Leica SL Survey - Your Opinion?

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the following major reservations at this point - 

1. The grip does not look comfortable for a heavy handheld set up.

2. No IBIS, which is a real shame for long and very long lenses. 

3. 24MP is just fine for most purposes, but it is sometimes nice to have more, especially for careful tripod work.

4. Opportunity cost when the A7RII ticks points 2. and 3. at less than half the street price.

 

About point 2: No EFC (Electronic First Curtain) shutter. Which is even worse than no IBIS.

 

The lack of EFC was the only reason I skipped the A7R and waited for the A7R2.

[LocalHero1953]

Is it too early to start drawing conclusions from the poll results?

The equivalent poll for the Q is still up on the Q forum. 17% say they will buy the Q and 10% say they never will. 

But that could simply be attributable to the much higher price tag.

It's just reading tea leaves in the end.

[CheshireCat]

here are a few possible reasons why you may think it is too early [to draw a conclusion from the poll]:

[...]

LUF is a very small proportion of the Leica community.

Many LUF members don't ever post or respond to polls.

The camera isn't just aimed at existing Leica users.

 

Try this poll on the Sony forum, or even on a generic photography forum, and see how many "I want one" votes you get in proportion. 

 

I don't buy "the universal camera for all my other systems lenses". I already got an M for M lenses, and an A7R2 for R lenses.

This "universal camera" thing is just marketing BS to cover the fact the SL will be a camera without native lenses for a long while.

And where are the adapters ?

 

The conclusion I draw is clear: The SL will survive if and only if Leica will be able to make better native lenses for it than Zeiss makes for the A7 series. And quick. Which is not easy. At all.

[mweaverpics]

I still have my M8.. along with the new M 240 with lenses from Voigtlander and Leica that go from 12 to 135. I also have Nikons with lenses from 14 to 500. With that in mind and not every having held the SL, here are my thoughts.

 

While the camera platform will take pretty much any piece of glass you can adapt it to, the ability to shoot things best shot with a DSLR type camera (moving subjects) is going to be problematic with just a couple of lenses that have AF.

 

As it is now I can use a Hasselblad lens on the M with the proper adapter but it's not at all good for anything that moving fast if you want blazing fast tracking AF performance. Yes I recall a day when I had a Nikon F2 and had to focus MANUALLY and PRE-FOCUS on a particular spot I thought the action would take place in but that was almost 40 years ago and while it still works, no one is going to use a $7500 body to do that and have a very low percentage of keeper images.

 

Another consideration is for me is that I believe that the price point of the SL means that it's not a viable platform for the majority of those that would use it for journalistic or sports endeavors. Might be good for a highly paid lifestyle or editorial person, but certainly not for the masses that shoot NFL football for $200 a game. Maybe there isn't a reason to have a huge arsenal of lenses because the marketing guys at Leica know this.

 

I know that if Leica did produce the lenses that I normally use of Nikon mount, they likely would not be able to be supported income wise given the expected price points of AF high speed long lenses and the zooms so ubiquitous today. 

 

I might get an SL at some point, but the M is such a great platform for a lot of things and if the newer iteration of it had a better sensor with higher ISO capability and a state of the art EVF that could be switched internally through the normal rangefinder port as you view... lordy thats a combination that would be very hard to beat.

 

These things are tools and I know what works for me as a function of how I work. I dont find that the M EVF is a real problem as I use the optical RF and then compose using the electronic one for WA lenses. If I need a long lens its likely going to be on the Nikon because it's easier to get the shot and the keeper percentage is much higher.

 

The mirrorless aspect of the SL is great and I love the specs in many respects, but until I actually get to handle and see how one works, I'll never really know if it is something that can work like I like to currently  or if I'd need to change my habits to suit the tool I just bought. Maybe the money is better spent on the Pentax 645z as the body price is similar and you have a wider selection of native glass and the ability to adapt a lot of medium format glass.

 

Guess it just depends on how much cash you have, your subject matter and how you work. At the higher end the sensors are all so good that it's about the glass and ergonomics of the platform.... oh and the price!

[pippy]

My vote couldn't be counted as I didn't have any sensible option for the second question.

 

FWIW my vote for the first question was 'Not My Type of Camera".

The whole point of me buying the M8.2 was to go back to photography using a fixed focal-length, manually set r/f camera.

