Two different views on the Leica SL

[Vivek]

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

Das What? :bugeyes:

Jono, As you well know..EFCS is an option in Sony cameras.

I have got to hand it to you for trying to put a spin on technological breakthroughs in competition as something bad. :ROTFL:

Some may buy it but most have not...

 

[bradhusick]

I don't recall reading any article that said that IBIS caused any problems. I think if Leica had the time and the money they would have done IBIS, but it's not easy or cheap to implement properly the way that Olympus and Sony have done.

Still, I don't think somebody goes out to consider a new camera system thinking "which one will have the least shake?" My bet for the SL's first consideration is "how many Leica R lenses do I own?"

 

[Vivek]

I don't recall reading any article that said that IBIS caused any problems. I think if Leica had the time and the money they would have done IBIS, but it's not easy or cheap to implement properly the way that Olympus and Sony have done.

Still, I don't think somebody goes out to consider a new camera system thinking "which one will have the least shake?" My bet for the SL's first consideration is "how many Leica R lenses do I own?"

Among the criteria laid out by Ashwin, the "pride of ownership" trumps everything else.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Re: IBIS vs OIS

There are a lot of issues there. I assume Sony does both because they are incapable of doing only one thing at a time, not because it takes both to stabilize a full frame sensor. Leica in the M[240] et seq. covers the sensor when you are changing lenses, in the SL leaves it open to the air. And, sure enough, it does collect some dirt. I can't see why that was a requirement of live view by default rather than as an option, or needed to allow 11 fps. The 5-axis IBIS in the Olympus is really awesome -- I've shot macros at 1/10 sec handheld. And my Olympi don't seem to have dirt problems. My suspicion is that only some parts of that technology is available for licensing at this point.

Another question that we can debate forever is what capabilities should be expected in the R to SL adapter, and what lenses lie in the SL future. If the S to SL adapter supports full control of the lens focus and aperture then the S lens portfolio becomes a credible extension, relieving the need to offer medium telephoto and wide angle primes (at least at f/2.5). And support of full S function (except for the central shutter) sets a standard for the R to SL adapter to meet -- supporting full R9 function. I thought in one of the interviews with Leica bosses there was a throwaway comment that of course 3rd parties should be able to adapt Nikon or Canon or Zeiss AF lenses to the SL.

scott

 

[k-hawinkler]

Hi jono, ptomsu.
Frankly, what seems to be "wobbly" is your spin and not IBIS.
I certainly don't intend to buy another camera without IBIS.

 

[Arne Hvaring]

My question was whether anyone could shed any further light on why the Leica SL managed to avoid one of the problems facing all mirror less cameras: the extra vibration caused by closing the shutter before the actual exposure. Jono offered some IMO quite sensible suggestions, and then went on to comment on in camera IBIS vs in lens stabilisation.
When Sony introduced IBIS (the 900 series) I wondered how will it maintain precision in the long run with wear on the bearings etc. Then IBIS was introduced in the much lighter bodies of the A7 series and I wondered again how moving the weight of the sensor array would influence the rest of the camera. After all actio is still equal to reactio.
Having used EM-1 and A7II extensively for the past year+, I am happy to report that at least so far none of my misgivings have come to pass. Actually it works well beyond my expectations. I also use a system with in-lens stabilisation, the new Canon 5Dsr and while it works well enough, it is not nearly as efficient as the Oly/Sony implementation. At least this is my impression so far.

 

[Paratom]

I can see that for people planning to mainly use non-native lenses on the SL in body IS would have been very useful. And it would have helped to maybe keep lens size of SL lenses a little smaller.
I still think Leica have their reasons to decide against in body IS - my guess is that durability might have been one factor.
For me IS is important mainly for Telelenses, since I mostly use short exposure times anyways because I have often human beings in my images.
So I never missed in body IS in the T camera, except I miss IS (no matter if in body or in lens) in the 55-135 T-Zoom.

 

[Godfrey]

I can see that for people planning to mainly use non-native lenses on the SL in body IS would have been very useful. And it would have helped to maybe keep lens size of SL lenses a little smaller.
I still think Leica have their reasons to decide against in body IS - my guess is that durability might have been one factor.
For me IS is important mainly for Telelenses, since I mostly use short exposure times anyways because I have often human beings in my images.
So I never missed in body IS in the T camera, except I miss IS (no matter if in body or in lens) in the 55-135 T-Zoom.

Another reason is in video, and is the same reason Panasonic doesn't use IBIS with the GHx cameras: sensor heat dissipation is much better ensured by a fixed sensor, rather than one floating on a moving platform. While you can get away with floating sensors for some uses, there is no better heat sink than solid connection to the camera body.

Image stabilization was indeed originally inspired to give medium to long telephoto lenses an additional stop or two of hand-holdability in good light for sports shooting, not to be the be-all/end-all of low light photography. I've had cameras with and without it, IBIS and OIS, over the years. By and large, MOST of the time it isn't really relevant to the photography I do; I can happily continue shooting without even thinking about it. There are moments when it becomes useful, but I cannot really think of a single one of my photos where image stabilization was the primary technology that made the photo a success without which it would not have been.

G

 

[doug]

I was very happy to have had the sensor stabilization in the Sony a7II for several photos, this one in particular:

The shutter speed was 1/250 sec while the camera and 500mm lens were braced against the window frame of my truck which was being blasted by wind. I chose to use a longer shutter speed instead of higher ISO because I wanted to show the raindrops as streaks instead of blobs.

Aside from the initial cash outlay the lack of sensor stabilization is the only thing in the 'con' column when I consider an SL purchase.

