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

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John, 

 

If the lenses work better with the M, doesn't that imply they are not so good on the SL? 

 

Anyway it's a moot point, surely the point of the SL is SL mount AF lenses?

The way I read the various reviews is that the smaller RF lenses work better on the SL than on the Sonys, but that may not be saying much.  They work best on the Ms.  The Summilux series are pretty big by comparison.  To me they look just as "telecentric" (scare quotes because we don't really know where the exit pupil is) as many R primes and manual focus SLR lenses.  So I expect the 28, 24, 21 SXes and even the 18 SE, which are a bit clumsy to use on the M body, will work just as well and be easier to work with on the SL.  My own projected uses for the SL center on longer lenses:  I've been hoarding an R-APO 280 and 180 for a while, have the 60 macro, and just got an APO 90/2 to complete the set.  So for me the point of the SL is to enjoy some of the benefits of the R line without developing film.  And I snapped up the cheapest 35-70/4 in e-Bay's listings just because Jono seemed to be having such a good time with one of those over the past summer.

 

scott

[IkarusJohn]

Maybe you should really be waiting for the next M, with the new improved EVF……..

Why? The M camera is fundamentally a rangefinder - good for 28-90 without adding extra viewfinders. I already have 4 M cameras. Why add a further compromise, when actually it looks like the SL may perform better tham the M with many of my lenses ...

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

Initially, I was not particularly attracted to losing 2 stops with the extender (dropping from 2.8 to 5.6), but then I realised that was just me thinking in old film terms.

 

I generally try to use my digital cameras at base ISO - 320 with the Monochrom and 200 with the M Edition 60.  With the SL, base ISO is 100, if I understand correctly.  If f/5.6 is too slow, that would mean upping the ISO two stops to 400, which isn't an issue.

 

In addition to that, I tend to use even 180 and 250 lenses on sturdy tripods most of the time, and certainly anything in the 300+ range. So dedicating such use to a good tripod opens up a lot of possibilities for relatively slow lenses. Even my el cheapo Soligor 600/8 mirror lens can get a good steady shot with ISO 400 (now if only its optics were up to snuff... ). 

[earleygallery]

Why? The M camera is fundamentally a rangefinder - good for 28-90 without adding extra viewfinders. I already have 4 M cameras. Why add a further compromise, when actually it looks like the SL may perform better tham the M with many of my lenses ...

 

Because assuming Leica equip the next M with a similar EVF (optional or integrated) you have the same ability to use wider/longer lenses, and a sensor matched to your M lenses. 

 

Anyway, you're keeping quiet about the demise of the S system, soon to be extinct you say? Do tell more.

[ramarren]

Sean performs a service which is worth his subscription fee.  Yes, he's got weird ideas, and wastes his readers' time reminding you of them, But I've subscribed for at least half a dozen years, and learned some things by talking to him over an occasional email.  I was just joining in trolling you guys who were ready for a big Summilux fail.

 

scott

 

I'm glad you feel you're getting your money's worth. I subscribed for a year, and found trying to read his stuff such a PITA that I never made it through a single article. Try to have a useful conversation about it with him and all you get is paranoia and idiocy in return. Never again, not a penny, unless he comes up with a more sensible and useful way to market his articles—they're just not worth it to me. 

[ramarren]

If Sean's policies were as idiotic and paranoid as alleged, unlikely Leica Camera AG would have continued asking him to review their equipment over the years. Also, his review archive covers many other non-Leica brands and offers a wealth of information and knowledge not necessarily easily available elsewhere. The relatively small subscription (£22 $equivalent) has saved me hours of browsing elsewhere and enabled saving ££hundreds by buying e.g. alternative but little known DSLR wide angle lenses. 

 

dunk 

 

I have no idea on what criteria Leica Camera AG chooses their reviewers and beta testers. But the little I've been able to see of Sean's articles didn't teach me anything that affected my photography or my equipment selection one iota. And I did pay for the privilege for a year, so I am not just speaking hot air—I found his site too irritating to use and not worth the money at all. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because assuming Leica equip the next M with a similar EVF (optional or integrated) you have the same ability to use wider/longer lenses, and a sensor matched to your M lenses. 

 

Anyway, you're keeping quiet about the demise of the S system, soon to be extinct you say? Do tell more.

 

James, do please try to pay attention.  

 

I like the M because of its optical viewfinder.  The SL does the EVF thing better, and a whole lot more besides.  There's a reason I have the M cameras I have, and not the M(240).

 

Who said anything about the S going extinct?

 

Here's a lesson in logic for you - we're talking about a full frame (i.e., 35mm) EVF camera.  I say single lens reflex is soon to be extinct (an overstatement, I'll admit - just using some of your reasoning on the SL for effect), and you translate that to the medium format S camera?

 

This used to be entertaining, but it's getting less so.  Please, continue without me.