I hope it's a success but it's the polar opposite of what I want.

 

Pip.

[peterv]

In answer to Andreas' original question:

 

If I were a young photographer starting my career I would buy this camera and the three lenses and be done with the hassle of constantly changing systems for the next five or ten years.

 

The high(-er) price for the investment would surely pay off for those who want to put their time in photography, not in gear.

 

We all know that 24 million good pixels is enough for quite a few jobs, if not I could stitch with what promise to be optically fairly good lenses with IS, or simply rent for specialised jobs.

 

This could very well be all a young photographer/image maker needs, also for decent motion jobs.

 

No need to chase the latest and greatest in electronics for years to come. The SL seams rugged and made to be a real workhorse.

 

Wan’t to get creative? You’ll have easy access to almost a century of fine lens making history.

 

I think the SL was a great move by Leica and I hope and think that people who want to just forget about the marketing hypes by camera makers and start making photographs, will find their way to this very complete system by Leica, a company with historically a strong and proud brand name in photography.

 

I hope Leica will - if possible - also bring an S tilt/shift adapter.

 

[frank_dernie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There isn't really a button to tick for my situation so I can't vote.

I almost certainly will not buy one. I use my R lenses, I have 19, 28, 35, 50, 60, 80, 100, 180, 280, 400, 560, on my M or with the DMR. At my age I can't see the sense in obsoleting all these by buying new autofocus versions, even if they are better - I have never felt they weren't good enough so far!

[finarphin]

I stumbled upon an image of this camera by accident, browsing through Google images of customized M3s; that was yesterday.  "What the hell is that?" was my first thought, jolted out of my somewhat bored repose.  I had been thinking about a camera like this for some time, since over the last year I've gotten back into photography after a long hiatus.  Nowadays there are plenty of options, old and new, film and digital, and I've been trying out various models, in reality and in imagination.  My first real camera was a Miranda D (single lens reflex).  I got used to that, and even though it had quirks its main feature, the really essential one, is that it presented a nearly complete picture of what the lens saw through the viewfinder.  Not upside down and backwards, not vignetted by the lens, and also not vignetted very much by the eyepiece lens.  It also mounted the lens right in the middle of the body, and I could hold it in my left hand.  Recently I have been fortunate enough to acquire an M3, and after using it awhile, as well as other similar models, I find I don't much like actually using rangefinders (as opposed to looking at them sitting on the shelf): they're too awkward for me, especially the focusing and framing aspects.  Being then bold and decisive (for me), I got an R6.2, which I hope to have for the rest of my life.  If it weren't for the magic of the Summicrons I would just go back to the Mirandas, even though they are somewhat lacking in prestige by comparison to Leica.

 

As everybody here realizes, the R6.2 is a film camera.  Nothing wrong with that, but I've found digital has its uses.  I also have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 (which looks a little bit like a somewhat miniaturized R8).  Light, nicely made, shoots video, autofocus,16 megapixels. Micro four thirds.  There are always trade-offs, though, and the small sensor size means that image degradation due to diffraction comes into play at earlier (wider) f stops than it does on a normal 35mm film camera.  I've noticed this in practice, and find that I don't want to use it if I'm trying to be "serious" with the shoot.

 

So the idea of a digital camera with a FULL FRAME sensor that could mount R lenses and be otherwise comparable to the R6.2 entered my thinking.  I bought a Sony a7ii.  Leica came in with this SL a week too late and about $3,000 too high for me.  I don't need the 4k video: HD is good enough.  No doubt new lenses of all shapes and persuasions will be made for it, but they'll likely be in the 3k to 10k range, like most of the new M aspherical ones.  No doubt they'll be better lenses than, say, a 1980 Summicron, but the degree of improvement probably isn't going to be too significant to me.  I keep reading about how the newer lenses are slightly sharper at the widest f stop, don't have as much vignetting, and if you put them on an optical bench you can measure how sharper they are in the corners.  I don't care about any of that.  I want Mandler lenses.  In fact I'm not going trade my 1953 Summicron for anything, new or old.

