Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

 

 

 

They took the mirror out and used a nice soft quiet shutter.   Even the visos had soft release modes.  Even my M9 & M8 are shakers compared to older M`s.   They tried taking the mirror soft brake out of the R4 &5.  It went back in with the r6.

 

You can not defeat a shaker except with a tripod.  Even high shutter speeds are not 100% effective.

 

Now the SL has electronic shutter and no mirror so it ought to be pretty steady.

[mgrayson3]

With an M lens attached, it felt well balanced. I think the zooms will benefit from the added vertical grip.

[jonoslack]

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.

Hi There

I tried:

WATE

28 elmarit asph

28 summilux

35 summicron 

35 FLE

50 'lux

50 APO

On the M240, the Sony A7ii and the SL at infinity (well, actually about 2 km)

 

Sadly I didn't have a 28 'cron to try, but the basic conclusion is that the M240 is still best, but the SL is a quantum leap better than the A7ii (which still shows a little smearing with the 50 APO 'cron at f8)

The SL didn't show any smearing, but the corners were a little less good than those of the M240, especially for the 28 elmarit and the 35 summicron.

 

But the bottom line is that the SL is quite usable with all of those lenses at infinity - but you better stop down slightly with the 28 elmarit and the 35 'cron. . . . . 

[ijporter]

I am very unhappy that this type of camera has taken so long to arrive after the demise of the R system. If Leica had given R users any hope that we might soon be able to use our lenses on a non-R Leica, I would have kept them.  As it is, out of 5 R lenses, I have only my 21mm f4 Super-Angulon left, which I use on my Canon 5DII.  If I still had my R lenses, I might have been able to afford a SL.  As it is, I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to return to Leica. 

[lct]

I have kept mine but some R lenses are still affordable fortunately (35/2, 50/2, 60/2.8, 90/2 pre-apo, 135/2.8, 180/3.4).

[k-hawinkler]

Hi There

I tried:

WATE

28 elmarit asph

28 summilux

35 summicron 

35 FLE

50 'lux

50 APO

On the M240, the Sony A7ii and the SL at infinity (well, actually about 2 km)

 

Sadly I didn't have a 28 'cron to try, but the basic conclusion is that the M240 is still best, but the SL is a quantum leap better than the A7ii (which still shows a little smearing with the 50 APO 'cron at f8)

The SL didn't show any smearing, but the corners were a little less good than those of the M240, especially for the 28 elmarit and the 35 summicron.

 

But the bottom line is that the SL is quite usable with all of those lenses at infinity - but you better stop down slightly with the 28 elmarit and the 35 'cron. . . . . 

 

Thanks Jono.  I would love to see a corner detail comparison of the 28/2.8 wide open and stepped down for M240 and the SL.  TIA.

 

[psss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't help thinking about the price.....and it's not so much the comparison with pretty much everything else....but with the Q....same sensor, same IQ....incl a summilux 28 1.7 ASP is more then 3000$ cheaper then the SL? Considering that lens alone would be at least 2000$....that makes the body ( with the same sensor and a slightly better EVF) more then 3x as much......3x....and considering that Leica has to plan on selling a lot more SLs then Qs the Price of the SL body should be even cheaper?

somebody please explain this to me.....Leica can sell a ( from their standpoint ) dead end camera Q (nobody can buy any lenses with it so there is no more business to be done once one is sold which is pretty much how camera companies survive) for a LOT less then the body that can bring people BACK to Leica and revive the brand by finally making a body that can use all those lenses out there....

[Leica Frog]

IMHO, this SL type may be made for professional photographer, it looks so bulky, heavy and unsuitable for street photography. However, I'd like to appreciate Leica Camera A.G. in M9 CCD sensor improvement, it will be perfect if they can develop built-in or external EVF for using on M9 too.

[wlaidlaw]

Why wouldn't you give the zoom a shot?

 

That is what I meant. Assuming the 24-85 works well (and from Jono's photos it looks just fine), I am unlikely to be using my 28 Summicron much. In fact since getting a 35 ASPH Summicron earlier this year, I now rarely use the 28 Summicron or very heavy chrome 35 ASPH Summilux. I do use wide angle lenses a lot, but gave up on the WATE some years ago because I could not get on with focusing in the RF window and then framing in the Frankenfinder. I swapped that with a forum member for the 28 Summicron plus cash, then found I missed not having an extra wide, so bought an 18SEM, when I got my M240. You can focus and frame the 18SEM in the EVF. With the WATE, you will be able to focus and frame in the EVF window but have the advantages of wider and longer in comparison to the 18SEM. It is likely to be some time before Leica bring out their T mount super wide zoom (maybe 12-28). If that was coming soon, obviously that would be even better than a WATE. 

