to hold them steady) with lasers – similar to charting eye movements when looking at a picture.
I looked on-line to see if there has been any research on camera weight and camera shake. Plenty of articles abut the right stance and so on; and the general consensus is that a heavier camera would be more stable. There must be a limit to this, though, a weight beyond which hand-holding isn't more stable. Further, big lenses usually have a built-in tripod mount, rather suggesting that tripod use is (almost) essential. Of course, many such lenses are longer than normal, so affecting the centre of gravity.

But I could not find any article where the hypothesis 'heavier camera, less camera shake' had been empirically tested.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I looked on-line to see if there has been any research on camera weight and camera shake. Plenty of articles abut the right stance and so on; and the general consensus is that a heavier camera would be more stable. There must be a limit to this, though, a weight beyond which hand-holding isn't more stable. Further, big lenses usually have a built-in tripod mount, rather suggesting that tripod use is (almost) essential. Of course, many such lenses are longer than normal, so affecting the centre of gravity.

But I could not find any article where the hypothesis 'heavier camera, less camera shake' had been empirically tested.
Experience has shown me that a heavier camera, using a good hand-strap, is more stable … initially. Using one on a steady basis (such as at a wedding) also shown me that "fatigue shake" sets in sooner. The act of constantly lifting a Pro DSLR to your eye can be quite a strain … even though I worked out with a trainer while doing weddings, I still ended up with "Camera Elbow" from time-to-time. My Rotator Cuff wasn't all that happy about it either. Bending forward while squatting down made for a back issues … but that was true with a smaller/lighter camera also.

IBIS in my Sony DSLR/SLTs allowed me to move from Pro Canon/Nikons to a bit smaller/lighter camera while actually improving the image acuity from most used focal lengths at a wedding or event, which were not stabilized on the Canikons.

- Marc
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I don't think anyone has ever formally tested the "larger, heavier camera reduces camera shake" axiom because it has been empirically demonstrated for many years. The axiom is true up to a point ... there's obviously a point where the weight and size becomes too much to hold without fatigue, fatigue generating greater muscle induced shake.

I don't hold up a camera so often or so long (anymore) that fatigue is a concern. The Leica SL plus 24-90 is not heavy enough to cause such fatigue, for me, since I don't work that way. That said, I am not fond of carrying and hand-holding such a large and heavy lens anyway. I only do it occasionally.

More important to me is that the SL is large enough and uncluttered enough, and has enough grip and gripping surface, that I can hold it steadily and without strain for quite a lot of time. Its shutter is amazingly smooth and quiet too, inducing far less vibration into the camera assembly than most others. These two things together counter the large size and heaviness; couple them with a sensibly sized and ergonomic Leica R lens (most from 19 to 180 mm are beautifully balanced on the SL body) and the SL allows me to shoot at even longer exposure times than the M-P with less camera-and-musculature-induced motion blur.

The SL in a bag with three lenses as I wandered with it this weekend (Super-Elmar-R 15, Summilux-R 50, Elmar-R 180/4) is not a light weight kit, but it is an absolute pleasure to work with. As I said up-thread: they made this camera for me.

And for that I am very grateful. :)

G
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
I don't think anyone has ever formally tested the "larger, heavier camera reduces camera shake" axiom because it has been empirically demonstrated for many years. The axiom is true up to a point ... there's obviously a point where the weight and size becomes too much to hold without fatigue, fatigue generating greater muscle induced shake...

More important to me is that the SL is large enough and uncluttered enough, and has enough grip and gripping surface, that I can hold it steadily and without strain for quite a lot of time. Its shutter is amazingly smooth and quiet too, inducing far less vibration into the camera assembly than most others. These two things together counter the large size and heaviness; couple them with a sensibly sized and ergonomic Leica R lens (most from 19 to 180 mm are beautifully balanced on the SL body) and the SL allows me to shoot at even longer exposure times than the M-P with less camera-and-musculature-induced motion blur...
Yes, I'd guess that the axiom could be true up to a point, and the point varies between individuals. Still, I'd really like to see it proven rather than assumed, even if it seems to be common sense. (Galileo got into problems arguing against common sense.)