 

[Paratom]

I was very happy to have had the sensor stabilization in the Sony a7II for several photos, this one in particular:

The shutter speed was 1/250 sec while the camera and 500mm lens were braced against the window frame of my truck which was being blasted by wind. I chose to use a longer shutter speed instead of higher ISO because I wanted to show the raindrops as streaks instead of blobs.

Aside from the initial cash outlay the lack of sensor stabilization is the only thing in the 'con' column when I consider an SL purchase.

Thats a great image. Do you think it would make any difference if it was taken with sensor IS or lens IS?
I remember some discussion regarding using stabilized lenses on a camera with in body IS and the conclusion seemed there is a tendancy that for longer focal lengths in lens stabi has some advantage over in camera. But this is 2-3 years ago, maybe it has changed now.

 

[jonoslack]

Das What? :bugeyes:

Jono, As you well know..EFCS is an option in Sony cameras.

I have got to hand it to you for trying to put a spin on technological breakthroughs in competition as something bad. :ROTFL:

Some may buy it but most have not...

(Blush) . I do realise that EFCS is an option - and that you can turn it off, I used it and liked it - but nevertheless it does cause issues, Sony and Leica just have a different approach (the Q has an electronic shutter option after all).

I don't recall reading any article that said that IBIS caused any problems. I think if Leica had the time and the money they would have done IBIS, but it's not easy or cheap to implement properly the way that Olympus and Sony have done.

Hi Brad
I've not read anything about it causing difficulty either - and I agree that Leica might easily have implemented it if there was time (although I've not talked about it with them as far as I can remember). Still, the shutter shock issue only seemed to arise with cameras using IBIS and it suddenly occurred to me that a wobbly sensor might not be entirely innocent.

 

[MGrayson]

IBIS is wonderful - except it ruins dust removal. If you shoot at f/8 or slower from a tripod, it is a real annoyance. Treatable with ICC, but most people consider ICCs an even worse annoyance.

--Matt (who is tired of all threads becoming Sony is Better threads)

 

[jonoslack]

Hi jono, ptomsu.
Frankly, what seems to be "wobbly" is your spin and not IBIS.
I certainly don't intend to buy another camera without IBIS.

Hi There Karl-Heinz
No spin here - I have no evidence to the effect, it just seemed like something worth thinking about (especially as I've never seen anyone else mention it) . . as for 'wobbly' that's not spin either - if you've tried cleaning an A7 sensor you'll know exactly what I mean by 'wobbly'. . . . it wasn't meant to be derogatory in any way - just descriptive.

Like Arne I've wondered about the sensor mechanism for moving sensors and I've never seen any trouble resulting from it.

IBIS - I use it and love it, the OMD cameras are still very much favoured around here, and whilst I haven't had much of an issue of camera shake using R lenses on the SL, I realise that it would be really useful, especially with longer R lenses.

But I do also realise that there is a virtue in simplicity, and that every level of complication you add to a system brings its own issues - there's no free lunch (which doesn't mean I think you shouldn't eat lunch!).

Back to the SL - the intelligent implementation of the auto ISO (being able to limit to a multiple of focal length) together with the decent high ISO means that I've not actually missed IBIS much, and the 1/8000 shutter and 50 ISO 'base' together with the quiet shutter means that I've not missed EFC either.

 

[Vivek]

--Matt (who is tired of all threads becoming Sony is Better threads)

There is absolutely nothing wrong in expounding on the virtues of a Leica. For example, the simplicity (be it lack of tech advancement or better usability due to familiarity of older tech- semantics), boutiqueness and taking pride n its ownership.

Knocking on better aspects of other manufacturers is a failing strategy and is negative advertisement for the brand that lacks all the new innovations.

 

[jonoslack]

Knocking on better aspects of other manufacturers is a failing strategy and is negative advertisement for the brand that lacks all the new innovations.

Whilst I quite agree with you in principle . . . . . . if the 'better' aspects of the other brands are brought up in the discussion, then it's reasonable to discuss what their relevance to the 'lesser' achievements of the Leica might be - especially in a thread about Leica!

 

[Vivek]

My suggestion is to move away from incorrect spin and stick to the salient features that the camera has to offer like the spacious grip and the already expounded on weight.

 

[jonoslack]

My suggestion is to move away from incorrect spin and stick to the salient features that the camera has to offer like the spacious grip and the already expounded on weight.

Who's spinning?
I don't see any spin.

 

[ptomsu]

Just to put things into the right light here - the SL is a hell of a great camera and really unexpected innovation from Leica since very long time. So again KUDOS to Leica for doing that.

I disagree that they have done anything wrong with not implementing IBIS in the SL. I am pretty sure they have investigated that and they would not care a s.... to implement it if they would have seen this as a good solution. They decided for OIS in SL lenses and for a decent camera weight in combination with good shutter and even without EVF. I have shot the SL with lot of heavier M glass and it just works fine. And shooting R glass on it it must even be better as R lenses usually are heavier and have more mass.

So they have implemented the absolutely best and optimum for a future SL system and also allowed effective use of old M and R glass on that new platform, without going down the road of IBIS which is great, but questionable in many cases (see Oly's new to be announces 4/300 Pro lens which has OIS in addition and also Sony A7 series which does not solely rely on IBIS). And also Panasonic is implementing now IBIS in combination with their already long time proven OIS lenses.

I would appreciate that finally all the religious wars about IBIS versus OIS stop and leave it to camera manufacturers and designers to do the right thing.

Peter

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

It's raining and miserable here, no chance to get outside and shoot. And from the circular discussion on this thread, that must apply to the other European timezones...

scott

 

[ptomsu]

It's raining and miserable here, no chance to get outside and shoot. And from the circular discussion on this thread, that must apply to the other European timezones...

scott

Scott,

foggy and miserable also here, so no chance to do decent photography as well.

All the best

Peter