Jump to content

Chasseur d'Images review of the SL610


lct

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Conclusion of the Chasseur d'Images review of the SL610 (Issue # 379, December 2015, page 136):

« Le Leica SL signe le retour de la marque allemande sur le marché des reflex. Intelligemment, la marque choisit de ne pas affronter de face les deux leaders et essaie de les prendre de vitesse sur le segment des hybrides, terrain qu'ils délaissent. C'est une bonne idée. Mais cela peut-il suffire? 

Certes, le Cmos 24 Mpix délivre des images excellentes, l'AF est rapide et le boîtier moderne (vidéo 4K, Wi-Fi facilitant le pilotage, GPS), mais à l'issue du test, il faut reconnaître que sur aucun plan (excepté la vitesse d'AF), le SL n'est capable de rivaliser avec un Sony Alpha 7 II et son capteur 24 Mpix. Et face à un Sony Alpha 7R II, moitié moins cher, sa qualité d'image est en net retrait. Leica semble aussi avoir oublié que les hybrides sont des boîtiers compacts. Pourtant, c'est le point fort du M. 

Être persuadé que l'on dispose du meilleur appareil est une chose, mais pour convaincre, Leica devrait être plus humble et reconnaître qu'attaquer un nouveau marché nécessite une phase d'adaptation et du temps pour acquérir les compétences nécessaires. Mais peut-on être humble à 11.000 € le ticket d'entrée? »

 

Free translation:

The Leica SL marks the return of the German brand on the TTL market. Cleverly, the brand chose not to face the two leaders head-on and tries to outpace them on the EVIL segment they are neglecting. It is a good idea. But can this be enough?

Certainly, the 24 megapixel CMOS delivers excellent images, AF is fast and the body is modern (4K video, Wi-Fi, GPS), but now that the review is done, we have to agree that it can compete at no level but AF speed with a Sony Alpha 7 II and his 24 Mpix sensor. And compared to a Sony Alpha 7R II, cheaper by half the price, the image quality is well behind. Leica also seems to have forgotten that EVILs are compact bodies. Yet that is the strong point of the M.

Being confident that one has the best camera is one thing but to convince others, Leica should be more humble and acknowledge that attacking a new market requires an adaptation phase and some time to acquire the necessary skills. Now can one be humble when asking EUR 11,000 as entry ticket?

 

My comment FWIW:

Chasseur d'Images has reviewed the SL610 together with the Leica 24-90 zoom lens but not with M, R or other lenses. 

Edited by lct
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these are fair points from the point of view of non Leica users that this new system hopes to lure in getting invested into. As pointed out, I think most buyers will be already existing customers, M and S users. Then, the points raised in the conclusion are suddenly not as important.

Edited by edwardkaraa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did have a look at the body and lens today. The lens is absolutely massive. Bigger than my DSLR zooms.  The fact that it is not perfectly compatible with M lenses means that Sony/Zeiss will be getting more of my hard-earned than Leica. Even they, however, do not seem to have got the message that small is beautiful, when it comes to lenses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did have a look at the body and lens today. The lens is absolutely massive. Bigger than my DSLR zooms. The fact that it is not perfectly compatible with M lenses means that Sony/Zeiss will be getting more of my hard-earned than Leica. Even they, however, do not seem to have got the message that small is beautiful, when it comes to lenses.

Making small lenses for the FE mount is very difficult with the cover glass thickness and extremely short 18mm flange. Theoretically the SL can accommodate smaller lenses but not by much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica SL 610? New camera to me. Don't think I'll be buying it. And it looks like the Q and S have been forgotten as Leica's entry to the TTL market.

 

But seriously. All reviews reflect the priorities and practices of the reviewer, and one just has to pick the reviewers one has learned, from experience, to trust. This is another review that focuses on measurable issues, like price, pixels, size, weight etc, on all of which the reviewer's data are undoubtedly correct; but each one will have a different level of relevance to individual potential buyers.

 

I am surprised it says " the image quality is well behind" the Sony: this is not something repeated as a generalisation by other reviews. Unless it means IQ as measured by pixel count. As long as it is more or less as good as the M I'll be happy.

 

OTOH, the review summary makes no mention of the interface, or EVF quality. Perhaps these are referred to in the body of the review, but their absence in the summary also reflects the reviewer's priorities. 

 

That's all fine by me - I suspect my priorities are different.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OTOH, the review summary makes no mention of the interface, or EVF quality. Perhaps these are referred to in the body of the review [...]

 

Yes they are. In one word the EVF's resolution is very high but contrast is very high also and cannot be corrected. Same for colors that cannot be corrected either according to Chasseur... Curious indeed as those corrections are offered in much cheaper bodies...

Interface is... well i don't want to be shot as a messenger :D so i went straight to the conclusion: firmware update required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen the EVF, it is OK for me. Others will have to judge for themselves.

 

I look forward to exploring the interface. The principle of it looks great, and a benefit of a larger body means that the assignable buttons can be systematically and ergonomically placed, which is my gripe about just about every other non-Leica digital camera I've looked at or used; most of them look like buttons have been applied by spray gun and, even if assignable, they have some unintelligible symbol, sometimes two, that show only their pre-assigned purpose. My brain isn't up to that approach.

