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

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter - you really are like a dog with a bone over all this ....... 

 

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

 

 

Well, sorry to talk about Leica cameras.  And here of all places!

 

I feel we're at a very important point, not only in Leica's development as a company, but in the direction of high-end consumer cameras too. So you can expect me to keep on talking about it for a while yet, because the future is far from settled.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you're happy. 

 

 

And I must say your photos have been wonderful to see.

[Steve Spencer]

No more M cameras for me ...  I really can't see the point.

 

The 24MP sensor on the M60 is fine, and the 18MP on the Monochrom plenty.  What more could I want?  In terms of technological advances, more, better options etc, that is the realm of the SL.  The M is all about the OVF, and for me any additions to that detract from the purity of that camera.  The OVF means (for me) that the M is at its best 28-90.  Outside that range, I'll use the SL in preference.

 

The SL isn't an M camera, though it takes M lenses - it also takes R, S, T and its own AF SL lenses.  With adapters, I'm sure it will also take Canon, Nikon and Sony mount lenses as well. 

The probably will in time be adapters for Canon and Nikon lenses (even one's that AF I suspect) and Sony A mount lenses will probably get an adapter without AF,  but Sony E mount lenses will probably never get an adapter as the registration distance is a couple of mm shorter for Sony E mount than for the L mount. A couple of those lenses might be interesting -- I like the looks of the Zeiss Loxia 21 and 50 -- but I doubt we will be able to mount them on the SL.

[AlanJW]

An M mount camera with a built in EVF . . . . . is what the SL is - okay, you need an adapter, but it's neat / well made and fully functional, so that M lenses on the SL are just as well provided for as on an M.

It weighs a bit more (but not that much). If you fit M lenses there is no Autofocus - the hump is aesthetic, and you'll soon get used to it. . . . So the SL is your camera (just don't buy the AF lens(s))

Jono:  all good points but, (1) if the SLis an M mount with a built in EVF, fully usable with M lenses, how are the two cameras supplements rather than substitutes?   The answer has to be that the ORF will continue in the M in some form for those who prefer it, but will that be enough to maintain a viable (profitable) market? This leads to (2) I suspect that Leica will not simply reissue the M this year (what would be the point?) but will give it a 36mp sensor and some other tweaks to maintain it as a different line, perhaps still the flagship for Leica. The issue for me will be what else is new, as simply going from 24mp to 36mp will not do it for me, and I suspect many, if not most, others.  IMHO, the "outside the frame" capability of the rangefinder is the only remaining advantage versus a fast EVF, and any mechanical RF system will inherently come along with the usual calibration issues that are absent with an EVF.  Can Leica afford simply to sit on their hands on the ORF, believing that it is "perfected" or will we see a departure from the pure mechanical ORF?  Would a departure be some incremental change or something more dramatic? Should be very interesting and perhaps not kind to our pocketbocks in the end.

[scott kirkpatrick]

...  I will likely be shot here for this, but an M mount camera with a built in EVF (not clear what you meant by "comes with an EVF") would be a no brainer, while a clip-on EVF, even with SL quality, would be a question mark.  I ...such a camera could be called an M, call it a SM or MS or QM or whatever.  I'll buy it.

 

p.s. Jono is probably testing it now.

 

The clip-on EVF has never bothered me too much, since I've used optical finders for framing, switching to the RF for focusing, since forever with the M.  I'm not hungering for AF, either, since I have some nice Olympus M-gear.  One camera that is not gathering dust on the shelf is the OMD-E-P5 with Olympus' macro 60, since its VF4 finder flips up when I use it to photograph stuff low down.  But I would hate to see the M series move away from the always-on, all depths in focus optical finder.

 

scott

[thighslapper]

  But I would hate to see the M series move away from the always-on, all depths in focus optical finder.

 

scott

 ........ absolutely ...... and in some ways I am glad the SL appeared as I originally suspected Leica would try to shoehorn some dogs dinner of a optical/digital RF solution into the camera and give it AF capability...... 

 

The SL fills that gap by providing both a grown up T and a slimmed down S and hopefully obviates the need for them to ruin a fantastic RF camera by bolting on stuff that is frankly not needed. 

 

An M that is faster and lighter with a few more pixels and a clip on EVF as good as the Q or SL would do me fine ..... but if that's all they were doing we would have had it by now.......

 

Either the suspected digital RF system is being implemented and causing trouble ....... or there are more radical changes afoot ....... nothing else really explains the delay.

[wattsy]

 

The SL fills that gap by providing both a grown up T and a slimmed down S and hopefully obviates the need for them to ruin a fantastic RF camera by bolting on stuff that is frankly not needed. 

