Leica SL Survey - Your Opinion?

[timde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before this week I would never imagine such a camera, let alone want one. Now that it exists, nothing has changed for me (other than lots of laughter).

 

I do imagine that existing Leica owners, with a draw full of lenses, will be very interested - especially if they have trouble using a Rangefinder and would like a good EVF - but for sure they would also be even MORE happy with a Q body with M-mount at half the price. But, ergonomically, I'm less than convinced, and for lenses ... Leica is not exactly pumping them out (see T system).

 

From Leica perspective, I guess they realize that they have previous customers with 7500€ who can no longer use a M Rangefinder, which means Leica has a problem to get that 7500€. This camera solves that problem. A Q body with M-mount would also solve that problem but then Leica would only get 3500€ which is clearly less desirable.

 

I don't think Leica will get many new customers with this one. Perhaps thats what they want, but I can't expect that Blackmore is so happy with this idea.

 

 

My take away, the next M should be a fairly nice camera and have some kind of reasonable EVF ... so if that is what you need then just wait a few months.

[virgilius]

No doubt it is a very good camera but only for a small clientele. Leica is not stupid so I guess they have factored that in (hence the price). Hope to see a new M soon, which after all is still the "poster boy" of Leica. They should consider releasing a bells and wizzles M version and a heavy duty mp M version (purely focused on das wesentliche).     

[Guest]

Well, just to throw my two cents, ( or pennies ), in here.

 

First off I wouldn't sell off or be without my M240 or the MM, quite simply the SL hasn't enough of a "hook" for me to make me want to dump the M's.

 

Perhaps the biggest issue for me personally would be the loss of an optical finder, I have a Q and while that camera's EVF is pretty damn good I find myself missing an OVF, to the extent of using a Voitglander 28mm clip on finder at times. Stupid really, but there it is....

 

For me the logical next Leica step "upwards" or "sideways" from the M's would be a S not an SL. The S has a SLR reflex / optical finder, more pixels should I ever need them, ( right now 24mp is just fine ), and although larger of course it is reminiscent of the R9 which I still have, still use and still like a lot.

 

The 4K video capability on the SL is for me a waste of time, ( as it is on the M and Q too and pretty much all other "still cameras" in my opinion ), even though V-Log capability is incorporated with the SL, a laudable plus above what the M and Q have. However as someone who started in stills many years back and now earns his living in film making I'd always try to use a camera that is dedicated to that task, i.e; a pro' digital cinema camera rather than a hybrid stills / video camera. Many reasons for this, too many to list here without being too boring, but I've been there and tried that with a number of other "hybrid" camera systems and it has never worked well.

 

Lastly the SL is too damn expensive by the time you've outfitted it with a couple of Leica's SL lenses, some other lens mount adapters, ( M / R / PL in my case ), batteries and other pieces of kit for me to even consider one as an addition to what I now own and use. I probably could buy a halfway decent digital cinema camera plus another M body with what it would cost to get into an SL kit that would work for me, so that's a little too crazy.

 

It's a Leica so doubtless it's a beautifully made and well thought out camera, but for me there's no place for it in what I use professionally. An S? Well yes, maybe, but not the SL.

[dleibow]

I hate to say this, since I have a cabinet full of M lenses and bodies, but Leica has totally missed the digital revolution. Their cameras are not good enough or unique enough to justify their cost. The debacle with the corroding sensor is like VW with their diesel trickery: hard to trust them now. The digital cameras are ok, but not exceptional. I owned an M9 and an M240. Sold both; liked the M9 better than the M240. Who needs the new camera to adapt for M lenses? Any one of the Sony a7 series works really nicely, and the Fuji bodies also work very nicely. The problem with digital is that it will always be outmoded within 3-5 years; sensors improve and prices drop. Why spend an absurd amount of money for a Leica body when you can get one from a different brand that is less expensive and has more features. Only reason to by the new camera is to get the Leica lenses with automatic features. If someone has no older Leica equipment that would be a reason, though certainly not economically justifiable. 

 

This makes me very sad. I did want a good Leica brand body for my M lenses, but the Sony bodies work really well.

