Leica SL Survey - Your Opinion?

[stevemark]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I definately will not buy this camera - it looks less interesting to me than an M or S (i tried both of them, but kept my combination of DSLR and Sony A7II).

 

Apart from the viewfinder, which at the moment seems state of the art, i don't see any advantage of the SL compared to to existing systems, but many disatvantages (and some of them are severe).

 

* Image quality (A7RII will have better resolution, better dynamic range, better colors and better high ISO ... hmmm ...)

* Handling (i didn't like the menu system of the S, let alone the T)

* Obviously some issues with manual focusing and programming the focus magnifier

* Expensive

* ugly design (Sony A7-Series has the same problem, though)

 

The only real advantage i can see is the possible use of rangefinder wideangles on an EVF camera (Sony A7-Series don't work with them). But then - do i need/want a EVF for such work? Not really ...

 

I guess it will be a failure - similar to Sonys A99.

 

Stephan

[TMorita]

I'm a hobbyist photographer. I have a Leica X Vario and a bunch of Sonys - RX1, RX10, and RX100.

The closest competitor to the SL seems to be the A7R2, and here's an analysis:

 

Leica SL advantages:

 

1. 4.4M EVF

2. Supposedly faster autofocus

3. Dual SD card slots

4. Probably better native lenses...eventually

5. Top panel LCD

6. Touch screen

 

Sony A7R2 advantages:

 

1. Lower price

2. Smaller and lighter body

3. Probably better sensor (higher resolution, more dynamic range, lower dark current)

4. Probably more phase detect points on sensor

5. Smaller and lighter lenses (18mm flange distance vs 55mm flange distance)

6. More lenses available

7. Tilting LCD

8. Brighter LCD more visible in sunlight (Sony WhiteMagic LCD)

9. More ergonomic grip

10. In-body 5-axis stabilization

11. Silent shutter mode (for wildlife/event photography)

 

Speaking for myself, the Leica SL doesn't have enough technical superiority to justify the $3000 price difference.

The main technical advantage I see is the ability to use Leica lenses with autofocus.

However, if Metabones releases an E-mount adapter for Leica SL lenses, that advantage disappears.

 

Toshi

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the release of this camera has brought lots of new members to the forum, which is a Good Thing!

 

Looking at those lining up to say how bad the SL is (they won't buy it) and how good the A7 is, the average posting number seems to be well less than 100.  Was there a LUF booth at PhotoExpo in NY?

 

We're being trolled ...

[TMorita]

I'm not a troll...

 

The reason I'm posting in this thread is: there was a Leica Forum email that was sent out with the title "Leica SL (Typ 601) - Your Opinion?"

 

and there is a section of that email:

 

Our question to you:
Can you imagine to buy a Leica SL?

 

That link leads directly to this thread, so I clicked it and posted in it.

That's probably the reason for the large number of posters in this thread.

 

Toshi

[new2leica]

 Perhaps I should sign up for the Sony forum and explain all the reasons why I won't be buying any A7whatever models.  

[Winedemonium]

I am on the fence, leaning to Leica's side.

 

I have the M system, which I use mainly for, dare I say, 'reportage' style, social stuff. I love this system with the lenses that fit comfortably inside the viewfinder - 28mm at a pinch (though easy on the M-A), 35mm a dream, so too 50mm (though I sometimes use live view for that if framing is critical), and longer than that and I use the EVF and it is less than ideal.

 

The M240 feels at its absolute weakest - to me - when used for what is a serious compromise in, but part of, its design -- adapted lenses. It was specifically touted as useful for R lenses, the (now interim it seems) touted solution for R users. I have a couple of longer ones of those. But similar to using these are some F lenses (Otuses, and so on). With the fairly good Novoflex adaptor, and the EVF, these can be used. That, a good tripod and head, and RRS's l-plate, that cleverly replaces the base plate for a really solid grip, and the M can be used for tripod work. I even used the M with the Otus 85 for a full day of street shooting and got some results I was really pleased with, but oh what a tiring ergonomic disaster, and that very weak EVF, no IBIS, relatively modest ISO limits (though plenty fine at launch), and a body that is just not meant to be part of a bulky load, and live view that would often lock up, or lag terribly, and the experience left me frustrated.

