Reviews

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there a reason why you did no have your A7R2 modified by Kolari Vision? Just curious as my little A7S mod. works fine with my M lenses (did not try them all though) so i wonder if a modified A7R2 could be a valid alternative to the SL601.

 

Good question. I admit I was tempted, but I didn't do it for the following reasons:

 

1) Afraid of not being able to use native FE lenses with max performance anymore.

2) Huge color cast due to modification of the filter stack. Not sure about I/R leaks, but I don't like the idea.

3) Rule: Native lenses on native cameras. So I can only blame myself for crappy photos.

 

I am keeping my M240 and all M lenses. I can't part from my M lenses. They are designed for film (no-filter stack), and I am confident in a few years we'll finally have cameras with film-like sensors that will make them shine in all their glory.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

So no reason special to the A7r2 mod if i understand well. If it does as well as the A7s mod with M lenses i will keep it as an option until the launch of the next M.

[CheshireCat]

[...] until the launch of the next M.

 

Next M ?... not sure there will be a next M. Hope so though.

[lct]

Of course there will me a next M. Problem is not if but when.

[Steve Spencer]

I have to agree here.

Granted, I can buy 4 of them for the price of a SL 24-90... but that zoom is something Zeiss/Sony need to update asap, and I am not touching it with a 10-foot pole.

Also because I prefer primes. My Loxia 21/2.8 should be shipped very soon 

The Loxia 21 does look to be an excellent lens, but it does not look to be better than the 21 SEM and the cost is not all that different if you pick up the 21 SEM used. I think you can get good lenses for the Sony system, but I am not at all sure you will save much if anything if you get equivalent lenses.

 

In addition the A7r II may be better a better camera in some respects, it has a better sensor with higher resolution, more dynamic range, and better high ISO performance and it has body based image stabilization, but the SL is better is some respects as well, it has a better EVF, IMO, faster frame per second, much better weather sealing, and the ability to use some lenses that i would like to use Including Leica S lenses (at least once the adapter is available) and native SL lenses. Interesting the 3 announced SL lenses have no real equivalent in the Sony system. The zooms have a wider range and are faster at the wide end than any of the Sony native mount zooms, and the 50 lux-S is faster than the two normal lenses for native mount Sony. Depending on your shooting style and needs the Leica can certainly be a technologically superior camera, but so can the Sony. There is more than shear technology in the choice of one's camera, however.

[CheshireCat]

The Loxia 21 does look to be an excellent lens, but it does not look to be better than the 21 SEM and the cost is not all that different if you pick up the 21 SEM used.

 

The Loxia 21 on the 42MP A7R2 will hopefully give much better results than the SEM21 on the obsolete M sensor.

 

 

 

the SL is better is some respects as well, it has a better EVF, IMO, faster frame per second, much better weather sealing, and the ability to use some lenses that i would like to use Including Leica S lenses (at least once the adapter is available) and native SL lenses. Interesting the 3 announced SL lenses have no real equivalent in the Sony system. The zooms have a wider range and are faster at the wide end than any of the Sony native mount zooms, and the 50 lux-S is faster than the two normal lenses for native mount Sony. 

 

 

The frames per second in the SL are much lower if you want AF priority. And in any case, I wouldn't use either camera for fast action.

Can you cite a reference about weather sealing being better on the SL ?

 

You can mount lenses from other systems on the Sony too, and the adapters are already available. I can even use my Canon EF primes and zooms with fully functional AF. Don't think such smart adapters will ever be available for the SL.

In any case, the Sony is my small-bag camera. If I need zooms, it is the big bag, and a Canon body perfectly fits.

 

Back to the SL, it is perplexing. It does not excel in anything but the EVF.

Is it a compact camera for my small-bag ? No.

Is it a camera for serious fast-action ? No.

Has it got lots of modern native lenses ? No.

Has it got a modern high performance sensor ? No.

No ? ... Then is it cheaper than any other cameras ? No.

Overall, the SL is an overpriced "jack of all trades, master of none" camera by a company that is quite confused.

 

Yes, you'll have (don't hold your breath) modern AF lenses with Leica's quality.

But I am not sure how much better the SL zooms will be compared to Canon high-end L glass.