 

Cheers

John

Edited November 5, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[ramarren]

Sorry for the Sean Reid digression. He really pissed me off with his nonsense. But back to happier thoughts: 

 

I was out shooting with the Leicaflex SL this morning, using the Summilux 50 and Summicron 90. Made a dozen or two exposures on 400 speed B&W film. I cannot wait to use these lenses on the SL! They produce such beautiful photographs. 

 

I don't have much urge to use my M lenses on the SL. They suit the M-P better in size and weight, and I only have a few of them anyway. I've always considered the RF to be a more limited system, a complement to a good SLR system: wonderful for what it's good for, and to be laid aside when you're doing things that its not best at. That opinion doesn't change just because the SLR is now an EVF camera. I'll continue to use the M-P when it suits the photo-niche I'm working best. :-)

[Leicaiste]

Because assuming Leica equip the next M with a similar EVF (optional or integrated) you have the same ability to use wider/longer lenses, and a sensor matched to your M lenses.

 

I may be wrong but I have the feeling the future M optional EVF wil not be as good as the SL EVF.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm not really sure which of my M lenses are "retrofocus" or "telecentric" - like (or -ish).  I expect Olaf (if he was still about) or Michael Hußmann to relieve me of concern over both those words by saying than none of my lenses truly fall into those categories.  And should I care?

 

Well, those terms are used by "experts" like Sean to describe lenses that will work well with the SL; so, I guess I am interested to that extent.  None of the M lenses I intend to use on the SL are exactly small.  Here's the list of prime suspects:

• 21 Summilux
• 28 Summilux - better on the SL than on the M(240)
• 35 Summilux - ditto?
• 0.95 Noctilux/50 Summilux
• 75 Summilux
• 90 Summicron

All are ASPH, apart from the fabulous 75 Summilux; the 90 Summicron, Noctilux, 50, 35 & 28 Summiluxes are all FLE; and the 90 Summicron, Noctilux & 50 Summilux are all APO.

 

None are "compact wides".

Edited November 5, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'm not really sure which of my M lenses are "retrofocus" or "telecentric" - like (or -ish).  I expect Olaf (if he was still about) or Michael Hußmann to relieve me of concern over both those words by saying than none of my lenses truly fall into those categories.  And should I care?

 

Well, those terms are used by "experts" like Sean to describe lenses that will work well with the SL; so, I guess I am interested to that extent.  None of the M lenses I intend to use on the SL are exactly small.  Here's the list of prime suspects:

• 21 Summilux
• 28 Summilux - better on the SL than on the M(240)
• 35 Summilux - ditto?
• 0.95 Noctilux/50 Summilux
• 75 Summilux
• 90 Summicron

All are ASPH, apart from the fabulous 75 Summilux; the 90 Summicron, Noctilux, 50, 35 & 28 Summiluxes are all FLE; and the 90 Summicron, Noctilux & 50 Summilux are all APO.

 

None are "compact wides".

 

All of those big lenses are candidates to be good on the SL.  In the middle of the range, I would question whether manual focus on the SL can be as accurate as with the M's rangefinder (if kept in trim).  

 

I don't know if anyone is testing the 21 Summilux, which is the biggest of them all -- 70 mm from the mount to the front element.  But that has to be telecentric (Olympus' word) or retrofocus (the word you'll find in Rudolf Kingslake's book on lens designs).  I think the strict definition is that a retrofocus lens has strongly converging elements tempered and stretched out with diverging elements, so that light comes out the back end as if from a longer lens than the true focal length, which you tell by how much it magnifies an image.  Since the front part of the SX 21 is a lot wider than the back part, I'd bet that it qualifies.

 

scott 

[lct]

Most pre-M8 wides should show soft corners at infinity on the SL we can suspect it already but it is not a reason to bash the SL obviously. The most recent wides should work fine on it as well as the WATE and the MATE presumably and the vast majority of R lenses should sit confortably on the new body. As for waiting for the next M, it is a valid alternative certainly but even if the next "Visoflex" is on par with the SL's EVF (the contrary would be surprising), the M will never be as fast as the SL anyway and it will remain a rangefinder basically with an accessory EVF hopefully.

[ramarren]

All of those big lenses are candidates to be good on the SL.  In the middle of the range, I would question whether manual focus on the SL can be as accurate as with the M's rangefinder (if kept in trim).  

 

I don't know if anyone is testing the 21 Summilux, which is the biggest of them all -- 70 mm from the mount to the front element.  But that has to be telecentric (Olympus' word) or retrofocus (the word you'll find in Rudolf Kingslake's book on lens designs).  I think the strict definition is that a retrofocus lens has strongly converging elements tempered and stretched out with diverging elements, so that light comes out the back end as if from a longer lens than the true focal length, which you tell by how much it magnifies an image.  Since the front part of the SX 21 is a lot wider than the back part, I'd bet that it qualifies.

 

scott 

 

Telecentric and retrofocus (aka "inverted telephoto") are two different things.

 

A telecentric lens is a compound lens which has its entrance or exit pupil at infinity; in the prior case, this produces an orthographic view of the subject.