 

In fairness, this type of use for the M was always a tack-on, not a serious part of the design from the ground up. Go back to using the M with a 35 Summicron, and the whole thing feels a dream.

 

At the other end, in July, when those amazing deals on S and S-E bodies came out (and rapidly dried up) I made an impulsive decision and got an S-E (brand new for less than $6k). I have three S lenses. In good sunshine, (I haven't really developed strobe technique yet), or on a tripod, I just love what this camera can deliver. For a big DSLR the camera feels extremely well designed, and that moulded grip is very comfortable.

 

I know people have used the Leitax adaptor to put their long R lenses on the S body successfully, but when I wrote to them I didn't hear back (are they still in business?), and so the R lenses lie dormant, except when I put together the Franken-M.

 

All this to bring me to the question, is the SL for me as an 'intermediate' body? I appreciate that buying this (cost + taking into account 'digital decay' across a third Leica! system) is a serious self-indulgence that would require careful consideration from a cost perspective. But only I can work that one out.

 

The question here, from a practical point of view is - is this the camera that picks up and takes care of the two weaknesses I find in my current set up -

1. Easier adaptability for a wider range of lenses

2. Extend the ISO performance of my 3 S lenses.

 

Looking at point 2. first, this camera would (or should I say, will, in 2016 sometime). If this was the sole consideration then I would be better to eventually replace the S-E 006, with the S 007, or, perhaps when everything ratchets forward a notch, the "S-E 007", especially if it was a deal like the S-E 006 was in July.

 

But so far, this is the only camera on offer to give an alternative system for S lenses. The compromise is the crop, and we don't yet know how the body will perform with S lenses (AF, bugs, rendering). Given the S-L adaptor is not yet available, this is all academic for now.

 

I think too this would be more of a bonus than a main reason to buy the SL.

 

Looking at point 1, this camera look very well set up for using adapted lenses - R, and (if there is a 3rd party quality adaptor made, which I'm sure there will) F lenses. I hope before too long we see some really good reviews. The SL might also provide a lower hassle way to use lenses <28mm and 50mm> in the M range.

 

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.

 

What I really DO like the look of in the pictures and videos is the build quality and finish, the paper and reviewed performance of the sensor-processor combination, and most of all, that fantastic looking EVF. A lot of DNA appears to have come from the S too, which I like.

 

I haven't spoken about that 24-90mm lens, because I mainly see the SL as an adapted lens body. This also makes me wonder the body is justifiable at this price point for me, as the AF performance of this lens seems a key feature of the system. If all three lenses were launched day one, I think I would opt for the 1.4/50. But that isn't the case. I would also be interested to see if the 90-280 would replace my 4/280 APO-Telyt-R - a very high bar for a zoom to leap over, but two decades of extra experience will have gone into the long SL zoom, and it is designed for this digital body specifically, so perhaps.

 

Finally, that brings me to my last question in considering the SL. When I grabbed that S deal, my biggest concern was the dependence the S lenses have on the S system. There is no manual aperture control on S lenses, so if I stray from the S system, or the S system is discontinued, these lenses would not be adapted easily to other cameras. Some quite special adaptors would be needed, and in any case, at present there is no other 'pro format' sensor out there to match their design.

 

The SL lenses are very similar in that regard (albeit at least standard FF). But when I look at my M lenses, R lenses, and (Z)F lenses (Otuses), these will still be easily adaptable to future cameras. None of them have motors or electronics inside so malfunction, and all have aperture rings.

 

All that to say, I just don't know. If the SL had IBIS and the adaptors were available at launch it would probably be enough to tip the balance. As it is, I'm just not sure.

 

Perhaps what I really want is a 'pro format' SL - in other words, an "S 008" with the mirror abandoned, and an electronic EVF - can take my S lenses, and all the others with an adaptor in crop mode? Of course, then I must wait!