 

 

Yes, I rather hope that Leica will leave the M system to do what it does best and allow the SL to be the complementary platform that provides autofocus, image stabilisation, etc. Personally, I'd be very happy if the M262 shows the direction Leica will take with the M and keep it a purely stills, optical viewfinder camera. Far from a cut-down M240, the new M262 strikes me as the more complete, refined M camera. Quieter, lighter and less cluttered.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 ........ absolutely ...... and in some ways I am glad the SL appeared as I originally suspected Leica would try to shoehorn some dogs dinner of a optical/digital RF solution into the camera and give it AF capability...... 

 

The SL fills that gap by providing both a grown up T and a slimmed down S and hopefully obviates the need for them to ruin a fantastic RF camera by bolting on stuff that is frankly not needed. 

 

An M that is faster and lighter with a few more pixels and a clip on EVF as good as the Q or SL would do me fine ..... but if that's all they were doing we would have had it by now.......

 

Either the suspected digital RF system is being implemented and causing trouble ....... or there are more radical changes afoot ....... nothing else really explains the delay.

 

Yes, and perhaps (also) a new sensor that improves on the performance of the SL with M lenses. In which case it would be quite a good idea to give the SL some breathing space before the new M comes along.

 

I think that the M, without some of the technology that is at home in the SL, really needs to be the ultimate IQ performer with M lenses in order to have an identity that goes beyond heritage and so forth, and appeals on more than just size and the RF experience which evidently are less powerful imperatives for many Leica users that might previously have been expected.

[ramarren]

I dunno.

 

I'm happy with the M as it is and don't quite see the need for more and more and more. I think it has a perfectly fine, distinct personality and place in the world of cameras. 

I'm also quite happy with the SL as it is, modulo continued development of the firmware and completion of the various bits (mount adapters, lenses) to fulfill its promise. 

 

For me, these two cameras, as they are now, suffice. i remain interested to see what Leica comes up with but that doesn't mean I feel a driving need or desire to buy anything more. I'd rather get on with doing my photography.

[Peter H]

That's good for you but it's a highly competitive market, and even Leica must keep improving their products, even if we, amongst ourselves, don't always agree as to what constitutes "improvement". And it may not mean "more and more" anyway, just better and better!

[k-hawinkler]

Like fixing remaining FW bugs?

 

Also, I don't understand why Leica's camera systems, M, S, SL cannot leapfrog each other in performance for subsequent iterations.

 

[ramarren]

That's good for you but it's a highly competitive market, and even Leica must keep improving their products, even if we, amongst ourselves, don't always agree as to what constitutes "improvement". And it may not mean "more and more" anyway, just better and better!

 

I agree, but prefer to let Leica worry about their market and concentrate on my needs and desires in discussion. Leica seems to be pretty good at managing their product offerings, sales, and profitability in my absence. 

[Rick]

Like fixing remaining FW bugs?

 

Also, I don't understand why Leica's camera systems, M, S, SL cannot leapfrog each other in performance for subsequent iterations.

 

My RX1 has never had a firmware update and it has bugs that can erase pictures that are on the card!  It never did get a updated to 14bit files.  So, what critical update does the M need, for example, to get rid of critical FW bugs.  

 

Oh, my A7r never did get the shutter slamming update or live up to Sony's promise to work with RF lenses.  It was so bad on all of these counts I had to return it never to trust Sony again.

 

Rick

[Steve Spencer]

Like fixing remaining FW bugs?

 

Also, I don't understand why Leica's camera systems, M, S, SL cannot leapfrog each other in performance for subsequent iterations.

Well, I think the S clearly leapfrogged the M in some important ways. It has a higher resolution sensor. It has much better video capabilities and it has weather sealing. Not to mention auto focus which is an important advance for some. That said it is a very different system. Similarly, the SL leapfrogs the S in frames per second. It leapfrogs it in video capability and likely in AF capability, but again it is a very different system. I think the next M will leapfrog the SL in important ways as well. It may well have a higher resolution sensor for example. 

 

That said the three Leica systems M, S, SL, are very different systems, so I find it a bit odd to talk about leapfrogging one another. They all do what they do best better than the other systems. I also find the quick release of the firmware upgrade for the SL to be a very positive sign,

[G. van Asch]

I own the SL three days. It is a wonderful camera. I own an M8/M6 and with three lenses: 35/1.4/50/2.0 and 90/2.0 and I love these camera's also.

They are really art camera's with real art like photography. Street pictures are perfect: 1/125sec F11.0 and 640ISO. Why the SL? After getting older (almost 65) the autofocus and EVF are easy to use but the weight and size is heavy. After such a short time I am going into the city tomorrow to try street photo's with such a large camera.

I am not a pro but love taking pictures and work seriously on shooting. Shooting an SL is so easy you can use P mode without thinking and super results.