At the moment, comparing the SL 24-90 to the Canon 24-70, the only sure thing is that the SL is 3 times more expensive, bigger, heavier, 1 stop slower at the long end, and the AF performance and framerate can't touch Canikon.

 

[Bill Livingston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sometimes I wonder why you are even on this forum...

[lct]

Sometimes I wonder why you are even on this forum...

 

[...] I can't part from my M lenses. They are designed for film (no-filter stack), and I am confident in a few years we'll finally have cameras with film-like sensors that will make them shine in all their glory.

[thighslapper]

Sometimes I wonder why you are even on this forum...

 

 ..... and how many times has that been said  ...... perhaps just start a specific 'lets slag off Leica' thread, then the grumblers can witter on to their hearts content without raising everyones hackles .....

 

I have no problem with constructive criticism, but I resent it being repeatedly implied that I am an idiot to spend my cash on Leica gear ........

 

and no doubt there will be a reply indicating that I am an idiot ....... and requiring me to provide proof that I am not ....... god help us .....

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/254708-complaint-about-moderation-in-game-thread/

[Steve Spencer]

 

The Loxia 21 on the 42MP A7R2 will hopefully give much better results than the SEM21 on the obsolete M sensor.

 

 

 

 

 

The frames per second in the SL are much lower if you want AF priority. And in any case, I wouldn't use either camera for fast action.

Can you cite a reference about weather sealing being better on the SL ?

 

You can mount lenses from other systems on the Sony too, and the adapters are already available. I can even use my Canon EF primes and zooms with fully functional AF. Don't think such smart adapters will ever be available for the SL.

In any case, the Sony is my small-bag camera. If I need zooms, it is the big bag, and a Canon body perfectly fits.

 

Back to the SL, it is perplexing. It does not excel in anything but the EVF.

Is it a compact camera for my small-bag ? No.

Is it a camera for serious fast-action ? No.

Has it got lots of modern native lenses ? No.

Has it got a modern high performance sensor ? No.

No ? ... Then is it cheaper than any other cameras ? No.

Overall, the SL is an overpriced "jack of all trades, master of none" camera by a company that is quite confused.

 

Yes, you'll have (don't hold your breath) modern AF lenses with Leica's quality.

But I am not sure how much better the SL zooms will be compared to Canon high-end L glass.

At the moment, comparing the SL 24-90 to the Canon 24-70, the only sure thing is that the SL is 3 times more expensive, bigger, heavier, 1 stop slower at the long end, and the AF performance and framerate can't touch Canikon.

 

 

You seem to think frames per second is only useful for fast action. In my use that is not the case at all. I often shoot in burst where frames per second matter for portraits (especially of my 3 year old) and for macro (where even light wind can play with exact focus). The high frames per second will be quite useful for me in these situations even with a manual lens. So in my use the high frames per second advantage of the SL will matter. 

 

As to weather sealing. I am sure you have seen Jono's review of the SL  in which he claims the weather sealing is absolute and stood up well to hours of pouring rain--hey he's England I believe him. Leica claims all the controls are sealed with gaskets and compare that to the Lensrental blog tear down of he A7r II, which reveals the mode dial has no seal whatsoever and it is clear the SL has much better weather sealing than the A7r II, which has some weather resistance but I wouldn't use it in the pouring rain like Jono did with the SL.

 

You can mount lenses from non-Sony systems not he A7r II, but none, IMO, will match the quality of the Leica S 120 f/2.5 APO Macro, which cannot be mounted on the Sony and will be able to be mounted on the SL once the S adapter is available. This is important to me, because I really like the S lenses and that particular lens.

 

What the camera will work well for, I think, is professionals who want to shoot events, and that is not a small category. You get to use some awfully nice lenses including the S lenses, M lenses, and R lenses. You get fast frames per second (useful for catching the kiss just right at a wedding for example). You get two cards slots--something that would rule out the A7r II for many people for this type of shooting. You get a great EVF--something that can be very useful for dark indoor event settings. 

 

I don't understand why people don't recognize this use for the camera. No it won't do sports and it will struggle with how many people shoot wildlife, but there is a clear professional use for it, IMO. I think it is clearly there.

[CheshireCat]

I don't understand why people don't recognize this use for the camera. No it won't do sports and it will struggle with how many people shoot wildlife, but there is a clear professional use for it, IMO. I think it is clearly there.

