T vs SL 601 with T lenses

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just a question about which I am ignorant.

 

How will the T lenses work with the SL 601?  Yes, I realize that ultimate image is going to be cropped size. And, I realize that the result from the T will render 16 mp vs 12 mp from the SL 601. 

 

But, will the better sensor of the SL 601 render a better image because its a better sensor?

 

And, will the autofocus speed be improved by using the SL 601?

 

Thanks,

Rob

[Louis]

That is an interesting question Rob. I have seen some stunning shots made with 35 TL lens on 601. In DPreview, I have also seen shots with very good IQ  with T 18-56 on 601. T lenses are smaller than SL lenses and people who used this combination loved it. Since I do not have the 601, I am just repeating what others have said; more frequently in DPreview.

 

But I am also interested to know how SL lenses work on T. For instance, how would 24-90 SL perform on T. I know, it would be about 36-135 mm on T; but does the AF work?... Maybe we can get better answers with the upcoming T; or, whatever the name would be.... I think Leica is trying to make the  T, TL and SL lenses interchangeable. If I am right, it is really a good thing!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[brill64]

i tried an 11-23 T lens on the SL & was blown away by the level of detail it could achieve.

[adamdewilde]

AF is faster on the SL then the T. IQ isn't that good on the SL to begin with, so it's worse in my opinion... Unless of course you mean in low light. In low light you get the ISO advantage, but it's not a great low light camera to begin with AND of course the AF of both cameras suffer in low light.

 

So to be honest, I feel the T is better for T lenses in good light vs the SL. Just that the SL AF is faster by a bit.

 

I have the 23mm and 35mm. I had a few others but sold them as I'm not really using Leica anymore. 

 

 

OH one thing to note. The video on the SL is good. And since the video is cropped anyway when shooting 4k, you might as well use the T lenses

[ropo54]

AF is faster on the SL then the T. IQ isn't that good on the SL to begin with, so it's worse in my opinion... Unless of course you mean in low light. In low light you get the ISO advantage, but it's not a great low light camera to begin with AND of course the AF of both cameras suffer in low light.

 

So to be honest, I feel the T is better for T lenses in good light vs the SL. Just that the SL AF is faster by a bit.

 

I have the 23mm and 35mm. I had a few others but sold them as I'm not really using Leica anymore. 

 

 

OH one thing to note. The video on the SL is good. And since the video is cropped anyway when shooting 4k, you might as well use the T lenses

 

 

IQ is not that good on the SL 601?  And, not a great low light camera?  

Looking at some of the photos taken on the Leica SL forum, I've been quite impressed with that camera's output.  

Appreciate your thoughts, nonetheless.

Rob

[Guest VVJ]

IQ isn't that good on the SL to begin with

 

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.  Mine is different.

Edited August 29, 2016 by JorisV

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

AF is faster on the SL then the T. IQ isn't that good on the SL to begin with, so it's worse in my opinion... Unless of course you mean in low light. In low light you get the ISO advantage, but it's not a great low light camera to begin with AND of course the AF of both cameras suffer in low light.

 

So to be honest, I feel the T is better for T lenses in good light vs the SL. Just that the SL AF is faster by a bit.

 

I have the 23mm and 35mm. I had a few others but sold them as I'm not really using Leica anymore. 

 

 

OH one thing to note. The video on the SL is good. And since the video is cropped anyway when shooting 4k, you might as well use the T lenses

At first I thought you were comparing T lenses on the T versus on the SL, and then I might agree since the cropped image on the SL with T lenses would be lower IQ simply because the resulting image would have lower resolution on the SL. But to say the SL has poor IQ is definitely off the mark. You certainly wouldn't want to use T lenses on the SL for your main lenses. Not defending the SL as don't have one. But from everything i have seen it has excellent IQ. With full frame lenses, of course.

[ropo54]

At first I thought you were comparing T lenses on the T versus on the SL, and then I might agree since the cropped image on the SL with T lenses would be lower IQ simply because the resulting image would have lower resolution on the SL. But to say the SL has poor IQ is definitely off the mark. You certainly wouldn't want to use T lenses on the SL for your main lenses. Not defending the SL as don't have one. But from everything i have seen it has excellent IQ. With full frame lenses, of course.

 

 

The essence of my question was whether the better sensor on the SL 601, along with its better ISO ability, would produce a better image using the T lenses than the Leica T would with the same T lenses.  Yes, I know there'd be some offset because the Leica T renders with 16mp vs. 10 mp from the SL with the cropped sensor lenses.

Edited August 29, 2016 by ropo54

[jaapv]

AF is faster on the SL then the T. IQ isn't that good on the SL to begin with, so it's worse in my opinion... Unless of course you mean in low light. In low light you get the ISO advantage, but it's not a great low light camera to begin with AND of course the AF of both cameras suffer in low light.

