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!

Why the SL?

V

Vivek

Guest
Question directed at the SL owners, in particular seasoned folks like Peter A and (Para)Tom.

Feel free to compare it with other brands, systems, types, in evy aspect.

Peter A prompted me to start this thread and I am happy to oblige. :)

TIA!
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Thanks for the thread Vivek - great idea for a thread and I look forward to people's responses. The SL for me is a the most fun I have had with a camera since I bought my first Leica M some 20 or so years ago.

For me the decision was made regarding the SL when I looked through the viewfinder. Bright high resolution viewfinder matched with focus zoom makes manual focusing a joy - not a hardship. My Sony has this functionality but now no longer the best viewing experience. Simple as that for me. The consequences of easy viewing and easy focus - means that the utility and amenity of all my M glass is now far superior to not only the Sony via adaptor route - but also the M route. There are improvements that can be made to the viewfinder experience though - it isn't perfect - just better than anyone else right now. I won't even comment on where that left my Nikon system - suffice to say it is now all gone - i can no longer consider the viewfinder experience offered by DSLR's to be something I have to 'put up with' or workaround. The Sony and the SL give me access to a the best manual focus glass avaliable in Leica and Zeiss and over time will give me access to the best autofocus 35mm lenses avaliable from Leica.

That is the start of my response - it is easier to see through the EVF of the SL than a traditional DSLR and it far easier to nail critical focus as well.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thanks for the thread Vivek - great idea for a thread and I look forward to people's responses. The SL for me is a the most fun I have had with a camera since I bought my first Leica M some 20 or so years ago.

For me the decision was made regarding the SL when I looked through the viewfinder. Bright high resolution viewfinder matched with focus zoom makes manual focusing a joy - not a hardship. My Sony has this functionality but now no longer the best viewing experience. Simple as that for me. The consequences of easy viewing and easy focus - means that the utility and amenity of all my M glass is now far superior to not only the Sony via adaptor route - but also the M route. There are improvements that can be made to the viewfinder experience though - it isn't perfect - just better than anyone else right now. I won't even comment on where that left my Nikon system - suffice to say it is now all gone - i can no longer consider the viewfinder experience offered by DSLR's to be something I have to 'put up with' or workaround. The Sony and the SL give me access to a the best manual focus glass avaliable in Leica and Zeiss and over time will give me access to the best autofocus 35mm lenses avaliable from Leica.

That is the start of my response - it is easier to see through the EVF of the SL than a traditional DSLR and it far easier to nail critical focus as well.
Peter,

I quite have to agree! Also for me the SL EVF is the far most advanced EVF even compared to the Fuji XT2, which is pretty good as well. The whole EVF experience has changed my photography so significantly that I almost cannot work (do no longer want to work) with OVFs, even the excellent one in my D810. Time will tell how long I will stay in the Nikon system, especially as there are nowadays more than one mirrorless alternatives offering already what I could cover with my Nikon system.

Coming back to the SL, this is IMHO the best FF mirrorless currently available, especially if one owns a ton of M glass like I do. What made me so far stay out of this system is the missing lenses for wildlife, as I need something at least equivalent to the Nikkor 80-400 VR or even better some 150-600. This is the reason I am currently parking at the Fuji X system, that gives me not only perfect 24MP with great Fuji colors, but also a wildlife combo (XT2 with Fujinon 100-400 that translates to 150-600 in FF).

But as soon as Leica would offer such a lens equivalent I would totally switch over to the SL and never look back!
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Peter,

I quite have to agree! Also for me the SL EVF is the far most advanced EVF even compared to the Fuji XT2, which is pretty good as well. The whole EVF experience has changed my photography so significantly that I almost cannot work (do no longer want to work) with OVFs, even the excellent one in my D810. Time will tell how long I will stay in the Nikon system, especially as there are nowadays more than one mirrorless alternatives offering already what I could cover with my Nikon system.

Coming back to the SL, this is IMHO the best FF mirrorless currently available, especially if one owns a ton of M glass like I do. What made me so far stay out of this system is the missing lenses for wildlife, as I need something at least equivalent to the Nikkor 80-400 VR or even better some 150-600. This is the reason I am currently parking at the Fuji X system, that gives me not only perfect 24MP with great Fuji colors, but also a wildlife combo (XT2 with Fujinon 100-400 that translates to 150-600 in FF).

But as soon as Leica would offer such a lens equivalent I would totally switch over to the SL and never look back!
Hi Peter

Yes there are 'native' lens gaps all over for the SL - especially in 300-600 range, however there is a plethora of great manual focus telephotos from Nikon and Canon that can mount for specialist photography as long as manual focus is preferred. Doug from Wildlife photography has posted his thoughts on the SL and bird photography - highly recommended reading. The Fuji is a great camera in that format. There never will be one camera for every possible shooting requirement. All that said - the Leica 90-280 is a fantastic lens - with one caveat and that is it is prone to flaring when pointed towards intense sunlight, like always one has to work within any limitations that the gear imposes.

