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

fotografz

Well-known member
There are a few considerations regarding IBIS that occurred to me as I've experienced it … which can affect shooting styles one way or another. Please forgive the lengthy explanation in advance:)

I've now worked with three successive Sony cameras featuring IBIS: The A900, A99 and more recently the A7R-II owned by a close photo pal. Prior to that I worked with both Canon and Nikon using select OIS lenses.

I was a vocal proponent of IBIS because it stabilized all of my ZA lenses compared to just a few OIS solutions from CaNikon.

However, in my experience, none of these stabilization solutions are instantaneous, which may or may not impact one's shooting approach depending on creative objectives.

I really like the way Sony implemented IBIS in the A900 because it showed a small graph in the bottom right finder regarding the degree of stabilization being achieved. That viewing cue disappeared in the A99 and A7R-II and you had to rely on optical judgement in the viewfinder as to level of stabilization being implemented, which I find a bit more difficult.

My acid test for speed of IBIS implementation was the ZA135/1.8, Sony 70-200/2.8G, and especially my Sony AF 500/8 Mirror: (at 500mm the image in the viewfinder jumps around like shooting in an earthquake, so it is the easiest to see how fast the IBIS steadies the image shake). 200mm on the zoom also makes it pretty apparent. In either focal length, IBIS eliminates the vibrating aspect, but not the framing which still can swim about a bit depending on how steady a hand you have, or how quickly you shoot once the image stabilizes.

While IBIS implementation is reasonably quick, it introduced a delay that began affecting my personal "Decisive Moment" style. Of course, I could simply turn it off when not needed, but that is a PITA and just one more thing to remember to do while in the heat of shooting.

Here's a question for those who shoot with the A7R-II … can a custom button be set to toggle IBIS on/off?

Now I totally understand some folks wanting IBIS for their work. It is a God sent for hand-held or lesser supported longer lenses, Macro, or really slow shutter speeds in low light with stable subjects. All those are distant second considerations for me since I do not use long lenses very often and when I do it's on a tripod or RRS Monopod. Same for Macro which is almost always on a tripod. Since I mostly shoot people, slower shutter speed situations with IBIS or OIS doesn't stop subject movement … so I either jack up the ISO to get the shutter speed higher, or more likely use a slower shutter speed to "drag the shutter" while using the short duration of strobe lighting to stop the subject movement.

In retrospect, I'm less of a candidate for IBIS than I thought I was … or put differently, it is valuable for maybe 10% of the images I shoot, while affecting the speed of capture of the remaining 90% to some agree or another.

I'm sure I'm missing something simple here, and have no doubt will be corrected:ROTFL:

- Marc
 
Here's a question for those who shoot with the A7R-II … can a custom button be set to toggle IBIS on/off? (Mark asked)

Yes, you can assign Steady Shot to custom button you prefer

Sergio
 
V

Vivek

Guest
While IBIS implementation is reasonably quick, it introduced a delay that began affecting my personal "Decisive Moment" style. Of course, I could simply turn it off when not needed, but that is a PITA and just one more thing to remember to do while in the heat of shooting.
Good point! :)

It will not work for me either (hence I do not own any camera with SSS).
 

doug

Well-known member
Godfrey,

you finally need the 1.0 Nocti - ideal for all light and all weather :)

Looking forward to come to San Jose again, not sure when this will happen! But at least then we could try out our lens arsenals :))

Enjoy and all the best

Peter

- - - Updated - - -



This is the real advantage of IBIS stabilization.
Another IBIS advantage is that it can stabilize translational and rotational movements, which OIS cannot do. OIS is best at pitch and yaw.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Another IBIS advantage is that it can stabilize translational and rotational movements, which OIS cannot do. OIS is best at pitch and yaw.
Interesting that you mentiones this Doug. A number of years ago while shooting an event, I took a few "special effect" frames employing a rotational movement of the camera body at slow shutter speeds which simultaniously may and/or may not include zooming of the zoom lens too during such roataional movement exposures.

In the heat of shooting I sometimes forget to turn off OIS but noticed it had little effect on the images. Then on one occasion I was testing out another system on a similar event and when taking such shots, noticed little of the effect I strived for.

For the life of me I was stumped and couldn't figire it out until a few weeks later I did a test with both camera systems and low and behold, IBIS indeed had a pronounced effect on rotational movement. Next time I should have consulted Doug first! :).

Dave (D&A)
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Seems that there are far more than 2 different views of the SL.

I am starting to see the Sony v Leica deal again....it's a tried and true debate that has no reasonable end point....but does lead to many views/opinions/what-have-yous.

Please play kindly in our shared sandbox.
Good point. Everyone should go back to their corners although I do understand that people wanted to offer corrections they deemed weren't accurate on either side of the fence. I've learned that there will always be those that "hate" Sony or Leica no matter what they put out long ago and that's fine too. Choice is great as we all have different desires. Who knows... 3 or 4 years ago I would've been all over this camera. Today, I don't even own a M lens anymore.