 

Very few, if any, camera lenses are actually telecentric. The Olympus use of the term for their FT lens line was to say that a ray trace, from center to edge, of their lenses was very close to orthogonally incident to the sensor plane, an ideal for lenses designed for digital sensors. This is a characteristic of true telecentric lenses, which tend to be seen in astronomical optics where their bulk isn't a problem and their spatial accuracy is a plus. 

Retrofocus lenses are basically a regular focal length lens with a wide-angle attachment built on the front to decrease the focal length of the combined lenses. They are also called "inverted telephoto" designs.

 

This lens design became popular when designing short focal lengths for SLRs where the principle issue was to keep the mechanical bits of the lens far enough away from the film plane to allow room for the swinging mirror to operate. A retrofocus lens, in essence, allows the nodal point of the lens to be placed to the rear or even behind the optics; it is the inverse of a telephoto design which allows the nodal point to be placed further forward of the optical center (with the goal of making a lens with a long focal length more compact and lighter).

 

Retrofocus lenses, like telecentric ones, tend to help a designer straighten out the ray trace from center to edge for better matching to a digital sensor's needs for best imaging performance. They also have a side effect of evening out the image circle's illumination from center to edge, which is why the Leica lenses of more recent times tend to be mild retrofocus designs. It unfortunately tends to make for somewhat bulkier designs than the classic, near symmetrical lenses. 

 

Whether a mechanically coupled rangefinder is capable of more critical focusing accuracy than a ground glass or reflex focusing system has been a classic debate for seventy years. An EVF is similar to a ground glass or reflex focusing system in that the eye is judging perceived sharpness rather than using geometry and coincident or aligned edges to determine focus setting, but it brings to the table the additional advantage of image processing to illuminate edges and/or magnify details. I suspect that the EVF may allow even more accurate critical focus than either optical ground glass or rangefinder due these capabilities.  

Edited November 6, 2015 by ramarren

[edwardkaraa]

Without disclosing the content of the test, the reason I'm shocked is that I believe Leica has designed the 28 lux with the SL in mind, not the M. The implications of this hypothesis are very serious in my humble opinion, as they would suggest that Leica might be increasing the thickness of the cover glass of the M to match that of the SL in future models. Just a conspiracy theory of mine

Edited November 6, 2015 by edwardkaraa

[k-hawinkler]

Let's face it. The large number of legacy M lenses in their actual user community puts Leica also at a disadvantage with regards to modern lens mounts of other manufacturers. Of course, without the installed base Leica wouldn't exist in the first place. However, Leica had to jump through a lot of hoops to make their M lenses work for didigital cameras.

 

Other companies created new mounts, e.g. Sony, Fuji, m4/3, Nikon, that avoid a large installed lens base optimized for film, i.e. 0 thickness cover glass in the optical path. If your observation is correct, then indeed it would be a very smart move on Leica's part to exploit that newly gained flexibility for their new SL system.

[IkarusJohn]

Let's face it. The large number of legacy M lenses in their actual user community puts Leica also at a disadvantage with regards to modern lens mounts of other manufacturers. Of course, without the installed base Leica wouldn't exist in the first place. However, Leica had to jump through a lot of hoops to make their M lenses work for didigital cameras.

 

Other companies created new mounts, e.g. Sony, Fuji, m4/3, Nikon, that avoid a large installed lens base optimized for film, i.e. 0 thickness cover glass in the optical path. If your observation is correct, then indeed it would be a very smart move on Leica's part to exploit that newly gained flexibility for their new SL system.

 

I think it's daft if it reduces the usability of legacy lenses.

 

I can't think of the benefit of increasing the cover glass thickness of the M, and a lot of very angry M lens owners.  Silly idea.

[k-hawinkler]

Well, that's one more reason why Leica needs their M line of cameras and lenses.

But that doesn't mean Leica cannot have a new mount with different requirements IMHO.

 

John, the reality is, there always will be a cover glass in the optical path for digital cameras. That somehow needs to be taken into account. You can either pay the price upfront or later, like for the M8, M9, M240, etc. It's simply basic physics. Whether one likes that or not!

Edited November 6, 2015 by k-hawinkler

[edwardkaraa]

I think it's daft if it reduces the usability of legacy lenses.

 

I can't think of the benefit of increasing the cover glass thickness of the M, and a lot of very angry M lens owners. Silly idea.

Totally agreed. But it's certainly not a coincidence that the 28 lux seems to be designed for the SL cover glass thickness. It's their latest design and not a cheap one. There is no coincidence in optical design. Maybe Leica plans to add auto sensor cleaning to the next M, which necessitates a thicker tougher cover glass. In any case, the 28 lux looks like the first prime lens designed for the SL

[k-hawinkler]

So, there is your first benefit, sensor cleaning.

Of course, there are others...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

Won't happen.

 

Sure, you need a cover glass, and Leica puts huge effort into making it as thin as possible. I don't see that changing.