-Pete
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Hi Peter

Yes there are 'native' lens gaps all over for the SL - especially in 300-600 range, however there is a plethora of great manual focus telephotos from Nikon and Canon that can mount for specialist photography as long as manual focus is preferred. Doug from Wildlife photography has posted his thoughts on the SL and bird photography - highly recommended reading. The Fuji is a great camera in that format. There never will be one camera for every possible shooting requirement. All that said - the Leica 90-280 is a fantastic lens - with one caveat and that is it is prone to flaring when pointed towards intense sunlight, like always one has to work within any limitations that the gear imposes.

-Pete
Novoflex has a Canon EF to Leica SL mount adapter that supports AF with most EF lenses. And, according to the latest Leica blog mail I received this morning, Novoflex will release a Nikon E to Leica SL mount adapter that supports Nikon E lenses, making lenses like the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR usable. If it follows the pattern of the Canon adapter, image stabilization won't be supported, but aperture control and autofocus should be.

G
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
For me, the Leica SL is the digital replacement for my Leica R system bodies. It allowed me to take 100% advantage of my existing lenses, both R and M. It's performance with these lenses is better than any other camera I've adapted them to, in every way.

Beyond that, the SL is the right size and weight, has the right controls, and produces excellent image quality. It's shutter is very quiet and very smooth. It is built like a tank and should prove extremely durable. The viewfinder is excellent. It's economical on power and has the features I wanted in a top of the line system camera. It handles superbly, with plenty of space for my hands so that I can hold it very steadily.

It realizes all that I have wanted in a 35mm format, digital systems camera, and at a price lower than I expected to pay for such a thing.

G
 

PeterA

Well-known member


I've "shut the gate" on optical viewfinders in 35mm format cameras. I made this snap with the SL and a tri Elmar at 16mm - f8 gives you the best edge to edge performance as far as sharpness goes. ISO 200. I can see everything I need to see without taking my eye away from the viewfinder with this camera - much like all EVF style cameras except brighter and with leica's in built profile for the lens. With some attention to highlights in PP the 'look' isn't that far from M9 /ccd sparkle - with the benefits of CMOS tech. SO like Godfrey has mentioned a second bonus ( for me) is I can use my M lenses even ultra wides - not too shabby really - tbh - much easier to use than an M for me.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Hi Vivek. Good question.

I am a longtime M-shooter, but for the last 10 years I allways also had a DSLR for Tele and faster things (kids/sports).
The idea to buy the SL was to have a camera with Zoom, AF, with the advantage to use some of my M primes as well (who needs AF in a 21mm lens?).

Compared to Canikon DSLRs the SL also has the advantage for me to have the same menue system and (nearly as) simple user interface like other Leica cameras.
And the profiles and color tweaking is close to the other Leica cameras.

In regards of color and overall IQ I prefer the SL over Nikon. Also both zooms are excellent, Very natural color. I also like the form factor of the SL. It would be nice if the lenses were somewhat smaller, but the 24-90 range is very flexible.
The AF is very good, but C-AF not up to a pro-dslr IMO.
I wish there would be smaller AF primes, I rather had a 50/2.0 than a monster big 50/1.4.
(If I compare the M with 50 APO vs SL with 50/1.4 in regards of size...)

In my house the biggest "enemy" of the SL is the T. I now use the T much more than the M and the SL.
Its not as fast as the SL but mostly fast enough, and the size of the T system (specially the size of lenses is great for vacation and casual, specially if you compare the 50-135T vs the 90-280 SL lens)The T 35/1.4 is my favorite and offers great rendering.

In the end I believe the SL makes mainly sense for people who want to use their R-primes or for people who want AF and Zoom but are ready lug around heavy lenses.(compared to M and T)

I like the camera but I guess overall I am more a prime guy.
And I am afraid the next primes for SL might be to big for my taste.
So I am still not sure if I use the SL enough that I will own it forever.
I do however prefer it over the Canikons I had.

At the moment I feel I should use the M more often again and I am looking forward regarding the new T announcement.

If all this sounds a bit undecided and confused, than it mirrors my opinion. Not a fault of the SL but of me owning too many systems.
 
Last edited:

doug

Well-known member
Doug,
did you move to the SL?
Tom
I'm using the Sony a7II for the moment. There are lots of good reasons to use the SL instead but the things that stop me are the lack of a full-time viewfinder exposure preview mode option and the lack of a stabilized sensor. The initial cost is still somewhat an obstacle for me but less so than in the recent past.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I'm using the Sony a7II for the moment. There are lots of good reasons to use the SL instead but the things that stop me are the lack of a full-time viewfinder exposure preview mode option and the lack of a stabilized sensor. The initial cost is still somewhat an obstacle for me but less so than in the recent past.
Leica have gone the more conservative in lens stabilization route - and a point of difference for their lens line. Doug, I can't see you replacing Sony given your specific needs with long telephoto lenses you already have. Leica can fix the live view exposure issue- and they should - but they were always going to go in lens stabilisation.
 