 

Steve, I agree with your points above, and I understand the use of the camera.

 

Let's just say I don't understand the value proposition compared to other offerings. I think we all agree on this 

[pop]

(...) I don't understand the value proposition compared to other offerings. I think we all agree on this 

I think so. Others do, though.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

The Loxia 21 on the 42MP A7R2 will hopefully give much better results than the SEM21 on the obsolete M sensor.

 

 

 

 

 

The frames per second in the SL are much lower if you want AF priority. And in any case, I wouldn't use either camera for fast action.

Can you cite a reference about weather sealing being better on the SL ?

 

You can mount lenses from other systems on the Sony too, and the adapters are already available. I can even use my Canon EF primes and zooms with fully functional AF. Don't think such smart adapters will ever be available for the SL.

In any case, the Sony is my small-bag camera. If I need zooms, it is the big bag, and a Canon body perfectly fits.

 

Back to the SL, it is perplexing. It does not excel in anything but the EVF.

Is it a compact camera for my small-bag ? No.

Is it a camera for serious fast-action ? No.

Has it got lots of modern native lenses ? No.

Has it got a modern high performance sensor ? No.

No ? ... Then is it cheaper than any other cameras ? No.

Overall, the SL is an overpriced "jack of all trades, master of none" camera by a company that is quite confused.

 

Yes, you'll have (don't hold your breath) modern AF lenses with Leica's quality.

But I am not sure how much better the SL zooms will be compared to Canon high-end L glass.

At the moment, comparing the SL 24-90 to the Canon 24-70, the only sure thing is that the SL is 3 times more expensive, bigger, heavier, 1 stop slower at the long end, and the AF performance and framerate can't touch Canikon.

 

 

 

Interesting you cite the M sensor as "obsolete" and later in the same post talk about a big bag with a Canon camera when no current Canon sensor comes close to the M sensor. Certainly some Canon sensors do OK with high ISO noise after the super thick AA filter and in camera NR is applied (which Canon do quite well) but in DR, resolution and shadow recovery the M sensor is a generation ahead of anything made by Canon.

 

As someone who owns an A7II, R2, S, Leica M, and SL and who processes hundreds of Canon files every week I think your assertion that the SL doesn't have a modern sensor is wrong. The high ISO on the SL is actually very good indeed. Your talking a Canon 5D3 but with DR and resolution. Mind you I don't think Canon sensors are "obsolete". They're different, that's all.

 

You also forgot to mention a few positives

 

- Best build quality of ANY current 35mm camera.

- Best weather sealing of ANY current 35mm camera.

- Dual card slots.

- The only current mirrorless camera with a native ISO 50 (the Sonys are a pull function)

- The rather lovely shutter noise and dampening.

- Extended M lens compatibility without modification.

- The spirit level is much better than the Sony's (or any one else's for that matter.

- touch screen.

- Inbuilt GPS. (which Sony had but dropped for the A series)

 

I don't think the SL or M are perfect. I've got quite the list for my SL I'd like to see addressed. Hell, I think the SL is just a German version of my 4 year old Sony a99 but without a lens range. I'm not drinking the SL coolaid. It's a long way to being a system. It sure isn't perfect. It's certainly not the right camera for many people. But neither is any other camera. If there were an ideal camera we'd all be using it. I think you're not providing a balanced view here, especially when you bash the M sensor while being happy to shoot with a Canon one.

 

Sensors with different  performance characteristics don't have to be "obsolete". They're just different. All cameras, lenses and sensors have limitations. Those limitations differ between models and limitations are good because they're what gives a piece of equipment its character. In the good ol' days lots of landscape photographers shot Velvia. There were films around with more dynamic range. Colour neg films had up to 8 or 9 stops compared to Velvias 5. But they still chose Velvia for the other qualities it had and the limitations of colour neg reproduction.

 

I think it would be fair to say that some photographers like limitations more than others. Quite a few people prefer the M9 sensor to the M or SL. People can discuss Mandeler vs Karbe till the cows come home. Or Sony sensors vs Leicas usability and build quality. I think using words like "obsolete" doesn't help because no matter how it's intended it reads like you're stating a fact when it's really just an opinion, which is fine. I think we all need to accept that there are lots of people out there who make individual choices based on wants/needs we don't understand.

