Jump to content

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


LUF Admin

Recommended Posts

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

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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?

Edited by lecycliste
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Edited by Philinflash
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...