zeleny Posted October 23, 2015 Share #181 Posted October 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I congratulate Leica with the new SL-line. Seems to me a well thought out camera/lens system which I will gladly buy as back up for my S2-P. Ditto. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Hi zeleny, Take a look here Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jon Warwick Posted October 23, 2015 Share #182 Posted October 23, 2015 And it's why I speculate they could make similar sized medium format lenses for a mirrorless mount if they really wanted to. That would have been compelling and disruptive for the industry. This... Not so much. Fully agree. I prefer the M size, but a mirrorless S with its large sensor would be worth carrying around a bulkier and heavier camera. After a very brief use, I found the S image quality is a very obvious step up from the M240 - not just from higher megapixels, but the "look / rendering" appears quite different (and better) to me, presumably from the larger sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 23, 2015 Share #183 Posted October 23, 2015 A mirrorless S would have huge lenses, more or lens as big as the current S lenses. And they would need a large body for a good handling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 23, 2015 Share #184 Posted October 23, 2015 The 24-90 SL is 20% wider and 46% longer (by my math) than the 24-70 F4 Zeiss for Somy E-mount which also has AF and OIS. Granted it has a little more reach... But it seems Leica have designed SLR sized lenses despite the smaller register of the mirrorless mount. I simply can't understand this. And it's why I speculate they could make similar sized medium format lenses for a mirrorless mount if they really wanted to. That would have been compelling and disruptive for the industry. This... Not so much. The 24-90 SL lens is a telecentric design optimised for wide angle edge performance on a digital sensor; the SL mount was deliberately designed as a telecentric lens platform and is thus wide diameter - which caters for future telecentric ultra-wides. The compact size Sony/Zeiss 24-70 FE is well known for its less than stellar edge performance at the wide angle end - reviews praise its central definition but criticise its wide angle edge performance. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 23, 2015 Share #185 Posted October 23, 2015 Dunk, I don't think anyone has suggested that the SL will be anything other than a very fine camera. What many have done is explain why it doesn't appeal to them, personally. That seems to me a valid part of the exchange of thoughts that you should not only expect but value when an important new product is announced. Rejecting opinions as naysaying and the like is just as bad as rejecting positive responses as fanboy drivel. Neither is helpful or appropriate, and both are rude. As for the SL specifically, the question of size is clearly always going to be a factor for a number of Leica users who have chosen their cameras precisely because they want something smaller than a DSLR. Expressing their disappointment that a potentially exciting new camera has ruled itself out for them before They've even seen it is not negativity is it? I read it as honest reaction, which doesn't always have to be positive to be fair or respectable. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/251840-leica-sl-typ-601-mirrorless-system-camera-without-compromise/?p=2910520 Second and third sentences of my original post refer to the X Vario negative hysteria which was unprecedented dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 23, 2015 Share #186 Posted October 23, 2015 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/251840-leica-sl-typ-601-mirrorless-system-camera-without-compromise/?p=2910520 Second and third sentences of my original post refer to the X Vario negative hysteria which was unprecedented dunk So why mention it if you don't feel it's pertinent to the SL discussion? Anyway, I don't want a silly quote/ unquote argument any more than you do. Let's accept that both positive and negative reactions to the SL have largely been made in good faith, whether or not we agree with those opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted October 23, 2015 Share #187 Posted October 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am sure this is the photographic analog to the similarly-named automobile: big, ugly, expensive, but undeniably capable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 23, 2015 Share #188 Posted October 23, 2015 I am sure this is the photographic analog to the similarly-named automobile: big, ugly, expensive, but undeniably capable. I see it more as the Porsche Cayenne of