As mentioned shutter shock has less to do with EFCS and more to do with the shutter used. Many MF cameras experience it. The A7R did for many people and the same can be said for the Nikon D800. The solution to the A7R and the D800 in their refreshes was to add a EFCS and dampening the mechanical shutter further for the record. The A7 never had shutter issues from my firsthand experience and I rarely had them with my A7R to be honest... at least not to the point of it completely ruining an image.
 
My dealer lent me the SL with 24-90 and Sony A7Rii for a pair of days.
I have 17 M/R lenses, and 1 Sony FE 55 1,8

The SL went back, and I kept the Sony. (complete study of the manual required )

The LESS relevant reasons were:
Steady Shot, which is simply amazing: Apo Telyt R 180 can be easily used at 1/15 shutter speed
Autofocus(fast and reliable with the FE 55) in low light and tracking features including EYE tracking (phase detect based autofocus)
Dimensions and weight
Possibility to SEMPLIFY use assigning all significative functions to a single press of dedicated button
Orientable rear display (should be implemented in every live view camera)
Price

The ESSENTIAL reasons:
the 42 Mp sensor is better from any point of view: resolution, dynamic range, high iso noise, etc.(see DPreview comparison)

The much greater cropping capability means that every lens becomes a zoom. My poor man summilux 21 (the Voigtlander Ultron
21 1,8) is also a 24 1,8 and a 28 1,8 before reaching the 24 Mp limitation, and, due to the fact that it outresolves the sensor in most
of the sensor area, with increasingly good performances.

Not considering the capability to autofocus with many Canon lenses- and Nikon too in near future)- all my m lenses (Voigt 15 III, Ultron 21,
Summilux 35 preasph, summilux 50 preasph, summicron 50, elmarit 90, tele Elmar 135, and, to cite only one of the R, the summilux 80,
all works perfectly with this sensor.

The viewfinder of the SL is better, but not so much if one changes in tool box menù the display quality setting from standard to high.
Magnification is similar, and with this change in setting it is many times perfectly possible to focus with no zooming or peaking.

This is not to say that the SL is not a very desirable camera...

(I apologize for posting this in the Leica forum, but considering that I use practically only Leica lenses, I feel a little less guilty

Sergio
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Here's a question for those who shoot with the A7R-II … can a custom button be set to toggle IBIS on/off? (Mark asked)

Yes, you can assign Steady Shot to custom button you prefer

Sergio

Thanks. I also find it useful to set to another custom button the selection of the correct focal length needed for stabilization of lenses that don't transmit their focal length automatically to the camera.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Good point. Everyone should go back to their corners although I do understand that people wanted to offer corrections they deemed weren't accurate on either side of the fence. I've learned that there will always be those that "hate" Sony or Leica no matter what they put out long ago and that's fine too. Choice is great as we all have different desires. Who knows... 3 or 4 years ago I would've been all over this camera. Today, I don't even own a M lens anymore.

As mentioned shutter shock has less to do with EFCS and more to do with the shutter used. Many MF cameras experience it. The A7R did for many people and the same can be said for the Nikon D800. The solution to the A7R and the D800 in their refreshes was to add a EFCS and dampening the mechanical shutter further for the record. The A7 never had shutter issues from my firsthand experience and I rarely had them with my A7R to be honest... at least not to the point of it completely ruining an image.
It seems on this forum that whenever there is an interesting discussion of the Leica SL, the Sony A7 series cameras must be mentioned and everyone must defend their current favorite brand. That sucks, IMO.

That said, the A7 has the same shutter as the A7r, but always had EFCS; it was turned on by default. Which meant that it was smoother but would ruin exposures at shutter times shorter than 1/1000 second (particularly noticeably with lenses 135mm and longer). When you turn off the EFCS to fix that problem, it has exactly the same shutter problems as the A7r: a clattery, noisy shutter that causes vibrations that can (will) ruin photos at various exposure times with certain focal lengths, etc. Obviously, you can work around these problems to some degree. I made many excellent photos with the A7 while I had it.

But I chose to sell the A7 after I'd acquired the M-P because the M-P did a better job for me, with either M or R lenses. The SL does an even better job than the M-P when it comes to my R lenses, that's all; I don't use any M lenses on it, only its native 24-90 and the R lenses.

My take on this whole kerfuffle is that if you really like M lenses, you should use an M. And if you really like R lenses, you should use an SL. And if you really like using M lenses on the SL, use the SL. And if the Sony or some other brand has other features that are an advantage to your photography, you should use whatever that other camera is to do your photography.