New 50mm summilux/1.4 is coming so I am waiting for this and I am also trying to buy R glass. Thanks for reading this post,

 

Gerjan van Asch 

[thighslapper]

1. By your own admission there is no need for the new Nikon D5 either ....... plenty of cameras at half the price do 95% of what even the old D3 could do.

 

2. Who says Leica is after the Canon/Nikon market anyway ? ........ it looks to me like it was always aimed primarily at Leica users wanting and AF mirrorless solution that is cheaper than the full S system and where can use all their existing lenses to their full potential .....

 

3. 'Reportage' is the genetic matter that all Leica derivatives are based on ......... they have never bothered about the needs of the paparazzi or sports photographers .... and why should they ?

 

4. Leica will only survive as a niche specialist producer with noticeably different products (for better or worse) generating brand loyalty ........ you only have to look at the state of the rest of the photo industry to see that entering the mainstream is rather perilous. 

 

5. The Leica hype surrounding the launch is no more disingenuous than it's competitors.

 

6. It's a fine camera with limited appeal ..... so what ? ...... it works for me, and you can keep the D5 and it's attendant mountain of gear ... been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and no desire to return, whatever the marginal benefits are .....

[ramarren]

I really couldn't care less what hype or over-hype Leica promoted the SL with at launch. It's marketing/sales drivel, that's all, and if you want to take it seriously, well, I can't help you; there's no further need for debate or discussion. 

 

The Nikon D5 is likely an outstanding camera (as are the F6 and D750 that I own). That said, I have absolutely no motivation to buy one; I don't need what it offers beyond the D750. If I wanted to continue with Nikon gear (and it's very good gear), I would be quite happy with the D750's capabilities. If you need the D5's capabilities, by all means, buy it, use it, and enjoy it.

 

For the photographic work that I do, the Leica SL is a better camera. I like the viewfinder and controls more, I get better results with it then I do with the D750, it's a bit less to carry (unless I'm carrying it with the 24-90 lens), and it's fully compatible with the Leica R lenses (which I prefer over the Nikon lenses) even despite the Rube Goldberg adapter stack. I know these things for sure since I have both systems and can compare them directly; my evaluation is independent of spec sheets and sales hype. I know this well enough now, after two and half months of using the Leica SL, that my Nikon kit is up for sale—I don't need it any longer. 

 

Does that mean that I believe that the Leica SL is the best camera for everyone's needs? Of course not, that would be stupid.

 

Why argue over some stupid marketing copy as if it were dogma? 

[jonoslack]

 

Using the M is a pleasure ..... and so is the SL ....... so now I have a couple of very attractive mistresses to divert me instead of just the one ...... who's complaining ? 

 

Perhaps you should change your member title (you don't sound much like a grumpy old fart).  I must say, I feel just the same way.

[jonoslack]

(6) It's a fine camera - 100% agree, it's a very fine camera BUT it's not nor never will be the  DSLR replacement that some are pretending it to be. Fuji mirrorless and Sony mirrorless cameras aren't either.  A professional news camera has to be a JACK OF ALL TRADES ie. feature in the morning - news job in the afternoon - football match at night. A DSLR can do this the SL cannot and for that reason the SL as it is will never break into the Can/Nik DSLR market.

 

Things happen in steps Paul

. . . but the SL is unquestionably a jack of all trades - of course it needs more lenses, but the combination of the two zooms will cover a lot of bases (not the football match at night I quite agree, but cracking for that wedding on Saturday). It's 1 fps slower than the D5 - it'll write those 11fps RAW to two SD cards simultaneously  (and with more resolution than the D5) - the single shot AF is really very fast (tracking - not so good - yet)  - and for those evening jobs where you just need a couple of high quality primes you'll be using MF anyway (won't you?)

 

Whilst I agree with you that it's not yet a competitor for most pros - it does fit the bill for some - and how many cameras can Leica make anyway?

 

If mirrorless can ever replace an SLR for pro shooters is a moot point . . . but if it can, then I think Leica have put a creditable foot through the door.

 

Best

[Leicaiste]

Seeing the pace of the technology it will be only a matter of time before an EVF camera will beat DSLR in every the compartment of the game.

 

Who would have believed two month ago that Leica could release a camera so good, with a finder so nice and an AF so fast.

 

Canon and Nikon should remember what happened to Nokia and Blackberry, and also have a look at Tesla.

 

They should be leading the change.

 

Anyway, Leica is reinventing itself at a fast pace. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[steppenw0lf]

Seriously Jonathan? 

 

I feel sorry for Leica that it's come to people believing that the SL can EVER be a substitute for a DSLR.  Nikon has just announced the new D5 which is mega light years ahead of the clunky SL - even the five years old D3 is light years ahead of this camera.