I'm fascinated by the fact that an SL gives you less shake ('clonus') than an M-P with equivalent lens.
 

doug

Well-known member
Yes, I'd guess that the axiom could be true up to a point, and the point varies between individuals. Still, I'd really like to see it proven rather than assumed, even if it seems to be common sense. (Galileo got into problems arguing against common sense.)

I'm fascinated by the fact that an SL gives you less shake ('clonus') than an M-P with equivalent lens.
The only conclusive answer to the weight/camera shake question would be to eliminate all other variables like particular shutter designs, grip surfaces, morning/evening muscle fatigue, differing tripod mount designs, etc., but a couple of empirical data points stick in my mind: I was able to hand-hold a heavy Leicaflex SL at shutter speeds 1 stop slower than the lightweight Leica R4s with comparable results, and the a7r's shutter shake problem is reduced by adding the vertical grip.
 

jonoslack

Active member
The only conclusive answer to the weight/camera shake question would be to eliminate all other variables like particular shutter designs, grip surfaces, morning/evening muscle fatigue, differing tripod mount designs, etc., but a couple of empirical data points stick in my mind: I was able to hand-hold a heavy Leicaflex SL at shutter speeds 1 stop slower than the lightweight Leica R4s with comparable results, and the a7r's shutter shake problem is reduced by adding the vertical grip.
Hi Doug and Robert
I think the trouble is that any real empirical results would be so hedged about with conditionals that it wouldn't be terribly relevant to real life. But your anecdotal information sounds convincing to me.
 

bradhusick

Active member
I think "shake" comes from two distinct sources: the photographer and the shutter/mirror. Most shutters these days are not metal leaves, but rather are fabric, plastic or carbon fiber. In mirrorless cameras, the amount of shutter shake is very small. In mirrored cameras the shake can be problematic at longer exposures, but it's pretty well dampened in recent cameras.

As for photographer shake, this happens most often when muscles are asked to do work over an extended period of time. I am not sure what the physiological cause of this is, but we have all experienced it. It makes sense that the heavier the camera/lens, the more work we are asking our muscles to do, so lighter is better. BUT...

We also know that inertia is proportional to mass, so if you want to dampen out rapid oscillations, more mass is better. Slower oscillations are less affected by the mass of the object.

These two factors, one pushing for less mass, the other pushing for more mass make a complex situation.

My advice is to follow good shooting practices - keeping your elbows tucked in, finding things to lean on or against, using beanbags when possible, tripods or monopods, etc. and use whatever cameras and lenses please you the most.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
OK, I tried an experiment. I weighted down my SL with the M to T, the Leica R to M adapter (with the tripod foot) and my 80/1.4 Summilux, and added a Manfrotto table top tripod for stability (think 2+ kg). I found a Siemens star target on the web and put it up on my big display, sat back in a comfortable desk chair at about 0.8m distance from the screen, held the whole rig up, focused carefully, set manual, auto ISO and shot with shutter speeds 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, 1/13. There was the slightest loss of contrast at 1/13, but the rest were essentially identical. If this was target shooting, I would have to also compete standing and prone, but I think this is enough. Here's 1/25: (cropped down to about half the frame)

L1000942 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Only a Puts would do this, but you guys asked for it...

Happy New year,

scott
 

JorisV

New member
Perhaps the British Journal of Photography described the Leica SL the best: "Neither small nor cheap, but interesting and pretty impressive."
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
I think "shake" comes from two distinct sources: the photographer and the shutter/mirror. Most shutters these days are not metal leaves, but rather are fabric, plastic or carbon fiber. In mirrorless cameras, the amount of shutter shake is very small. In mirrored cameras the shake can be problematic at longer exposures, but it's pretty well dampened in recent cameras.