cameras Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 23, 2015 Share #189 Posted October 23, 2015 Is there any objective information available how M lenses perform on the SL? I mean those M lenses that have problems on an A7 type camera, like the 28/2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oculus_ny Posted October 23, 2015 Share #190 Posted October 23, 2015 "Without compromise" and without Image Stabilization, it is a non-starter with me; who by the way, bought his first Leica in 1976--an SL2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbeyFoto Posted October 23, 2015 Share #191 Posted October 23, 2015 There is much to like about the SL and I commend Leica for a bold move, yet I wonder if it tries to do too much. For my M lenses I would prefer a M with a much improved EVF option. Yet such an option would also match the SL for using my R lenses. As others have said the lack of IBIS in the SL is a shame. As with Nikon this means no IS support for legacy lenses - though modern Nikon lenses are for the most part superior to their legacy lenses. IBIS looks like it will soon be a standard feature in the mirrorless world and I can note Sony and Pentax offer it in their current DSLRs. As with other "mature" Leica users I do find autofocus useful for longer lenses so I welcome that feature of the forthcoming SL lenses, but I am not sure how comfortable I would be with the SL and the announced zooms. Nikon's 24-70 f2.8 lenses do not sit comfortably on their smaller DSLRs and I fear the same will be true for SL zooms. Autofocus longer primes may be more manageable but we will have to wait a good while for those. Drawing an analogy the excellent Zeiss Alpha 85 f1.4 and 135 f1.8 primes I am sure the SL equivalents will be equally bulky and heavy, yet these two Zeiss lenses sit more comfortably on the A99 than on the A7 range. I am sure the judgement to join the mirrorless world, rather than A DSLR or something akin to Sony's SLT route, reflects forecasts about the growth of this sector but I can still lament that fact. A DSLR/SLT R10 would have ben nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lecycliste Posted October 23, 2015 Share #192 Posted October 23, 2015 One word - Why? Less-Expensive Quality Alternatives Sony's mirrorless Alpha A7R II has a 42MP sensor, and a system of very fine Zeiss-designed lenses - all for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of Leica's brand-new SL (Typ 601) offering. Additionally, the Alpha A7R II will mount adapted Leica M, Canon, and other lenses. With the right Metabones adapter, you'll even get autofocus and image stabilization with Canon EF lenses. If You're Only Buying For The Look of Your Pictures... Usually, you'd use Leica lenses because you like the 'look' of pictures you get with them. But with a new, unreleased system, you don't know what that 'look' will be. There are less-pricey alternatives that get the job done - salable pictures for the professional, quality images for the advanced amateur. Yes, the SL's sensor will do a better job rendering corners with Leica lenses. But that's not going to help if you don't have any Leica lenses. Yes, Leica had to release something to take the place of the R-line, but don't expect instant embrace by the professional and advanced amateur community. **************** For everyone criticizing the SL's lack of IBIS - how did we ever get sharp shots with our 1954 M3 cameras? C'mon, people, we're Leica users. We all know how to hold and steady a camera, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 23, 2015 Share #193 Posted October 23, 2015 Is there any objective information available how M lenses perform on the SL? I mean those M lenses that have problems on an A7 type camera, like the 28/2.8. K-H, The two I am particularly interested in are the 18SEM and the 50/.95. Thos are lenses which do something the 24-90 can't do. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbeyFoto Posted October 23, 2015 Share #194 Posted October 23, 2015 One word - Why? Less-Expensive Quality Alternatives Sony's mirrorless Alpha A7R II has a 42MP sensor, and a system of very fine Zeiss-designed lenses - all for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of Leica's brand-new SL (Typ 601) offering. Additionally, the Alpha A7R II will mount adapted Leica M, Canon, and other lenses. With the right Metabones adapter, you'll even get autofocus and image stabilization with Canon EF lenses. If You're Only Buying For The Look of Your Pictures... Usually, you'd use Leica lenses because you like the 'look' of pictures you get with them. But with a new, unreleased system, you don't know what that 'look' will be. There are less-pricey alternatives that get the job done - salable pictures