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

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the unsung benefits of chronic GAS is that you learn whose reviews are worth paying attention to, either because the reviewer's photographic practices are similar to your own, or because you find that what they say about a product matches your own experience. As a long term M2/M3 user, I returned to the new market with an M9 4 years ago, and ran the gamut of Huff, Rockwell etc, before focusing on (among others) Jono Slack, Ming Thein & Jonathan Eastland; not because they identified every last issue with a camera, but because what they wrote could be trusted and they covered the aspects I was interested in. 

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

I'm still on the fence. It's a lot of money. 

[Rick]

That link has been posted before on the SL part of the forum. The article is a tad sycophantic......."and here's one our PR wonk wrote earlier." 

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson,

 

You don't have to point that out to me.  I read it.  I was posting so others would have a heads up to his further writing about the SL.  Maybe I should have posted that "Ambassador" Dowling...      But, I still like his articles and believe "wonk" isn't anymore fair to use on Kristian than, it would be to use on Ambassador Slack's articles.  They both are worth a read.   

 

Rick 

[wildlightphoto]

I'm still on the fence. It's a lot of money. 

 

I'm not on the fence.  I just don't have the money.

[wlaidlaw]

Rick, 

 

I always feel Jono's articles are more factual than Dowling's. The sycophancy was the way the questioning or rather feeding them lines, of the Leica people was done. A little more vinegar would have made it much more palatable.    

 

For example 1) Why so big and heavy? 2) why so late (for R users)? 3) why only 24MP when competitors are offering between 36 and 50? 4) Why only one lens at launch? 5) Why are the adapters so delayed? As a committed Leica user for over 50 years and one who has an SL on order, those are the questions I would like to hear answers from Leica. The rest I can read on their brochure. 

 

Wilson

[Leicaiste]

Rick, 

 

I always feel Jono's articles are more factual than Dowling's. The sycophancy was the way the questioning or rather feeding them lines, of the Leica people was done. A little more vinegar would have made it much more palatable.  

 

For example 1) Why so big and heavy? 2) why so late (for R users)? 3) why only 24MP when competitors are offering between 36 and 50? 4) Why only one lens at launch? 5) Why are the adapters so delayed? As a committed Leica user for over 50 years and one who has an SL on order, those are the questions I would like to hear answers from Leica. The rest I can read on their brochure. 

 

I don't see what is factual in your list. They are only your personal preference.

 

To each his own. 

 

I prefer 1) a properly sized camera with big lenses (SL and R), 2) I wouldn't have ordered the SL with a lesser EVF, 3) I was hopping for a 24MP for my R lenses, 4) I don't need any new lens, 5) I have both the adapters needed. 

 

My only real concern is the lack of IBIS for my own R and L lenses. My personal preference. 

 

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

SL lens adaptors' design, manufacture and marketing might be more complex than it appears. If Leica offered the R to SL adaptor now, it's possible they might risk Leica T sales increasing at the expense of fewer SL sales - because the R to SL adaptor would presumably be T compatible (in the same way that the T to M adaptor is SL compatible) … and thus offer T users a scaled down partial R solution e.g. with in-camera R-lens image optimisation via R lens ROM data … assuming at some stage the T will store R lens profiles (they might already be hidden in the T camera together with M lens profiles). Also, apart from the R to SL adaptor, Leica has promised an S to SL adaptor and a cine lens PL adaptor -  thus whichever dept. or contractor is working on the R to SL adaptor, is likely also working on the S and PL adaptors. Thus SL lens adaptors might not be the straightforward project(s) we assume them to be. But, considering the SL has been in development for three years and the R to SL adaptor is expected at the end of 2016, questions are bound to be asked as to why it's taking so long … especially as the M to T adaptor was available for the T camera launch. 

 

I keep thinking of what other companies achieve in the course of several years - but maybe Leica's resources are spread more thinly. 