 

Wilson

[dhsimmonds]

I am very unhappy that this type of camera has taken so long to arrive after the demise of the R system. If Leica had given R users any hope that we might soon be able to use our lenses on a non-R Leica, I would have kept them.  As it is, out of 5 R lenses, I have only my 21mm f4 Super-Angulon left, which I use on my Canon 5DII.  If I still had my R lenses, I might have been able to afford a SL.  As it is, I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to return to Leica. 

I also was so disgusted with Leica for abandoning the R line including the DMR. without offering anything to replace it, that I also sold everything that had a Leica name on it.  I went with the Sony Alpha 900FF and it's successor system and have watched Sony's growth in imaging products improve leaps and bounds since their acquisition of Minolta.       Having been burned once having invested very heavily in a Leica system, I would think long and hard before doing so again.

[zeleny]

I shoot stills with an S2-P with an APO-Macro-Summarit-S 120mm f/2.5 CS, Summarit-S 35mm f/2.5 ASPH CS, Summarit-S 70mm f/2.5 ASPH CS, and 120mm f/5.6 TS-APO-Elmar-S ASPH, in the descending order of use. I also shoot 4K video with a RED SCARLET EF with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on a RED GUNNER Sachtler D-12 Speed Balance Hot Pod Tripod. I use Broncolor speedlights for most of my indoors work, so the RED promise of a Digital Still and Motion Camera (DSMC) hasn’t worked out for me there. Accordingly, my Leica system has been fully amortized over five years of service; but the RED system, not so much.

 

I have been looking at an S Typ 007 as a way to simplify my setup. Now, I could spend about $17K on that body and recoup around $3K by selling my S2-P. Or else I could hang on to the latter and spend about $12.5K on a Leica SL with a Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH for my 4K video needs, and pick up an S lens adapter when it becomes available.

 

Looks like a no-brainer to me.

[Peter H]

I can't help thinking about the price.....and it's not so much the comparison with pretty much everything else....but with the Q....same sensor, same IQ....incl a summilux 28 1.7 ASP is more then 3000$ cheaper then the SL? Considering that lens alone would be at least 2000$....that makes the body ( with the same sensor and a slightly better EVF) more then 3x as much......3x....and considering that Leica has to plan on selling a lot more SLs then Qs the Price of the SL body should be even cheaper?

somebody please explain this to me.....Leica can sell a ( from their standpoint ) dead end camera Q (nobody can buy any lenses with it so there is no more business to be done once one is sold which is pretty much how camera companies survive) for a LOT less then the body that can bring people BACK to Leica and revive the brand by finally making a body that can use all those lenses out there....

 

I suppose one possible explanation is that the Q was designed as both an M accessory so it represented incremental sales rather than replacement sales,  and as an entry for non-Leica users into Leica (at the high level), and that they, once hooked, would become regular customers.

 

Otherwise, I agree with you.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I also was so disgusted with Leica for abandoning the R line including the DMR. without offering anything to replace it, that I also sold everything that had a Leica name on it.  I went with the Sony Alpha 900FF and it's successor system and have watched Sony's growth in imaging products improve leaps and bounds since their acquisition of Minolta.       Having been burned once having invested very heavily in a Leica system, I would think long and hard before doing so again.

 

 

This is what Jono Slack wrote in his review:  

 

When the Leica R10 project was abandoned, Leica promised to provide a proper replacement for R lenses, the Leica SL clearly is that replacement, whether intentionally or not. The bottom line is that there is not a better alternative for R lenses than the Leica SL.

 

And there have been hints over the past few years that Leica was working on a camera that would fulfil R lens users' needs. When Thorsten Overgaard interviewed Stefan Daniel (when the M 240 was introduced), SD stated: " i never said you should sell your R lenses". And in 2014 when SD was talking with James Lager, SD hinted at a camera which would be an R solution.

 

Leica Camera AG have never abandoned R users and their needs - and the hints were there that something other than the M240 would eventually be offered. However, Leica was hardly likely to shout about the possibility … or prematurely offer a half-baked solution i.e. a FF mirrorless something with a second-rate EVF  … or offer an expensive 'in house' or badge engineered DSLR (whose FF DSLR could they have used/modified?). Leica has been patient and waited until the SL's EVF technology was available. When the SL design and development commenced (three years ago? ) i doubt that technology was sufficiently advanced to offer a decent EVF. 

 

dunk

[ramarren]

I am very unhappy that this type of camera has taken so long to arrive after the demise of the R system. If Leica had given R users any hope that we might soon be able to use our lenses on a non-R Leica, I would have kept them.  As it is, out of 5 R lenses, I have only my 21mm f4 Super-Angulon left, which I use on my Canon 5DII.  If I still had my R lenses, I might have been able to afford a SL.  As it is, I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to return to Leica. 