for the professional, quality images for the advanced amateur. Yes, the SL's sensor will do a better job rendering corners with Leica lenses. But that's not going to help if you don't have any Leica lenses. Yes, Leica had to release something to take the place of the R-line, but don't expect instant embrace by the professional and advanced amateur community. **************** For everyone criticizing the SL's lack of IBIS - how did we ever get sharp shots with our 1954 M3 cameras? C'mon, people, we're Leica users. We all know how to hold and steady a camera, right? Can I ask you why you think all current market leaders players have IBIS and/or a full range of IS lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted October 23, 2015 Share #195 Posted October 23, 2015 K-H, The two I am particularly interested in are the 18SEM and the 50/.95. Thos are lenses which do something the 24-90 can't do. Wilson Thanks Wilson. I understand. You are correct of course. I don't have those two lenses, but I own the WATE and 50/1.4 and several other 50s. BTW, the WATE performs beautifully on the A7r2 and I expect that it does likewise on the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 23, 2015 Share #196 Posted October 23, 2015 Thanks Wilson. I understand. You are correct of course. I don't have those two lenses, but I own the WATE and 50/1.4 and several other 50s. BTW, the WATE performs beautifully on the A7r2 and I expect that it does likewise on the SL. K-H, The WATE being a telecentric lens should be OK on the SL. The 18SEM is also a retrofocal lens, so might work better than others like for example the 21 Summilux, which is neither retrofocal nor telecentric. I might consider selling my 28 Summicron and 18 SEM and buying a WATE again, subject to me getting on well with the SL and the WATE working well. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgacpa Posted October 23, 2015 Share #197 Posted October 23, 2015 I'm a long time Leica user. Own an M240 and Monochrom (M9) as well as a SE21, 35/2ASPH, 50/1, 50/1.4ASPH, 75/2ASPH and 135ASPH. Here's my rational as to why the SL may be a good fit IF (and that's a big IF) the M 21 and 35 work well on it: To move to the Sony A7rII with the best quality equivalently fast optics, I would need to buy: the camera, ($3,200), the Zeiss Loxia 35/f2 ($1,300), Zeiss Loxia 21/2,8 ($1,500), Sony 50/1,4 ($1,500) (my understanding is the Leica 50/1,4 ASPH doesn't play well with the A7rii either: if I'm wrong,my total would be reduced by $1,500) Total: $7,500 Pretty darn close to the SL, yes? Simply from a price point of view from a long time Leica owner with a significant investment in lenses, I don't see a reason not to go that way if I want EVF, good high ISO performance, potential of future autofocus (my grandchildren ARE moving more and faster...) and continued use of what I consider the finest optics available. So I am putting aside the cost difference. Of course other questions remain, the biggest being WA performance used in my cost assumptions... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 23, 2015 Share #198 Posted October 23, 2015 I see it more as the Porsche Cayenne of cameras Wilson Or Panamera. A friend has one, and it is lovely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamdewilde Posted October 23, 2015 Share #199 Posted October 23, 2015 K-H, The WATE being a telecentric lens should be OK on the SL. The 18SEM is also a retrofocal lens, so might work better than others like for example the 21 Summilux, which is neither retrofocal nor telecentric. I might consider selling my 28 Summicron and 18 SEM and buying a WATE again, subject to me getting on well with the SL and the WATE working well. Wilson Why wouldn't you give the zoom a shot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted October 23, 2015 Share #200 Posted October 23, 2015 I handled one of these today and feel slightly better about it. First, it did not feel as huge as it looks in the publicity stills. Second, the ergonomics were pretty good in my largish hands. It gives the impression of being thinner than the M series. The weight seemed to be mostly in the lens rather than the body; very front-heavy with the huge zoomer that was then mounted. In a way, it is cleaner-looking and strangely more modern than my 246 and I liked the idea of programmable buttons on the back. The shutter release integration into the hand grip bulge seemed "right." The view-finder does not "feel" all-digitally; rather it seems like a conventional SLR. The technology of it all did not feel "in my face." This seems to be one of those cases where the reality is more appealing than what comes through the initial release hype. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.