 

dunk

[Rick]

Rick, 

 

I always feel Jono's articles are more factual than Dowling's. The sycophancy was the way the questioning or rather feeding them lines, of the Leica people was done. A little more vinegar would have made it much more palatable.  

 

For example 1) Why so big and heavy? 2) why so late (for R users)? 3) why only 24MP when competitors are offering between 36 and 50? 4) Why only one lens at launch? 5) Why are the adapters so delayed? As a committed Leica user for over 50 years and one who has an SL on order, those are the questions I would like to hear answers from Leica. The rest I can read on their brochure. 

 

Wilson

 

Ok, then let's just say their exist personality differences.  Some here want to approach the world around them with "vinegar" and negativity.  I believe in having a different view and I believe I can be just as rational and objective.  For me, it is just a lot better world to live in.   

 

Rick

[ramarren]

I see so much fixation on 24 Mpixel vs 36, 39, 42, etc. 

 

why?

 

I look at this from the standpoint of printing, since even 10Mpixels is way overkill for online presentation. At 300 ppi print resolution, 24 Mpixel enables a 13x20" print area without scaling. At 240 ppi, that jumps to 16x25". Do so many people print these sizes and larger,mat that resolution, that you really must have more? You know that at normal viewing distances, even 180 ppi produces more than enough perceptual resolution for a top notch exhibition print in the 20x30 inch image area range. 

 

Being awash in pixels does not necessarily make for a better print, yet moving up to 36 or 42 Mpixels puts a huge additional load on image processing, I/O, and storage needs for every picture. Of course, I'm aware there are specialist needs for more pixels in various markets. That's why the Leica S and other DMF cameras exist. 

 

How many larger than 16x20 prints do you make in a year? What do you do with them? Where do you store them? Please help me to understand why my acceptance of 24 Mpixels is inadequate. 

[wlaidlaw]

Just read through this thread and you will find that the questions I would ask Leica are pretty much the same that many other forum members are asking on the SL. I am paying Leica the money and not the other way around, so it is not unreasonable that I get to ask the questions. If I was being negative, I would not have an order in, with deposit paid, for an SL.  Now the answers to questions as to why Leica did things in a particular way may be such that one says: "Ah now I understand" but on the other hand, their answers may be such that you say "really?". For example Leica's answers as to why a firmware update did not enable the far superior VF-4 for the M240 just did not ring true, given that Olympus did it for their much older cameras. The current implementation of zoom and focus peaking with multiple and inconvenient button pushes on the SL for MF lenses, are just plain poor and have been pointed out as such by many. What do we hear from Leica about the possibility of correcting this with a firmware update - nothing! Yes I buy Leica cameras and lenses but I buy them with my eyes open and aware of their faults. 

[wildlightphoto]

 Please help me to understand why my acceptance of 24 Mpixels is inadequate. 

 

You want us to tell you that your opinion is wrong?  Sorry, no can do.

 

24 MP is fine for me but I can understand the desire for more.  Oversampling or cropping come immediately to mind as perfectly good reasons to want more pixels.  More MP comes at the cost of storage space, processing power and frame rate.  There isn't an ideal one-size-fits-all answer.

 

I see 24MP as striking a balance between resolution and frame rate.  Some would prefer a different balance, that doesn't mean they're wrong, it's different priorities.

[k-hawinkler]

You want us to tell you that your opinion is wrong?  Sorry, no can do.

 

24 MP is fine for me but I can understand the desire for more.  Oversampling or cropping come immediately to mind as perfectly good reasons to want more pixels.  More MP comes at the cost of storage space, processing power and frame rate.  There isn't an ideal one-size-fits-all answer.

 

I see 24MP as striking a balance between resolution and frame rate.  Some would prefer a different balance, that doesn't mean they're wrong, it's different priorities.

Thanks Doug. I agree with your analysis though I prefer larger MP sensors.

In part, my preference is also motivated by the reach of lenses avaiable to me.

So cropping becomes a necessity as the subject of interest only fills a small part of the frame sometimes.