 

Leica cleverly tried to lure Hasselblad and Contax users to the S by launching adaptors capable of handling those systems' AF, and also Hasselblad V and Pentax 67 adaptors with electronics only. I think it is a mistake for Leica not to have a range of Leica-made adaptors ready at launch to handle Canon and Nikon (for a start), and why not a Sony E-mount to SL adaptor too? In the absence of a launch range of SL lenses, and no adaptors at launch (other than for M lenses, and R lenses by stacking R-M+M-T) I worry for Leica that they may not get the traction they need. If you are considering a major purchase in a new line, you want to have confidence the line will survive and expand.

 

These are my thoughts and concerns.

 

I DO admire Leica for bringing out this camera. I hope it succeeds for them. As I've written already, they are taking on stiff competition in this space with the SL.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 Perhaps I should sign up for the Sony forum and explain all the reasons why I won't be buying any A7whatever models.  

 

Only if you have the time.

[almoore]

Leica didn't make them big by accident, or because no one noticed ... it goes with the territory.  If you want small, the M system is your territory, not the SL or S.

The S actually has much in common with the M in that it's very compact for the format it offers.

 

The SL is deviating from the Leica tradition in being needlessly bulky for the niche it occupies.

[lct]

[...] The SL is deviating from the Leica tradition in being needlessly bulky for the niche it occupies.

 

I would have agreed 20 years ago but since 1996, both R8 and R9 are bulkier than the SL610, let alone with the DMR.

Edited October 24, 2015 by lct

[almoore]

I would have agreed 20 years ago but since 1996, both R8 and R9 are bulkier than the SL610, let alone with the DMR.

And their bulk goes some way towards explaining why they marked the end of the R line.

[lct]

You may be right... Hopefully not for the SL610... As far as ergonomics are concerned, i prefer my 5D to my R4s when using R lenses over 50mm as well as bulky wides like 21/4 or 28/2.8 PC. FWIW.

Edited October 24, 2015 by lct

[IkarusJohn]

And their bulk goes some way towards explaining why they marked the end of the R line.

 

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?  There may be many reasons Leica discontinued the R line, but this is the first I've heard that size was a factor. 

 

I take it you've held the SL camera, and compared its size to what you might consider to be the alternatives. I concede I haven't, so I've relied on photographic comparisons and the comments of those who have ...

Edited October 24, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[Lee Martin]

given the poll results SL is total disaster

Given the number of actual overall votes its suggest very little interest at all

Edited October 24, 2015 by Lee Martin

[almoore]

I take it you've held the SL camera, and compared its size to what you might consider to be the alternatives...

I don't need to hold it to know what two-plus kilos of front heavy camera and lens feels like.

[ynp]

 

 

Leica cleverly tried to lure Hasselblad and Contax users to the S by launching adaptors capable of handling those systems' AF, and also Hasselblad V and Pentax 67 adaptors with electronics only. I think it is a mistake for Leica not to have a range of Leica-made adaptors ready at launch to handle Canon and Nikon (for a start), and why not a Sony E-mount to SL adaptor too? In the absence of a launch range of SL lenses, and no adaptors at launch (other than for M lenses, and R lenses by stacking R-M+M-T) I worry for Leica that they may not get the traction they need. If you are considering a major purchase in a new line, you want to have confidence the line will survive and expand.

 

 

+1

[IkarusJohn]

Given the number of actual overall votes its suggest very little interest at all

 

Given the comments of those who have held and used it, I'm not so sure. 

 

Two of of the most respected reviewers of Leica equipment don't share your assessment ...

[EdwardM]

My biggest concern when I see the introduction of new pure Leica system camera like SL is the ability of Leica to keep the focus on quality and futher development of existing system cameras and lenses.

When Leica introduces the compact like D-Lux (which is great camera and I like it as "to go" camera ) I am ok with that as they do it in collaboration with Panasonic and they don't need the futher development of this product. It's just one off product which doesn't cannibalize the time and recourses of Leica engineers for development glasses for that camera. 

