Leica SL Survey - Your Opinion?

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... but unfortunately, they decided to play the copycat game, and surrender to their failure to innovate.

Isn't it nice, though, to be able to choose between twelve or fifteen systems, all doing the same?

[earleygallery]

I think - even more so now - that the S should have been FF DSLR.

 

The tech has moved on and the S offers little advantage over the best FF DSLR's.

 

Meanwhile we now have the mirrorless SL which no doubt has a fine sensor - but only one average speed zoom.

 

Whatever window of opportunity Leica have with this camera has already closed, with the news that no further lenses will be available for another year (and remember we're talking Leica time here - how long did it take for the S lenses again?).

 

The SL is a nice idea, but that's about it.

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

James,

 

You're expending massive amount of energy being disappointed by this camera. What's wrong with the S now?  People who own them and use them seem to really like the image quality. I know you love the traditional mirror box, and the viewfinder on the S is apparently fabulous; but Leica abandoned the 35mm SLR years ago, and has consistently said there's no going back. Isn't it time to let go?  The SL could be worth a try if you want to stay with your R lenses (assuming you still have any?)

 

In relation to "one average speed zoom", please point me to a faster zoom of this range in 35mm. I couldn't find one. The maths is beyond me (other than extrapolation), but if you compare the size of Leica's APO-Telyt-R 280/2.8 (2.8kg) to the f/4 equivalent (875g) or the Summicron-R 180/2 (2.5kg) to the Elmarit-R 180/2.8 (970g), that extra stop comes at a huge size and weight penalty. Add the complexity of zoom, autofocus and image stabilisation, and it's pretty clear why no one offers a faster 24-90 zoom in 35mm format than Leica's f/2.8-4. If you can find one, please share its dimensions and weight - I couldn't find one. 

 

As for Leica releasing a whole host of new lenses all at once, we all know that is beyond Leica, don't we?  Has any camera maker actually achieved this (other than smaller cheaper lens offerings?  Even then, I seem to recall that Sony's E mounts dribbled out). 

 

I'm waiting for (hoping) Jono or some one to do a comparison of the Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90 f/2.8-4.5 with the new zoom. I suspect image quality with the new lens will not be an issue ...

Edited October 25, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[dkCambridgeshire]

Actually, that's the only way to look at it right now, as there will be no native lenses for a long while.

 

This would not be a problem if Leica had surprised us with a new, innovative, light, mirrorless medium format camera and lens system. And then focus resources to make it the world's best photographic system.

 

... but unfortunately, they decided to play the copycat game, and surrender to their failure to innovate.

 

 

The Leica SL's EVF is innovative. Furthermore, Stefan Skopp, Leica SL System Product manager has stated, that the SL design commenced in Spring 2012 - which would have been at least 18 months prior to the announcement of the Sony A7 in December 2013.  All mirrorless cameras by virtue of their not having a mirror box have similarities - but the SL is not a copy. 

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

I think - even more so now - that the S should have been FF DSLR.

 

The tech has moved on and the S offers little advantage over the best FF DSLR's.

 

Meanwhile we now have the mirrorless SL which no doubt has a fine sensor - but only one average speed zoom.

 

Whatever window of opportunity Leica have with this camera has already closed, with the news that no further lenses will be available for another year (and remember we're talking Leica time here - how long did it take for the S lenses again?).

 

The SL is a nice idea, but that's about it.

 

James you so often criticise and denigrate Leica's products - often without good reason. The 'average speed zoom' as you call it was designed by the Peter Karbe team who know far more about optical design than any forum member … and PK must have been given a brief to work to as regards aperture, size and weight for the necessarily large lens mount diameter telecentric lens design. PK's team also designed the outstanding 28-90mm R and the XV's 18-46mm Vario Elmar - the latter's aperture range never being understood by all the denigrators who failed to realise that with the good high ISO performances of modern digital cameras, fast lens apertures are not always necessary or desirable. The speed lens for the SL will be the newly announced 50mm Summilux. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that neither of the 'best FF DSLR' manufacturers have yet announced a mirrorless FF camera.  