 

One other thing: Leica has often had cameras that surpassed its competitors (of the same era) in their beauty-of-design -- the Leica III, the M3, and the R8, in particular.  That's not the case with this SL.  It actually looks a little half-baked, like a prototype that got rushed into production a little too quickly.  That might not bother somebody else, but it bothers me.  I'm looking at it and am reminded of the contrast between a Leica I and a Leica III, where the SL is the Leica I -- beauty-of-design-wise, that is. And I can't even think about holding it in my left hand.

[peterv]

I like the design, it's a no nonsense, nice clean German Bauhaus design, nothing more nothing less. Some will hate it, some will like it, but it's a bold and brave design. Is it elegant? No, it looks like a workhorse for photographers.

 

All IMHO, of course.

[Doug Coulter01]

lol, "professionals"? as if

no number, worth mentioning, of "professionals" will buy this beyond the occasional kept 'artist' doing artistic nudes. end of story

Eh...it's definitely a system with considering, but not yet. F/4 at 280...no way! The 11fps is very tempting, but not at f/4! Wait till more fast primes come out, then it worth a try for me!

[IkarusJohn]

F/4 at 280...no way! 

 

Okay, so let's look at that.

 

Leica offered the following fast tele primes in the days of film - APO-Telyt R 2.8/280 (at 2.8kg just for the lens) and APO-Telyt R 2.8/200 (5.5kg), that's it.  They made a number of fixed aperture f/2.8 zooms, but in the 200mm top end and longer, nothing, not one, faster than f/4.

 

Nikon offers 10 telephoto zooms, of which only 2 are faster than f/4 - the AF 80-200 f/2.8 ED and the AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VRII.  The lens closest to 90-280mm I guess would be the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (745g 143.5mm x 80mm)

 

Canon make an EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, 2 zooms 70-200 f/2.8L (one IS II, the other not), but I guess the closest is three EF 70-300 zooms, all f/4.5-5.6.

 

Sony offers in the E mount, 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3, 18-200 f/5.3-6.3, FE 70-200 f/4, and in the A mount 70-200 f/2.8, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6.

 

I'm not aware that Zeiss offers zooms in any mount for a comparable range.

 

Now, I'm sure that I have missed some manufacturers, but even googling fast zooms, I couldn't come up with a single zoom of comparable range that is faster than 2.8-4.

[Doug Coulter01]

Okay, so let's look at that.

 

Leica offered the following fast tele primes in the days of film - APO-Telyt R 2.8/280 (at 2.8kg just for the lens) and APO-Telyt R 2.8/200 (5.5kg), that's it. They made a number of fixed aperture f/2.8 zooms, but in the 200mm top end and longer, nothing, not one, faster than f/4.

 

Nikon offers 10 telephoto zooms, of which only 2 are faster than f/4 - the AF 80-200 f/2.8 ED and the AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VRII. The lens closest to 90-280mm I guess would be the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (745g 143.5mm x 80mm)

 

Canon make an EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, 2 zooms 70-200 f/2.8L (one IS II, the other not), but I guess the closest is three EF 70-300 zooms, all f/4.5-5.6.

 

Sony offers in the E mount, 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3, 18-200 f/5.3-6.3, FE 70-200 f/4, and in the A mount 70-200 f/2.8, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6.

 

I'm not aware that Zeiss offers zooms in any mount for a comparable range.

 

Now, I'm sure that I have missed some manufacturers, but even googling fast zooms, I couldn't come up with a single zoom of comparable range that is faster than 2.8-4.

Which is why, my canon 70-200 2.8 fits that need perfectly. Leica for all else, but half the time I'm shooting canon, I'm at 1000 @ f/2.8. My needs are specific I guess, but speed is so important for that focal length. As soon as, I can have a Leica 200 2.8 telephoto at a decent fps, I'm all in. Otherwise, a very interesting body. Can't wait to actually use it...

[IkarusJohn]

Which is why, my canon 70-200 2.8 fits that need perfectly. Leica for all else, but half the time I'm shooting canon, I'm at 1000 @ f/2.8. My needs are specific I guess, but speed is so important for that focal length. As soon as, I can have a Leica 200 2.8 telephoto at a decent fps, I'm all in. Otherwise, a very interesting body. Can't wait to actually use it...

 

With image stabilisation and ISO performance being what it is, I'm surprised that speed is so important for you at 200mm, but that is your choice.  For an accurate comparison, without seeing the details of the new lens, we can expect at 200mm for it to be something less than f/4, though not anywhere near 2.8 (somewhere around 2/3 of the stop?).