[Luke_Miller]

I see the SL as a no-compromise professional counterpart to pro DSLRs and in this vein Leica has stolen a march on Canon and Nikon.  So I think there will be a market for it with those who need the benefits of the EVF.  If I had a collection of R & S glass I would likely be a customer for it.  But my Leica lenses are all M, for which the M body appears to be the better host

[edwardkaraa]

I hate to say this, since I have a cabinet full of M lenses and bodies, but Leica has totally missed the digital revolution. Their cameras are not good enough or unique enough to justify their cost. The debacle with the corroding sensor is like VW with their diesel trickery: hard to trust them now. The digital cameras are ok, but not exceptional. I owned an M9 and an M240. Sold both; liked the M9 better than the M240. Who needs the new camera to adapt for M lenses? Any one of the Sony a7 series works really nicely, and the Fuji bodies also work very nicely. The problem with digital is that it will always be outmoded within 3-5 years; sensors improve and prices drop. Why spend an absurd amount of money for a Leica body when you can get one from a different brand that is less expensive and has more features. Only reason to by the new camera is to get the Leica lenses with automatic features. If someone has no older Leica equipment that would be a reason, though certainly not economically justifiable.

 

This makes me very sad. I did want a good Leica brand body for my M lenses, but the Sony bodies work really well.

Hmmmm, if you think any of the a7 versions work nicely with M glass then definitely good for you.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hate to say this, since I have a cabinet full of M lenses and bodies, but Leica has totally missed the digital revolution. Their cameras are not good enough or unique enough to justify their cost. ......The problem with digital is that it will always be outmoded within 3-5 years; sensors improve and prices drop. Why spend an absurd amount of money for a Leica body when you can get one from a different brand that is less expensive and has more features....This makes me very sad. I did want a good Leica brand body for my M lenses, but the Sony bodies work really well.

Partially agree here; still don't believe that Leica "gets it" and thinks it can slide by with the bling factor. Samsung is rumored to be exiting digital imaging, CaNikon DSLRs are struggling (unsuccessfully) against Sony mirrorless. At a price tag of $8k just for a body--we haven't even touched upon the outlay for the new glass-- not just the EVF ought to be cutting edge. And reading the SL's specs, it simply isn't. Perhaps they are wiser than the rest of us and know the demographic for whom this will appeal to.

 

Many will be drawn to it but like the M240, will wait a year and pick it up second hand for lest than 1/2 the retail. The R adapter is at least a year away.

 

I wish they had gone with an interchangeable/modular digital back concept pioneered for the R platform. Replacing perfectly good camera bodies every 2 years at these stratospheric prices is absurd, especially  when the sensor performance gains diminish with each succeeding generation. 

 

Would strongly disagree about the a7, however. It has clearly proven not to be a universal M lens alternative platform.

[Sully]

After reading all the typically negative opinions on a camera that is not a Sony A7RII , I ordered a SL immediately.   I have been waiting a long time for my R10.  Soon, I will have one.  

 

Ciao,  Sully

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

It would interest me to see the proportion of  long time Leica users' opinions as a percentage of total answers.

My own opinion - having read the specs but not actually held the camera - is that it is too expensive for me as

I have the M9 and the M250 + the Leica R/M adapter as well as the Nikon/M adapter AND a large number of

Nikon long lenses + Leica R lenses (several zooms incl. 35-70 2.8 Apo, 70-180 2.8 Apo, 100 2.8 Apo Macro,

180 3.4 Apo ).

This assortment covers the relatively lower number of times I need a long focus lens (and would appreciate AF)

so that from an economic point of view it does not make sense for me.

I very much like the M rangefinders, having used them since the 60ties of the last century with M2, M3, M4,

M%, M6, M7 and later with M8, M9 and the M240. 

Of course this opinion is based on my personal types of pictures  that I like to take. Others will have different

priorities depending on their needs.

In any case, I ams sure that the SL will turn out to be a very well made camera. 

Teddy

[Brenton C]

I applaud the efforts to bring out new products. Personally, I would only spend that kind of money on a camera that will last. Even if it turns out as good as all hope it will be, it's surely doomed to be yet another disposable electronic appliance. If it proves very reliable indeed, then maybe it won't require vital servicing til about the time when parts are no longer available for it. How long was that for the DMR?

 

I guess this explains why I only use film cameras. 

[papimuzo]

I own a large bunch of M lenses I am interested into the SL to use some of these lenses, in manual mode of course, particularly some rather old 50mm. I also will taste the EVF which is said much better than the EVF2. After that, if some money is left.. I'll go for one or two SL lenses. I'm looking for pictures taken with SL, Thorsten i.e.

[ellegant]

I grew up shooting with optical finder and split image rangefinder cameras. I absolutely do not like an EVF. Give me an optical finder anytime...I can really see my subject. And a split image rangefinder 'cause autofocus in my experience usually focuses on the wrong thing when shooting through something like a fence or window. Let's not even discuss controlling depth of field or zone focusing for street photography. I entered digital photography using a Canon A710is with an optical viewfinder and a 6X zoom. I still use it from time to time when I want something light to carry. Years ago I finally sold all my Nikon SLR film stuff but kept my M4. All I really wanted was my M4 with digital capability. I have an M8.2 which works for me with my 35mm Summaron. I take it out for serious photography. The screen is useful to check that I have what I wanted to shoot. Snapshots now with my iPhone! 