 

In my opinion it's much harder to find a poor digital camera in the current market than a good one. Most currently available camera are so incredibly capable it's almost silly to be arguing over such small real word differences. I think almost all of us, me included, would be better off taking a course or a trip to Rome rather than buying a new camera if we were really interested in getting better photographs. It's fun discussing what's "better" because we've got no real issues to worry about. First world problems, indeed.

 

Gordon

[jrp]

I think that the most useful concept when comparing cameras is of Ming Thein's shooting envelope. The SL is not a sports action camera, nor is it for macro nature. With its own AF lens, it' a fine general purpose camera, but it's heavy / bulky. The camera controls still need firmware refinement. Coupled with small manual focus M lenses it is very capable and portable, but lacks AF, stabilisation and weather sealing. 

[CheshireCat]

As someone who owns an A7II, R2, S, Leica M, and SL and who processes hundreds of Canon files every week I think your assertion that the SL doesn't have a modern sensor is wrong. The high ISO on the SL is actually very good indeed. Your talking a Canon 5D3 but with DR and resolution. Mind you I don't think Canon sensors are "obsolete". They're different, that's all.

 

I do think Canon sensors are obsolete. The latest Sony sensors are the reference.

 

You also forgot to mention a few positives

- Best build quality of ANY current 35mm camera.

- Best weather sealing of ANY current 35mm camera.

 

I haven't stressed any SL under harsh conditions, and I doubt you have too. I think the camera is too new, and only time will tell.

The "best" is a big claim. How can you tell ?

 

 

- Dual card slots.

 

That's what any pro camera has.

 

- The only current mirrorless camera with a native ISO 50 (the Sonys are a pull function)

 

Apart from nominal data, results are all that matters. Can you prove ISO 50 on the SL are better than higher ISO on modern Sony sensors ?

 

- The rather lovely shutter noise and dampening.

 

Don't care much about shutter noise. But it's just me.

 

- Extended M lens compatibility without modification.

 

That is definitely a plus, but I understand my M240 gives better results.

 

- The spirit level is much better than the Sony's (or any one else's for that matter.

 

Never used the level tool on any camera. Never had problems with lines in the frame (but I may in a few decades).

Jokes apart, postprocessing makes it perfect.

 

- touch screen.

- Inbuilt GPS. (which Sony had but dropped for the A series)

 

Agreed.

Touch screen is nice to have... if properly implemented. I have "nose problems"

Inbuilt GPS is a must, and should be on every camera... provided it does not suck.

My Canon GP-E1 for the 1Dx is big and expensive, but for sure it works great.

 

In my opinion it's much harder to find a poor digital camera in the current market than a good one. Most currently available camera are so incredibly capable it's almost silly to be arguing over such small real word differences. I think almost all of us, me included, would be better off taking a course or a trip to Rome rather than buying a new camera if we were really interested in getting better photographs. It's fun discussing what's "better" because we've got no real issues to worry about. First world problems, indeed.

 

Agreed.

It's just I want better. If we were happy with what we had, then we would still be chasing deers for food

[Jeff S]

Brief user review at lens rentals, with comparisons to Sony A7rii...

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/leica-sl-a-hatelove-story

 

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 I do think Canon sensors are obsolete. The latest Sony sensors are the reference.

 

 

​Sure the Sony sensors are great. But does that make the others "obsolete" To me that's like calling the second prettiest girl in the room ugly. Personally really I dislike Sonys colours compared to Leica and Fuji. Especially their sickly skin tones. I have to spend a lot of time in post getting colours I like from the Sonys. That means I tend to only use the Sonys when I'm shooting low volume work. Does that mean the Sony sensor is inferior to the Leica? No. Just different. I can accept that other get the Sony colours to sing or that they like them. Different, not worse.

 

I haven't stressed any SL under harsh conditions, and I doubt you have too. I think the camera is too new, and only time will tell.

The "best" is a big claim. How can you tell ?

 

 

 

Have you looked at an SL? It's immaculately put together. It's hard to find a seam. I have access to Canon's and Nikon's flagships. Not even close.

 

Yesterday I removed the sand from my SL with a hose. I am not kidding.