 

To believe that a SL with one lens and a Heath Robinson pair of adapters will ever be taken seriously in the pro camera market is wishful thinking bordering on delusion.

 

The SL makes nice images but so does a basic cheap DSLR there is nothing special at all about the images from the SL that would persuade a Can/Nik user to switch to it. There is NO system back up and even if Leica introduces more lenses it will never have anything like the number that are available to mainstream Can/Nik users.

 

Leica is pitching the SL as a pro DSLR competitor where users don't buy into the Leica myth of the worlds best lenses and who know that their own Can/Nik lenses are superb and leave nothing to be desired. There is no perceived need for this camera and where it could conceivably be used Fuji has stolen the market with it's XT-1/X-Pro1 cameras along with their own FULL set of superb lenses.

 

I am a long time Leica M user and love Leica cameras and their lenses but I'm sorry it really pains me to have to inject some realism into the whole SL feeding frenzy. The SL will never be anything other than a pro camera also ran and my prediction is that it will just be bought by previous Leica users who if once exposed to the capabilities of a proper pro DSLR camera and system would think very hard about investing in it.

 

If I ever see a SL with a 600mm Leica manufactured lens at a news/sporting event then I will personally eat one live on this forum!!!

 

 

Hello PaulMac,

 

maybe you wonder why I reply to your note after such a long time, but I will explain later.

 

I wonder if you swallow all the marketing phrases from all sellers - I do not care at all, so I also do not care if Leica calls the SL a pro camera. It's marketing, so what.

I am not a pro, just a hobbyist, so if anything, this could only keep me from buying a camera, because professional in the first place means pricey because there is just a limited market.

 

I cannot see why the D5 should be much better than the 'clunky SL'. Can you explain ? Have you tested it at all?

Also if you use the SL, the first thing you notice is that it is not clunky at all. I still have an old Nikon D2x (that I still love), but this is clunky compared to the SL.

Maybe together with the big 24-90 the SL is quite heavy. But all the AF SLRs are very bulky compared to the SL (I have a D5s which is much bigger than the SL, and it looks silly with a 50mm/1.8). I agree the 24-90 is probably not for everybody (I also would not buy it.)

 

When you use R lenses with the SL, only then you will realize that the SL is alright, almost perfect. The SL is one piece of metal and precision and so are most R-lenses. 

The R system contains a few very "professional" sports lenses (apo telyts ...) and they work perfectly on the SL (Agreed I have not tested all of them, I have only one, and it works nicely for birding, which is maybe just as difficult as recording a tennis match or other sports events). Of course I do not bear the heavy responsibility because I'm no pro.

 

Even before AF, people used Leica gear for sport events (with R5 or R7, etc.) and the SL is much better (with its EVF) than these cameras, so it can certainly be used for important events. It even sports a very nice and swift focus aid (real-time). With this I am actually much better at hitting the target than with the older R cameras. (I am really seeing this every day, no marketing hype).

 

I must confess that since 2009 I felt let down by Leica       When the SL was announced I just hissed at the adds. And I felt fooled again when I heard that the adapter for R lenses would only be delivered in a years time, and I felt that R-users anger rising again...

 

In the meantime (I spare you the details) I have bought an SL (that's why only now I can answer to your remarks) and I am quite happy with it.

Actually after more than a week I think the SL is better than the older Leicas and the Ms and D5s and the Nikons. But not because of the camera, but because of the system, speak the R lenses (and all the others that can be nicely used and corrected). If a single camera is better or lighter or faster or higher resolving does not really matter, To me it is important to have a system that fits together well and that helps you to take pictures (by its good quality but also very much by giving you fun and "inspiration").

And an excellent viewfinder is a big point in that system.

 

You could argue that this system is non-existant because it is no longer produced, I have to agree, but to me at least this does not matter.

 

By the way, as R lenses typically have 280mm, 400mm or 560mm or multiples, you are right, you will very likely never meet a Leica 600mm lens at a sports event.

 

By the way 2: What do I care who is using what camera at a sports event ? Have I ever seen hundreds of Leica lenses or Pentax lenses or Olympus lenses ? No of course not . Is this a reason to call them non-professional ? If I see hundreds of white Canon lenses, do I have to think that black Nikon lenses are junk ? Now that you see more Sony lenses, are the others just garbage that have to be avoided at all price and replaced as soon as possible ?

 

Let the producers care about the success of their cameras, let's not discuss which is going to be a best-seller, or if we should feel sorry for the losers.

To me it's just nice to have the 'clunky SL' and to know that I really like to work and play with the equipment. And to laugh into my non-existing beard.

 

Stephan