 

So to be honest, I feel the T is better for T lenses in good light vs the SL. Just that the SL AF is faster by a bit.

 

I have the 23mm and 35mm. I had a few others but sold them as I'm not really using Leica anymore. 

 

 

OH one thing to note. The video on the SL is good. And since the video is cropped anyway when shooting 4k, you might as well use the T lenses

It is the first time I've seen a complaint about the image quality from the SL sensor, I cannot take that remark quite seriously.

Anyway, to me it seems to be a bit silly to put a cropped lens on a full-frame camera and throw away half the pixels.

[ropo54]

 

Anyway, to me it seems to be a bit silly to put a cropped lens on a full-frame camera and throw away half the pixels.

 

Perhaps so, but Leica did decide to make the same mount for the 2 cameras and I presume it does allow one to autofocus. 

[jaapv]

Yes of course they did, it can be quite practical in a pinch, and it is one of the good developments in photography that just about everything fits on everything. but I do not think  that it is always advisable.

It is probably possible to mount SL lenses on the T as well, or even S lenses through an adapter, but the resulting combo would be a lens with a matchbox at the back .

 

Come to think of it, using the same mount for two different systems rationalizes production and cuts development  costs, so I am not quite sure whether swapping specific lenses was very much of a part of the design decision. That the SL adapts is  proof, though, that Leica is in favor of full functionality of the system.

[jaapv]

The essence of my question was whether the better sensor on the SL 601, along with its better ISO ability, would produce a better image using the T lenses than the Leica T would with the same T lenses.  Yes, I know there'd be some offset because the Leica T renders with 16mp vs. 10 mp from the SL with the cropped sensor lenses.

The old  related question: Is it better to crop or to use a longer lens? The answer has always been that it depends, but in general the crop loses.

The better ISO behaviour of the SL is mainly due to the fact that an image from a larger sensor needs less magnification to arrive at the same size final image and thus shows less noise, even if that noise is the same per pixel; assuming that the MP count is higher on the larger sensor to have a similar pixel size

The M9 had the same type of "side-effect" better noise performance over the M8 whilst using a virtually identical sensor, only larger.

 

If you crop to part of the SL sensor you will need more magnification to arrive at the same size final image and thus magnify the noise as well. It would be  an interesting experiment to see which of the two images would show the best noise behaviour.

[sillbeers15]

The old  related question: Is it better to crop or to use a longer lens? The answer has always been that it depends, but in general the crop loses.

The better ISO behaviour of the SL is mainly due to the fact that an image from a larger sensor needs less magnification to arrive at the same size final image and thus shows less noise, even if that noise is the same per pixel; assuming that the MP count is higher on the larger sensor to have a similar pixel size

The M9 had the same type of "side-effect" better noise performance over the M8 whilst using a virtually identical sensor, only larger.

 

If you crop to part of the SL sensor you will need more magnification to arrive at the same size final image and thus magnify the noise as well. It would be  an interesting experiment to see which of the two images would show the best noise behaviour.

I bag to differ. I'm not yet a T user but a M & SL (601) user. I'm going through this forum as my curiosity for T increased as the longest SL native lens is 90-280mm. For nature photography, 280mm is kind of short out of range for most bird activity shots. The 90-280mm on the SL handheld for extended period of time can be tough on muscles. I suddenly realize if a good enough AF speed APSC sensor body such as the T coupled to the 90-280mm will instantly make it a 150-450mm light weight kit! However I'm not convinced  that the current 16MP T and AF performance is good enough, perhaps the T2 can meet my requirements. Btw, the next longer SL lens will have to be wheel chair bounded (I mean tripod) going by the size and weight of the current SL lenses. 

[tom0511]

I bag to differ. I'm not yet a T user but a M & SL (601) user. I'm going through this forum as my curiosity for T increased as the longest SL native lens is 90-280mm. For nature photography, 280mm is kind of short out of range for most bird activity shots. The 90-280mm on the SL handheld for extended period of time can be tough on muscles. I suddenly realize if a good enough AF speed APSC sensor body such as the T coupled to the 90-280mm will instantly make it a 150-450mm light weight kit! However I'm not convinced  that the current 16MP T and AF performance is good enough, perhaps the T2 can meet my requirements. Btw, the next longer SL lens will have to be wheel chair bounded (I mean tripod) going by the size and weight of the current SL lenses. 

 

I dont think the 90-280 would handle well on the T.

[Mikewest]

Hello

Had anyone tested the summicron 23 mm on the SL?

Actualy, I only use Leica lens with my SL (summilux 35 fle, Noctilux and summilux 75); but I wonder if the Summicron T is a good lens, it would help in situation where autofocus is important.