 

The SL is so much more than just the 'nice idea' that you purport it to be … it's a very considered design put into production with a very good lens and the finest EVF to date which is even better than that of the Q. 

 

Remember that Leica did it first with both their latest EVFs. 

 

dunk 

Edited October 25, 2015 by dkCambridgeshire

[CheshireCat]

The Leica SL's EVF is innovative. Furthermore, Stefan Skopp, Leica SL System Product manager has stated, that the SL design commenced in Spring 2012 - which would have been at least 18 months prior to the announcement of the Sony A7 in December 2013.  All mirrorless cameras by virtue of their not having a mirror box have similarities - but the SL is not a copy. 

 

Agreed, the EVF is innovative and quite important. But it is the only thing, and competitors will match or surpass it very soon. Sony is basically releasing a new camera every few months, so it won't be long.

About the design commenced in 2012: EVIL cameras had been around since 2008.

Innovation is not only driven by ideas. Execution is at least as important.

 

But what we have almost 8 years later is a big Frankenstein, the body stolen from the medium format camera it should have been, and filled with recycled parts and technologies from old bodies... but yes, dressed with a shiny EVF for the gala party.

 

An obsolete product fighting for its niche even in the Leica users niche.

Edited October 25, 2015 by CheshireCat

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

Agreed, the EVF is innovative and quite important. But it is the only thing, and competitors will match or surpass it very soon. Sony is basically releasing a new camera every few months, so it won't be long.

About the design commenced in 2012: EVIL cameras had been around since 2008.

Innovation is not only driven by ideas. Execution is at least as important.

 

But what we have almost 8 years later is a big Frankenstein, the body stolen from the medium format camera it should have been, and filled with recycled parts and technologies from old bodies... but yes, dressed with a shiny EVF for the gala party.

 

An obsolete product fighting for its niche even in the Leica users niche.

 

 

 

… with poor EVF technology that Leica chose not to use. 

 

dunk

[CheshireCat]

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that neither of the 'best FF DSLR' manufacturers have yet announced a mirrorless FF camera.  

 

And they won't announce it until it makes sense on a revenue basis.

 

For critical work, sports and fast action, DSLR AF is unbeaten. And I am curious to see if Leica's claim about the SL 28-90 being the fastest AF of all camera systems is true (in all conditions).

[earleygallery]

And I am curious to see if Leica's claim about the SL 28-90 being the fastest AF of all camera systems is true (in all conditions).

Jono has already stated that it's not as fast as phase AF in the better Canon or Nikons.

[earleygallery]

James,

 

You're expending massive amount of energy being disappointed by this camera. What's wrong with the S now? People who own them and use them seem to really like the image quality. ..

Less energy than you're spending defending everything Leica do though!

 

Nothing wrong with the S, but imagine how much more popular it might be with a slightly smaller sensor/body/lenses.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Less energy than you're spending defending everything Leica do though!

 

Nothing wrong with the S, but imagine how much more popular it might be with a slightly smaller sensor/body/lenses.

 

The S is what it is … and as documented many times previously, Leica have no intention of downsizing the S into a smaller format DSLR. They have a road map for the T and the SL both of which share the same mount. To introduce or reintroduce yet another ILC mount is a totally unreasonable idea. The future of Leica non-MF and non-rangefinder ILCs is mirrorless.

 

dunk

Edited October 25, 2015 by dkCambridgeshire

[lct]

I don't know for you folks but some of us wanted neither a DSLR (been there) nor an MF camera (too big or expensive), just an FF camera with EVF. We have it now don't we. It is not as compact as we could hope but it is still smaller than a DSLR, it can take any sort of Leica lenses and it is, at last, faster than our good old M cameras. SL lenses are big but we don't have to buy them and 24MP is good enough for those who don't need to crop a lot to get decent results. What to complain about then? Cost was expected but the bump on the top plate could hardly be more ridiculous i agree...