aDam007

New member
I'm not a fan of the sensor. Or the company. But I'd say the EVF is pretty compelling. It looks nice looking through the SL. The ergonomics are subjective but I like them. The lenses would be my main draw to the system. Though I have yet to use lenses that draw me to the system. So in theory it's the native SL lenses that would make the system worth it. Let's just hope that the new ones are a step above the basic T and TL lenses I've been using.. As none of them IMHO (T and even SL zooms for that matter) are worth the Leica badge.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I'm not a fan of the sensor. Or the company. But I'd say the EVF is pretty compelling. It looks nice looking through the SL. The ergonomics are subjective but I like them. The lenses would be my main draw to the system. Though I have yet to use lenses that draw me to the system. So in theory it's the native SL lenses that would make the system worth it. Let's just hope that the new ones are a step above the basic T and TL lenses I've been using.. As none of them IMHO (T and even SL zooms for that matter) are worth the Leica badge.
Wow, I find the 24-90 and 90-280 among the best Zooms I have used.

Have you tried the 35/1.4TL? I use it on the T and find it to have that "special" look.
 

doug

Well-known member
Leica have gone the more conservative in lens stabilization route - and a point of difference for their lens line. Doug, I can't see you replacing Sony given your specific needs with long telephoto lenses you already have. Leica can fix the live view exposure issue- and they should - but they were always going to go in lens stabilisation.
Never say never... I'd consider the more 'conservative' approach to be not mucking with the optics and use sensor stabilization. 23 elements in 17 groups for the 90-280? What could possibly go wrong?

Do you recall the pundits who said there'd never be adapters to use Hasselblad H or Contax 645 lenses on the SL? It wasn't until the second generation that Sony a7-series cameras got sensor stabilization. The SL (601) is a first-generation product.
 

aDam007

New member
Wow, I find the 24-90 and 90-280 among the best Zooms I have used.

Have you tried the 35/1.4TL? I use it on the T and find it to have that "special" look.
Wrote a long response.. The short answer is easier. I still have the 35TL, one of the things I'm having a hard time selling off (not because I like it, because nobody wants to buy T lenses until they see the new T2 camera).

I don't think the rendering is special, but I do think the lens is pretty good considering the crop factor. But it's overpriced and the AF is to slow, even on the SL. So I'd rather use a 50Lux-asph and manual focus.
 

jrp

Member
The SL is a superb mirrorless camera that will take better pictures with your M lenses than non-Leica cameras such as Sony, at least at the edges at widest angles, and great pictures with the zooms that it offers. But at a price.

The main current competitors are

= the Sony (A7ii, A7rii) which offer a greater range of superb lenses (including from Zeiss), better tech (OBIS, 42mpix, eye focus, etc) and less weight in the body but a the Sonys offer a less engaging shooting experience than the SL (including the digital viewfinder) and a more weight to get from 24-280mm.

= the forthcoming Hasselblad mirrorless, which has 50mpix, and lenses of comparable, or lower, prices to the SL. A specialty camera.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Never say never... I'd consider the more 'conservative' approach to be not mucking with the optics and use sensor stabilization. 23 elements in 17 groups for the 90-280? What could possibly go wrong?

Do you recall the pundits who said there'd never be adapters to use Hasselblad H or Contax 645 lenses on the SL? It wasn't until the second generation that Sony a7-series cameras got sensor stabilization. The SL (601) is a first-generation product.
The dirty little secret or elephant in teh room as far as 35mm high megapixel counts go is that resolution soon finds out the flaws in autofocus. I want and need a camera which I can nail focus with fast galss - without sweating it. The SL delivers.

Perfection in 35Mm body was the R9 and motordrive combo. All this fascination with miniaturization - only to be confronted with the reality of if you want fast quality glass and autofocus- lenses are fat and heavy. No way can I suffer a Nopctilux on a Sony body - it just doen't work. How about an Otus 55 or 85 - good luck trying to focus that on a CaNikon!

I really wanted the Sony to be my system - but the body was too small and is too small for me to use and be happy doing so. Is the SL worth 2X the copst of a Sony A7r11? I think so given its better ergonomics and viewfinder. It was an easy decision for me to make selling off all my Nikon kit. Yes the zooms are complicated designs- but I can vouch for their stellar performance - compared to CaNikon offerings - the 90-280 is an outstanding lens- I can post hundreds of 'trite' snaps evidencing beautiful bokeh stunning sharpness all delivered hand held walking around. I wonder if a telconverter will ever appear? yes I am somewhat miffed about the variable aperture- but in real terms 280 @ F4 is fine.

The announced 16-35 will round out the standard zoom range - but the real treat will be the primes. yes it is a first generation body. Give me live view histogram, let me configure the preview information I want - rather than having to scroll between 4 different views thanks and please 35megapixels in the next incarnation.

It is a good first effort - fingers crossed I don't have the issues many S users have had with their lenses - so far so good. I am holding off totally exiting my M system - for now - but like the mirror box , I think the days of a rangefinder (for me) are now limited - and I suspect judging by teh fact that down here I am told 3/4 SL buyers are all long time M users- Leica is well aware of the need to offer something better.
 
Top