I think I'll go take some photos with my Polaroid SX-70 now. :cool:

G
 
V

Vivek

Guest
(I apologize for posting this in the Leica forum, but considering that I use practically only Leica lenses, I feel a little less guilty

Sergio
There is no need for that IMO. We have had numerous "reviews" of NEX' and A7 cams from Jono and even posts why he is selling them on tne Sony forum.

Thanks for your excellent/sensible pros and cons! :)
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
It seems on this forum that whenever there is an interesting discussion of the Leica SL, the Sony A7 series cameras must be mentioned and everyone must defend their current favorite brand. That sucks, IMO.

That said, the A7 has the same shutter as the A7r, but always had EFCS; it was turned on by default. Which meant that it was smoother but would ruin exposures at shutter times shorter than 1/1000 second (particularly noticeably with lenses 135mm and longer). When you turn off the EFCS to fix that problem, it has exactly the same shutter problems as the A7r: a clattery, noisy shutter that causes vibrations that can (will) ruin photos at various exposure times with certain focal lengths, etc. Obviously, you can work around these problems to some degree. I made many excellent photos with the A7 while I had it.

But I chose to sell the A7 after I'd acquired the M-P because the M-P did a better job for me, with either M or R lenses. The SL does an even better job than the M-P when it comes to my R lenses, that's all; I don't use any M lenses on it, only its native 24-90 and the R lenses.

My take on this whole kerfuffle is that if you really like M lenses, you should use an M. And if you really like R lenses, you should use an SL. And if you really like using M lenses on the SL, use the SL. And if the Sony or some other brand has other features that are an advantage to your photography, you should use whatever that other camera is to do your photography.

I think I'll go take some photos with my Polaroid SX-70 now. :cool:

G
I'm not so sure that the A7 and A7R have the same exact shutters in them. They have different shutter sync speeds, different shutter reaction times, and even a different shutter sound. Trust me on the sound of the shutters, I've lived with both side by side for over 2 years. There's a distinct difference in sound between both even with EFCS off on the A7.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I'm not so sure that the A7 and A7R have the same exact shutters in them. They have different shutter sync speeds, different shutter reaction times, and even a different shutter sound. Trust me on the sound of the shutters, I've lived with both side by side for over 2 years. There's a distinct difference in sound between both even with EFCS off on the A7.
I'm not sure either; and I have used them side-by-side as well. Actually, I doubt they are identical because Sony can't seem to re-use any individual piece from one model to the next in their camera line... good or bad, each camera seems to have a completely different set of parts in it.

Sad to say it, but they feel and sound equally clunky and nasty to me, regardless of whether they are exactly the same or not. And their problems are identical, from my experience using them, other than the fact that the one has EFCS and the other doesn't. The clunky, noisy shutter was one of the reasons I chucked the Sony A7.

Both the M-P and the SL shutters' sound, feel, and responsiveness are much more to my liking.

G
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Okay - Okay - Sorry Chaps - I really think that with responses like this I've overstayed my welcome. I'm obviously handling things wrongly. . . and anyway, this seems to be turning into a Sony discussion, not a Leica one.

If I'm coming across as some kind of a Leica 'shill' then I should keep my mouth shut. And so I will. I really don't want to cause any bad feeling, but it seems that I've become a kind of catalyst, which is really not what was intended.

Toodle Pip :)
I believe your SL experiences are very much welcomed in the SL thread. I don't think that it's turning into a Sony v. Leica thread but I do believe some have corrected what they believe to be erroneous information.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
in my opinion, in a thread ostensibly about pro and con views, it makes perfect sense to compare similar cameras of different makes to make a point.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
My opinion is that it is a very personal decision to like the SL or prefer something else.
I am on vacation and have a little more time to shoot the SL and overall I do like it and get along fine with it.
I really really like to hold that camera, I like the speed, I like that it is weatherproof, I like that viewfinder (sometimes I even forget that its an EVF... until I look through the S), that 24-90 is big but the IQ in terms of color (For me one big plus regarding Leica over Sony) and sharpness and bokeh in combination with the SL-sensor is very good. Surprisingly good for a zoomlens.
There are small things which I experience day for day. For example shooting a exposure-row of 3 images. Blazingly fast.
The exposure metering I am also very happy with.
To let this post not be too positive...I sometimes wish for labeled buttons and a little more direct access without having to go into menues. I also find the video buttons not positioned so well.
Some images from today to show how flexible the 24-90 is. (this was very harsh light and it is fog not flare)
 

Attachments

Godfrey

Well-known member
in my opinion, in a thread ostensibly about pro and con views, it makes perfect sense to compare similar cameras of different makes to make a point.
Except that this thread is specifically supposed to be a thread about different perspectives on the same camera, not about how one camera compares to other cameras. I guess that means we disagree about how to have this discussion, above and beyond the discussion itself.

G
 

jlm

Workshop Member
well...i disagree on the thread intent and discussions like these have a life to their own, where one thing leads to another
 
Top