[ramarren]

You want us to tell you that your opinion is wrong?  Sorry, no can do.

 

24 MP is fine for me but I can understand the desire for more.  Oversampling or cropping come immediately to mind as perfectly good reasons to want more pixels.  More MP comes at the cost of storage space, processing power and frame rate.  There isn't an ideal one-size-fits-all answer.

 

I see 24MP as striking a balance between resolution and frame rate.  Some would prefer a different balance, that doesn't mean they're wrong, it's different priorities.

 

Thanks Doug. That was my feeling too.

 

With lenses up to 600mm at my disposal for this format, I don't find the need to crop much unless I just don't want to carry the right lens. 

[Rick]

Doug,

 

Do you want IBIS or would rather not use it? 

 

Rick

[wlaidlaw]

I personally would have preferred body IBIS, having seen how well the 5 axis IBIS works on my Olympus EP-5, with lenses up to 1200mm, in order to use M and R lenses with IS. The Olympus only worked well after they had the shutter resonance problem sorted in firmware updates (this is where the frequency of the IBIS heterodynes with the frequency of the shutter vibration, actually making the shake worse not better). I note that some of the pre-production cameras and lenses but with V1.0 FW, also seem to be showing VR/shutter resonance at the long end of the zoom range of the 24-90, shown by both DP Review and Ming Thein. Hopefully this will be cured on the production versions along with the aperture shift at 90mm. I do hope Leica have been talking to Panasonic, who have long experience of in lens stabilisation and the dreaded NIH (not invented here) did not apply. 

[psss]

if there is one thing i really think leica should have put in the SL body it is IBIS....with all those M and R lenses it just make sense....and it would shave size and weight off the SL lenses...

[ramarren]

IBIS would have been nice, but it is not without its own issues that can influence both still photo sharpness and video capture. It works better with smaller formats due to the smaller mass of the sensor assembly. Certainly the setup in the Olympus E-M1 is excellent, but it starts to show its limitations with 400mm and longer lenses ... And that's with a FourThirds sensor, not a 3.7x larger FF sensor. 

 

It certainly is convenient, however. 

[psss]

all stabilization can have issues....but the great thing about IBIS is that it works even better if lenses have some kind of stabilization built in as well and you can always turn it off.....

lenses of 400mm and up are extremely specialized and really require a tripod or monopod anyway....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Rick]

Doug is the forum resident on this sort of thing.  I hope he reads this and chimes in.

[ramarren]

all stabilization can have issues....but the great thing about IBIS is that it works even better if lenses have some kind of stabilization built in as well and you can always turn it off.....

lenses of 400mm and up are extremely specialized and really require a tripod or monopod anyway....

 

That's only true if you have an IBIS system designed to integrate with existing dedicated lenses' OIS systems. There is only one of those in existence. 

 

In the FourThirds/Micro-FourThirds camp, there are several lenses that have OIS from Panasonic. When you fit them to an Olympus body with IBIS, if you trick the body into powering up both IS systems, what you get is a dynamically unstable system that cannot make a sharp image. Normal operation in the Olympus IBIS bodies is that they have a configuration to prefer either the OIS or the IBIS system. When you power IS on, only the preferred IS system is enabled. 

 

IBIS is convenient and allows application of IS to nearly any fitted lens, native or adapted. However, OIS systems are often more efficient and effective since the IS tuning is applied to each lens design individually. The other advantage of OIS systems is that the sensor assembly can be solidly mounted to the camera's structure for improved heat dissipation, where with an IBIS system the sensor must be able to 'float', which limits the management of its thermal characteristics. Panasonic has stated in pretty direct terms that this was why they stuck with OIS in their mFT cameras, and Panasonic is a world leader in professional video camera design and manufacture outside of their still camera products. 

 

The SL body was designed for high-quality 4K video capture as well as still photography, so I have to imagine that Leica was considering this in its design as well, and they decided on OIS in the SL lens line.