 

The compromise in size and weight of a fixed f/2.8 90-280mm zoom would be considerable, I'd have to say, all for gaining one stop ...

 

That range of 90-280mm would be extremely useful, I have to concede.  It has to be the potential to be one of the strengths of this new system (the longest S lens is 180/3.5), but it really does look huge.

 

PS - One of the issues I've always had with zooms is their compromises, in speed, quality and size.  For some odd reason, I've always tended to use them either wide or long, but rarely in the middle; primes have always made more sense to me.  I'm really holding out for an APO-Elmarit-SL f/2.8 somewhere in the limits to hand holding and size, at least 180mm, but no longer than about 280mm.  That would make me very happy ...

[Doug Coulter01]

Probably all true, but those moments when I'm shooting at rock bottom 60th@2.8 at 1000 iso...what then? Not useable at that. Otherwise, I'm sure it's an amazing system and I can't wait to use it, for everything else... It's already ordered just not expecting it to be the end all be all in those situations. But...like I said, die hard Leica for pretty much all else!

[IkarusJohn]

Probably all true, but those moments when I'm shooting at rock bottom 60th@2.8 at 1000 iso...what then? Not useable at that. Otherwise, I'm sure it's an amazing system and I can't wait to use it, for everything else... It's already ordered just not expecting it to be the end all be all in those situations. But...like I said, die hard Leica for pretty much all else!

 

That light value is 5.67 EV₁₀₀₀ Surely, that is getting to the limits of what is usable?  

 

I appreciate you're making a point - it's just that one stop of difference over a greater range with a zoom seems to me to be splitting hairs; particularly when no one offers a zoom with f/2.8 at the 300mm end (okay, 280mm, but you get my drift).

 

I know it's weeks away, but please post your images and share your experiences here.  Even if I confirm an order, I suspect I'm looking at some time in 2016 or 2017 before I get a camera.  Still waiting for a 28 Summilux ...

[algrove]

After much thought I have said that this SL is well suited for S lens owners. Now I read from someone who visited the Leica booth at the PhotoPlus show that no S lens with CS can be used like on the S camera. So now why would an S lens owner with CS lenses (which many consider THE lens to get where there is a choice) want this camera?

 

Heck, M and R lenses work just fine on the M240 platform and will still focus manually on the SL. So does one AF lens and a better EVF mean spending funds on this when the new M is coming out about the same time Leica might have 3 AF lenses for this camera system available?

[bocaburger]

Funny thing but I have a couple 5D's and some bazooka zooms, but most of the time when it comes down to choosing, I end up taking a Rebel XSi and the 18-55-IS and 55-250-IS "kit" zooms despite their lack of speed.  They are surprisingly sharp, and most importantly, small and light.  My days of prioritizing maximum aperture over size and weight are behind me.  

[Winedemonium]

 

I hope Leica will - if possible - also bring an S tilt/shift adapter.

 

Genius! +1

[Winedemonium]

This thread has been a really useful read. Thanks everyone.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[fotografr]

I've been discussing the SL with a friend in San Francisco who is one of the best photographers in the business and a longtime Leica user, along with many other systems. Here's his take on it:

 

"The new Leica is interesting but ironically not really to Leica users. Here’s the deal. All of the images I just sent you were done on a camera with an electronic finder

and some amazing lenses with an adapter. There is no better solution to critically focus any lens, anywhere on the screen, quickly and easily. Any lens from any company

will work on it as they will on the Leica. Adapters will be made from several companies for it. All Leica, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Hasselblad and any other companies lenses

that cover 35 will work manually and in AF. This new camera will have the best finder going so far and that’s good because it’s still a weakness of these cameras so far.

But that’s the rub because soon it won’t be. And that’s the problem with spending that kind of $$$ on a body. The tech changes so fast. Reflexes will basically go away

in the not too distant future. EVFs will be that good. They’re calling this thing a pro camera but that won’t happen. Too many other cheaper solutions to a shrinking market.

And if you’re an M user, like you, the solution is already there. Why would someone put M lenses on this? Maybe if they have other Leica lenses, they’d do it for kicks."

 

Just one more opinion from a very seasoned and accomplished pro. He used to contribute to this forum but hasn't for about three years. I'm not using his name at his request.