As for photographer shake, this happens most often when muscles are asked to do work over an extended period of time. I am not sure what the physiological cause of this is, but we have all experienced it. It makes sense that the heavier the camera/lens, the more work we are asking our muscles to do, so lighter is better. BUT...

We also know that inertia is proportional to mass, so if you want to dampen out rapid oscillations, more mass is better. Slower oscillations are less affected by the mass of the object.

These two factors, one pushing for less mass, the other pushing for more mass make a complex situation.

My advice is to follow good shooting practices - keeping your elbows tucked in, finding things to lean on or against, using beanbags when possible, tripods or monopods, etc. and use whatever cameras and lenses please you the most.
This all makes a lot of sense; still, I'd like it to be tested to confirm.

As for tired muscles; we don't use all fibres when we use muscles. The energy in the fibres is depleted, and this energy needs some time to be replenished. The action of the tired muscle fibres is 'replaced' by unused fibres, though we aren't generally aware of what's happening. (There's something similar in the retina. The eye is in constant involuntary movement, though the movements are microscopic, and we aren't aware of the movement. It's possible to cancel these micro-movements experimentally, and when we do this what ever we are looking at disappears in a short time, as the pigment in the retinal cells is used up faster than it is replenished. I understand that astronomers were aware of this when using a telescope directly to measure the position of the star; they learned to look slightly to the side of the star.)
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
Just a question regarding possible shutter induced shake on the SL. The M (240) has it at some shutterspeeds when using the EVF because of the need to close the shutter physically before making the exposure, then reopening it etc. As someone who has come up against this issue using the A7r, I'm curious. Sony (and Olympus) solved the problem by using the electronic first curtain shutter in their next cameras, but as far as I understand the SL has not implemented a EFCS. So how has Leica managed to make the SL such a quiet and by all accounts nearly vibration-free camera? Does the sheer weight/massive construction perhaps play a part? Has anyone any further info on the subject?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Just a question regarding possible shutter induced shake on the SL. The M (240) has it at some shutterspeeds when using the EVF because of the need to close the shutter physically before making the exposure, then reopening it etc. As someone who has come up against this issue using the A7r, I'm curious. Sony (and Olympus) solved the problem by using the electronic first curtain shutter in their next cameras, but as far as I understand the SL has not implemented a EFCS. So how has Leica managed to make the SL such a quiet and by all accounts nearly vibration-free camera? Does the sheer weight/massive construction perhaps play a part? Has anyone any further info on the subject?
HI There Arne
I think that it's a combination of a quiet and well damped shutter and a very solid body - EFCS has it's own downsides (which is why Leica did not implement it). Certainly I've seen no indications of shutter-shock with the SL . . . . Remember also that the Sony and Olympus cameras have wobbly sensor arrangements (for cleaning and for IBIS) - it seems to me that this would bring it's own likelihood of shake - maybe it is still better to have in lens IBIS?

Best
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
HI There Arne
I think that it's a combination of a quiet and well damped shutter and a very solid body - EFCS has it's own downsides (which is why Leica did not implement it). Certainly I've seen no indications of shutter-shock with the SL . . . . Remember also that the Sony and Olympus cameras have wobbly sensor arrangements (for cleaning and for IBIS) - it seems to me that this would bring it's own likelihood of shake - maybe it is still better to have in lens IBIS?

Best
I tend to believe lately that IBIS brings numerous issues, while a steady sensor and well optimized VR in the lens has more advantages. This is why Nikon and Canon still rely on their well proven arrangement of optimized shake reduction in the lens and Leica has obviously recognized this as well, thus we find in lens stabilization.

Another thought about IBIS - this seems to work better with smaller sensors like m43, and seems to loose efficiency with larger sensors - see Sony A7 line, where Sony relies meanwhile on a combination of IBIS and in lens stabilization. Sure IBIS has the big advantage to reduce shake also for non stabilized lenses.

Final thought WRT camera mass/weight - this is for sure a good thing to reduce shake and all my photography life has shown this to me again and again. It is of course a combination of mass/weight resulting from camera plus lens.

Happy New Year to all!
 
Top