[TomB_tx]

As I carried both a film M and Leicaflex SL for decades, I think the new SL would be great as  long lens / closeup companion to a digital M, and a great R lens solution. It sounds like it would also be a backup for M lenses in that case. But I have no interest in autofocus or new zoom lenses, so it isn't for me. But I am happy with an A7 for my R lenses, so I like the concept.

[fotografr]

Some people seem to think this camera will appeal to professional photographers. I've been a professional photographer for 35 years and the camera doesn't appeal to me in the least. Pros, like almost everyone else, want to be able to do their work without being burdened with large, heavy cameras. Those of us who need the big zooms and DSLRs will stick with Nikon and Canon. The Leica SL offers no advantage over them at all. I'd have much preferred to see Leica put their efforts into improving the M line--slimmer body, better dynamic range and better high ISO performance.

 

The introduction of this monster frankly shocked me.

[CheshireCat]

Let me fix that for you

Leica should spend their time doing what they do best and that is the rangefinder high performance compact lenses.

 

... and Leica, pretty please, make them E-mount.

[Guest]

I see the SL as a no-compromise professional counterpart to pro DSLRs and in this vein Leica has stolen a march on Canon and Nikon.  So I think there will be a market for it with those who need the benefits of the EVF.  If I had a collection of R & S glass I would likely be a customer for it.  But my Leica lenses are all M, for which the M body appears to be the better host

 

I suppose what it is is that if you're used to an optical finder no EVF will ever come close to it, no matter how good the EVF may be. No EVF for instance can show what's just outside of or coming into frame. I have found the same problem with using EVF's on digital cinema cameras, I find myself missing the good optical finders on my Aaton and Arri gear every-time my eye goes to the EVF's eyepiece. I haven't yet found an EVF through which I can assess skin tone let alone frame quickly and well........But again, that's just me and the culmination of the experience of the kind of stills and motion picture camera gear that I've used over the past decades. 

[Leicaiste]

I will most certainly buy the SL even if I really don't like its look.

 

Other than the overall design which is a matter of taste, how could a real designer come with the GPS/Wi-Fi rectangular bump on the top plate ? Did they decide to include GPS and Wi-Fi at the last minute ?

 

Like the bump created by the lens on the iPhone 6, it is unforgivable on such a product.

 

I would have loved a mini S or R8 design.

 

Anyway I have amazing R-Lenses waiting for a proper solution for years and also some L-Lenses like the Noctilux that I often find difficult to focus properly.

 

For the R-Lenses the M240 with its poor EVF was not viable for me and for lenses like the Noctiluxes, the 0,68 viewfinder magnification on the digital M's is not as precise as the 0,72, 0,85 or 0,91 found on the film M's.

 

BTW the owners of the first 35/1,4 Asph will have no need to worry about the shift focus on the SL.

 

Thanks to the adapter to M-Lenses and R-Lenses it will be possible to have a very portable SL set-up.

 

Like 21, 35, 50mm M-lenses and the last version of the R 80-200 and Apo-Extender 2X. There are dozens of other possibilities.

 

But I don't see the SL-lenses being one of them.  

[CheshireCat]

No EVF for instance can show what's just outside of or coming into frame.

 

Open your other eye, and it will be magically shown.

 

And by the way, the RF on the M won't even show what is inside the frame with lenses < 28mm 

This is so annoying that the only reason to buy the SL for me would be using my M ultra wides properly. Unfortunately, the SL is so expensive that I can buy all Loxia ultra-wides Zeiss will release for my A7R2. Which in turn has a much better sensor, makes my R lenses shine, has IBIS, has phase-detect AF, is light and compact.

[wattsy]

Other than the overall design which is a matter of taste, how could a real designer come with the GPS/Wi-Fi rectangular bump on the top plate ? Did they decide to include GPS and Wi-Fi at the last minute ?

 

Isn't it proud of the top plate to improve reception of GPS and Wi-fi? I presume that the bump is also made of plastic (for the same reason).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wattsy]

Some people seem to think this camera will appeal to professional photographers. I've been a professional photographer for 35 years and the camera doesn't appeal to me in the least. 

 

To be fair, professional photographers are not one homogeneous bunch. They are no different in this respect from professional drivers, an "occupation" which include those driving lorries, taxis, coaches and formula one racing cars.