[pico]

I think - even more so now - that the S should have been FF DSLR.

 

Of course that would have eliminated using M lenses. Not smart.

[CheshireCat]

Jono has already stated that it's not as fast as phase AF in the better Canon or Nikons.

 

I double-checked, and the claim is with the 90-280 (I said 28-90 incorrectly).

From Leica's US site:

 

In combination with the LEICA APO VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 90–280 mm f/2.8–4, the Leica SL has the fastest autofocus of any professional camera – including SLRs.

 

I am really skeptical, and I guess that as usual, the excuse will be: "oh, the English translation from German is not 100% accurate" 

Edited October 25, 2015 by CheshireCat

[IkarusJohn]

Less energy than you're spending defending everything Leica do though!

 

Nothing wrong with the S, but imagine how much more popular it might be with a slightly smaller sensor/body/lenses.

 

Come now, James. Pleas pay attention.

 

I don't know enough to defend this camera.  I've been very clear that I like the look of it, but I'm unsure if it's for me.  I have been expending a lot of energy testing a lot of what looks like baseless criticism - I'm sure you can tell the differeence.

 

I appreciate it can be difficult to understand what people are actually saying and respond, but it is more informative. Responding to Peter and others has informed me a lot. Your comments, not so much. 

Edited October 25, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[EdwardM]

My humble opinion that SL just "another new full frame camera". Period. Personally I don't care which technology is there-  mirror or mirrorles. It's bulky, it's ugly and it's pricey. The main reason I have switched from Canon Mark3 to M9 was the size and look of the camera and M lenses. The full frame was the bonus. And RF focusing became the real joy. I did not switched to M system because of RF technology and mirrorlesness. I moved to M because of its extremely user friendly and simple usage, it's great look and feeling in my hands. Only after I appreciated the RF philosophy. 

I am not saying that Leica should stop the development of new product line of cameras and lenses. But for me SL is total fail. There are no any reason for me to come back to bulky camera which I successfully sold years ago. 

P.S. 2.8-4 F apperture for 24-90 lens is another fail. Sorry. 

[IkarusJohn]

My humble opinion that SL just "another new full frame camera". 

 

That takes M lenses, and hopefully plays nice with the wides, but yes - this is something not to forget.

 

The likelihood of buying this camera, opening the box and burying my head in my hands thinking "what have I done" is sobering.  I don't agree that it's ugly, not sure about the bulk, and the price fits with the rest of Leica's high end system cameras, but the reason for buying into the M system remains incredibly valid.  It does look like the Leica gestalt of simplicity has been carried over tot he SL, which is appealing.

 

I don't understand the "total fail", but I guess time will tell.  For Leica's sake, I certainly hope not.  Can't agree on the lens - name a faster zoom in the same range for 35mm.  I am looking forward to tests of the zoom, but where people complain about size and speed in the same breath, I'm mystified.  Its a bit like the project management triangle - you can have fast, cheap and good - but you can only choose two.  I can't understand how you could have a faster zoom in this range without it being absolutely colossal.

Edited October 25, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

Not sure if i see the point in comparing RFs to EVILs. Different beasts the same way as SLRs and RFs were different. This did not prevent Leica to make both as long as they could. Some prefer blondes, other brunettes, c'est la vie...

[rfunnell]

Interesting to watch everyones opinions on this new camera.

 

I certainly remember that when the Q was released it seemed to get a much more positive response overwhelmingly.

 

As with before if we just wait a while it will become clearer whether it's worth the purchase or whether it's best to wait for the new M240 .

 

Also it will be interesting to see if the new Wetzler factory can produce the product unlike the Q and M246 when people want to buy them .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[EdwardM]

canon makes 24-70 at 2.8. Yes it's not 24-90, but generally its close that focus range.

Second edition of 24/70 is great, really like this lens. 

For sure we can use M glasses on SL but I think it will be compromise between compability and Image quality. The native lens for SL IS SL line. 

Lets put it that way - imagine that there is no Leica label on SL - would even pay your attention to this camera?