 

 

That's what any pro camera has.

 

 

No other mirrorless has this, does it? And just because other cameras have it doesn't mean it's not a positive thing on the SL.

 

Apart from nominal data, results are all that matters. Can you prove ISO 50 on the SL are better than higher ISO on modern Sony sensors ?

 

 

 

That's not the point. The point is that I can shoot a Noctilux, wide open on a Sunny day with the SL without any loss of DR. Not essential for everyone but here in Oz a good ISO 50 is often more useful than ISO 6400. The ISO 50 on the A7II is good but the loss of DR negates any advantage over the Leica.

 

 Don't care much about shutter noise. But it's just me. 

 

 

 

It matters to me as a wedding photographer. Silent shutter is nice on the Sony's except when you get rolling shutter effects on a bride walking down the aisle. The shutter noise of the A series is a major issue for wedding photographers.

 

That is definitely a plus, but I understand my M240 gives better results.

 

 

This is not true for all M lenses. For example the Noctilux is better on the SL than the M because there's very little fringing with the SL and awful purple fringing with the M. It's been widely reported that "some" M lenses are better on the SL than the M.

 

 

Never used the level tool on any camera. Never had problems with lines in the frame (but I may in a few decades).

Jokes apart, postprocessing makes it perfect.

 

 

 

Another feature I use all the time when shooting interiors professionally. Extra time in post cost more than getting it right in camera.

 

It's just I want better. If we were happy with what we had, then we would still be chasing deers for food 

 

 

I'm all for better. Otherwise I'd still be shooting with a D60 (not 60D) or my beloved 503. Better for who? Better for what purpose? The difference between the M, SL and A7 sensor is not actually that big in real world conditions. I'm shooting commercially with all of them and they all have good and not so good things. Is the 2/3 stop DR advantage of the Sony a bigger advantage than the colour palette of the Leica? Is the slightly noisier Leica at 6400 worse than the high ISO NR that can't be completely turned off in the Sony? Is the small size and weight of the Sony any issue if the buttons are cramped and tiny or when working on a tripod? You keep saying the Sony sensor is better but does that make it a better camera? A camera is more than a box for a sensor? When I'm shooting in studio, with full lighting control or photographing people I think the Leica has a better sensor because I like the colours better. I don't see the DR or resolution differences because they're not there in those conditions. For me, sometimes, under some conditions (which I'm in a LOT) the Leica is the better sensor. And it's almost always the better camera. Not being able to assign the EVF/LCD switch to a button on the A7R2 is enough to make me want to leave it at home. People say the SL is too big. Put a flash on the A7 and it's too small and unbalanced as far as I'm concerned. And the specialised hotshoe of the Sony makes using hotshoe flash triggers a PITA because the firing pin doesn't line up quite right.

 

The whole point is, every one has different requirements. What may be inferior to you might be of no importance or even perfect for someone else. What you see as great might be frivolous to me. Personally a half stop or so of DR is something I can fix in 10 seconds with a light. Small cramped buttons I can't do anything about. So I'm more likely to pack a Leica than a Sony when I need to work quickly and intuitively.  I'm more likely to use manual focus at a wedding reception because I know when the light gets low I can focus faster and more consistently tan any AF system out there. That doesn't mean manual focus is better than auto focus. It just means in the situations where I need it and for the particular way I like to do things manual focus is the best personal choice.

 

Gordon

[CheshireCat]

​Not being able to assign the EVF/LCD switch to a button on the A7R2 is enough to make me want to leave it at home.

 

What's the problem with auto-switch ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

I have no experience with the A7r2 but my little A7s has at least 10 assignable buttons and the monitor can be deactivated by any of them if the auto-switch function doesn't fit... 

[jrp]

I'm enjoying using the SL with M lenses.  But if I didn't have them, the Sony A7rII with Batis lenses, and a few of the Zeiss Sonys (50mm, 35mm, 90mm) would make a formidable system. The body is lighter than the SL, but the lenses, having AF, are heavier.  

 

Neither of these has a fully fledged system around it.  The Sony lacks GPS.  At least the flashes are available, if ultra-expensive.  Similarly for the grip, which is useful for portraiture.  The SL has a humungous AF lens and that is about it.