 

It's not too late. IN the past three years, I've been collecting my R lenses both to use on R film bodies and in the hope that Leica would address the lack of a digital body for them. I just checked the R adapter SL compatibility list—all of my dozen lenses are listed, no problem! So as soon as the SL is available, and for the cost of buying an SL body instead of an MM246 body, I'll have a superb lens kit to use on the SL that in total cost me less than a Leica Q. 

 

Prices will rise as soon as the SL is available, but you can still get some amazing bargains in mint R lenses. 

 

G

[hydet]

Will I be able to use all my Nikon-mount Zeiss glass on this system with the Novoflex Nikon-to-T adapter?  I wonder how well it will convert.  This could be the end of a long Nikon marriage for me.   

[cpclee]

Disgusted is putting it lightly.  Leica was so cryptic and noncommittal about the "R solution" that I too sold off every piece of R gear I had.  I really loved that system.

In the end, I switched to focusing on the M.  It has turned out to be a good decision.  Leica is unlikely to ever abandon the M (no other system, including the new SL, is free of that risk).  And if the "R solution" is ultimately in the form of mirrorless, then there is no benefit to accepting the bulk of the R lenses in place of the more compact M lenses of the same focal lengths other than cost. 

The SL will end up serving far more M lens owners than R owners.

 

I also was so disgusted with Leica for abandoning the R line including the DMR. without offering anything to replace it, that I also sold everything that had a Leica name on it.  I went with the Sony Alpha 900FF and it's successor system and have watched Sony's growth in imaging products improve leaps and bounds since their acquisition of Minolta.       Having been burned once having invested very heavily in a Leica system, I would think long and hard before doing so again.

[cpclee]

For years Leica had R users believe an R10 was coming.  Killing it was disingenuous.  The SL is a solution of sort but not a reflex solution as people were promised.    

 

This is what Jono Slack wrote in his review:  

 

When the Leica R10 project was abandoned, Leica promised to provide a proper replacement for R lenses, the Leica SL clearly is that replacement, whether intentionally or not. The bottom line is that there is not a better alternative for R lenses than the Leica SL.

 

And there have been hints over the past few years that Leica was working on a camera that would fulfil R lens users' needs. When Thorsten Overgaard interviewed Stefan Daniel (when the M 240 was introduced), SD stated: " i never said you should sell your R lenses". And in 2014 when SD was talking with James Lager, SD hinted at a camera which would be an R solution.

 

Leica Camera AG have never abandoned R users and their needs - and the hints were there that something other than the M240 would eventually be offered. However, Leica was hardly likely to shout about the possibility … or prematurely offer a half-baked solution i.e. a FF mirrorless something with a second-rate EVF  … or offer an expensive 'in house' or badge engineered DSLR (whose FF DSLR could they have used/modified?). Leica has been patient and waited until the SL's EVF technology was available. When the SL design and development commenced (three years ago? ) i doubt that technology was sufficiently advanced to offer a decent EVF. 

 

dunk

[Peter H]

Disgusted is putting it lightly.  Leica was so cryptic and noncommittal about the "R solution" that I too sold off every piece of R gear I had.  I really loved that system.

....................

 

I think my biggest gripe is nothing to do with the SL itself, but the game Leica feels it has to play with its customers  in order to protect commercial sensitivities. There are better ways of handling it.

 

I have spent a lot of money with Leica. I will spend more. But I would spend even more than that, and more readily, if I were able to plan what to buy and when rather than being forced to play the never-ending game of wondering what type of thing is coming next.

 

I know perfectly well that I can go out and take photos now with what i have, and of course I do, every day of my life. I could never buy another Leica product, or any other, and still take photos at the limits of my imagination and ability for the rest of my life, and forget about new developments. But that's not the point. The point here is that many of us would more enthusiastically indulge that part of our nature that asks for new ways to solve old problems if Leica would be braver and less clandestine in the way it shields its plans from us. 

 

I suspect much of my disappointment with the SL is more to do with the way Leica handle their relations with their customers than anything to do with the camera itself. 

[cpclee]

And if Uncle Leica really had R users welfare in mind, the R -> SL adapter would have been released along with the SL.  But instead,it won't come until the end of 2016.  So all of this is a little bit self serving.  They discontinued the R because the economics no longer made sense.  That R users can still use their lenses on the SL is just the nature of mirrorless that it will mate with anyone.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[dkCambridgeshire]

And if Uncle Leica really had R users welfare in mind, the R -> SL adapter would have been released along with the SL.  But instead,it won't come until the end of 2016.  So all of this is a little bit self serving.  They discontinued the R because the economics no longer made sense.  That R users can still use their lenses on the SL is just the nature of mirrorless that it will mate with anyone.

 

I doubt if Leica actually manufacture the adaptors and if contracted out, Leica might have to 'join the queue'. And what if there's an R lens 'smart adaptor' on the way … that could take even longer. 

 

dunk