When Leuca introduces SL I understand that they need to developers SL lens line and match the quality of these lenses with M lenses and S lenses. The same concern I had when they introduced T and T lenses. 

Lica is not transcontinental giant like Canon and Sony and just can't have the ability and finance resources to finance the simultaneous development of four different system camera like M, S, SL and T. Plus we have the Q as the standalone product with require the futher development.

My concerns is that Leica just spreading the effort and resources of its great engineers for too many different products and finely it will come to the quality decrease of existing lines of glasses and cameras. We do know too many things they need to fix on M cameras, Q cameras. Instead of that Leica is spending the resources for implementation of SL... 

I udnerstand that at the end of the day it's only business, but my feeling is that this long distance run in competition with Sony, canon or Nikon will end up for Leica very sadly. 

Its the same if patek Philippe will start to compete with Rolex for market of sport watches...

thats my humble opinion. 

Have a nice weekend all!

 

[LocalHero1953]

I'm a hobbyist photographer. I have a Leica X Vario and a bunch of Sonys - RX1, RX10, and RX100.

The closest competitor to the SL seems to be the A7R2, and here's an analysis:

 

Leica SL advantages:

 

1. 4.4M EVF

2. Supposedly faster autofocus

3. Dual SD card slots

4. Probably better native lenses...eventually

5. Top panel LCD

6. Touch screen

 

Sony A7R2 advantages:

 

1. Lower price

2. Smaller and lighter body

3. Probably better sensor (higher resolution, more dynamic range, lower dark current)

4. Probably more phase detect points on sensor

5. Smaller and lighter lenses (18mm flange distance vs 55mm flange distance)

6. More lenses available

7. Tilting LCD

8. Brighter LCD more visible in sunlight (Sony WhiteMagic LCD)

9. More ergonomic grip

10. In-body 5-axis stabilization

11. Silent shutter mode (for wildlife/event photography)

 

Speaking for myself, the Leica SL doesn't have enough technical superiority to justify the $3000 price difference.

The main technical advantage I see is the ability to use Leica lenses with autofocus.

However, if Metabones releases an E-mount adapter for Leica SL lenses, that advantage disappears.

 

Toshi

Couple of corrections/comments:

- the SL does not have any phase detect elements.

- I am sure the flange distance of the T is nothing like 55mm. Are you quoting the mount diameter, or the Tamron T mount flange distance which is 55mm? The M mount is much less, yet you can fit an M lens on the SL.

[LocalHero1953]

A lot of the comparisons of the SL vs the A7x etc are perfectly valid, but choice is down to many things which are just personal preference and priorities.

 

Of more interest to me are the implications of what could be the biggest sea change in Leica's history since the M mount - actually it probably happened with the introduction of the Leica T. They now have a modern mount which can be used for all the lenses they've ever made, and they have demonstrated that it can and will be used for small consumer APSC cameras like the Leica T and potentially professional cameras like the SL. I'd give a lot (well, a bar of chocolate) to see what's in Leica's long term body road map for the next decade (and know whether it depends financially on short term sales of the SL, or long term growth of the T-mount system as a whole).

 

Here's a thought. We all want a lighter and smaller version of the M, back to M6 or earlier. So the next M abandons the M-mount for the T-mount, tightens its belt by a few notches, we fit M lenses on it by adapter as well as T lenses (and anything else we fancy - Leica might even continue to develop M-mount lenses), and everybody's happy.

 

Edit: I do realise that an adapter for an M lens on a T-mount body to give you the RF experience would be a technical challenge, and so expensive, but it is not beyond the wit of man.

Edited October 24, 2015 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

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

 

I don't mean about the camera, but about people's intentions, which may of course change as the camera becomes more familiar to us. Nevertheless, I'd hope for more than 39 "I want one"s by now wouldn't you?

 

 

 

To save you time, here are a few possible reasons why you may think it is too early:

 

It's too early.

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.

How can we possibly know since we;ve not even seen the thing?

It's too early.

I don't know what you're on about.

I don't like polls.

I don't like you.

I'm too busy taking photos to worry about stupid questions like this.

It's too early.