But I am already aware that firmware updates will be needed to allow the customisation that each individual will want.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a fair review to me, a reasonable assessment.....personal opinion on unmeasurable factor can definitely differ....

i also wish the contrast in the EVF could be adjusted somehow.....the resolution is amazing, color is ok, contrast is too high....

i am pretty sure most issues i have with the SL can be taken care of with firmware upgrades....not cancelling my order...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't follow the image quality comment either. Perhaps the reviewer is referring to the Sony's huge ISO range?

 

Also, i don't understand how Leica was supposed to enter the market sector. With a crappier product (easily bettered by Canon or Nikon)? Or the same product sold at a huge loss?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did have a look at the body and lens today. The lens is absolutely massive. Bigger than my DSLR zooms.  The fact that it is not perfectly compatible with M lenses means that Sony/Zeiss will be getting more of my hard-earned than Leica. Even they, however, do not seem to have got the message that small is beautiful, when it comes to lenses. 

 

What do you mean "not perfectly compatible with M lenses"?

 

According to all the reviews I have read, next to an M body the SL is the best solution available for M lenses.

 

BTW- According to LFI, the SL sensor uses micro lenses like the M, which seems to be confirmed by the results posted by Jono, Reid and Puts. There is a post somewhere in this forum by Jono showing comparisons of M lenses on the SL and Sony and the difference is staggering. And according to Reids reviews at least one M lens on the SL actually out resolves the M on the edges.

 

Regarding the review- I think its pretty spot on, but also typical Leica. They have never been know to ever deliver a bleeding edge product...just a unique one that is built to higher standards. But from a technology viewpoint, always at least a step or two behind. The SL seems to close the gap a bit with the EVF and speed, but Leica will likely never be a leader in the technology front.

Edited by digitalfx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Regarding the review- I think its pretty spot on, but also typical Leica. They have never been know to ever deliver a bleeding edge product...just a unique one that is built to higher standards. But from a technology viewpoint, always at least a step or two behind. The SL seems to close the gap a bit with the EVF and speed, but Leica will likely never be a leader in the technology front.

 

Hmm well Leica say it's all about SPEED and indeed it will write 11 frames a second full sized raw files to two SD cards at once A7sii does 5 fps at half the resolution. Start up time and focusing are also pretty fast (certainly faster than the Sonys), and the EVF is the highest resolution there is (half as much again over the A7rii) I do agree that it's too contrasty, but so are the Sony(Olympus seems best Here). But it's noticeably bigger than all other EVFs. So they do seem to be leading in some respects, 

 

But it's supposed to be a workhorse, and it's tough to be expected to be better than both the A7sii one one hand AND the A7rii on the other ...... at everything!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that it is not as good as the M, as the samples to which you refer show. 

 

How could it possibly be as good as the M body? M lenses were purpose built specifically for the M. The SL accepts a far wider range of lenses. If your expectation was to get equal or better performance your expectations were unrealistic. Personally I find the test results pretty remarkable...really looking forward to the SL personally with my M lenses. From the tests Ive seen the Summilux's perform nearly as good as they do on the M...and in some cases better.

Edited by digitalfx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm well Leica say it's all about SPEED and indeed it will write 11 frames a second full sized raw files to two SD cards at once A7sii does 5 fps at half the resolution. Start up time and focusing are also pretty fast (certainly faster than the Sonys), and the EVF is the highest resolution there is (half as much again over the A7rii) I do agree that it's too contrasty, but so are the Sony(Olympus seems best Here). But it's noticeably bigger than all other EVFs. So they do seem to be leading in some respects, 

 

But it's supposed to be a workhorse, and it's tough to be expected to be better than both the A7sii one one hand AND the A7rii on the other ...... at everything!

 

Exactly what I said, Leica has closed the gap with the speed and EVF of the SL... but its not all about speed. From what I have seen, Sony has more DR and better high ISO performance...but my SL hasn't arrived yet :(

then there is the 24MP sensor...a bit on the small side in 2016.

Edited by digitalfx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I said, Leica has closed the gap with the speed and EVF of the SL... but its not all about speed. From what I have seen, Sony has more DR and better high ISO performance...but my SL hasn't arrived yet :(

then there is the 24MP sensor...a bit on the small side in 2016.

It hasn't just closed the gap in terms of speed, it seems to have left the competition standing in the dust . . . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a fair review to me, a reasonable assessment.....personal opinion on unmeasurable factor can definitely differ....

i also wish the contrast in the EVF could be adjusted somehow.....the resolution is amazing, color is ok, contrast is too high....

i am pretty sure most issues i have with the SL can be taken care of with firmware upgrades....not cancelling my order...

 

...... err, if the contrast was low you wouldn't be able to focus properly in MF mode ....... in fact it never occurred to me in use that it was too contrasty. Colour seems fairly faithful to me ....  and as the review uses the jpg's then the images shown after taking them are dependent on that menus settings. The X-Vario has settings for colour adjustment of the evf/monitor but after fiddling for a while I gave up as wide disparities in white balance are all you need to spot .... and if AWB is accurate and trustworthy (as it seems to be on the SL) then it's just another pointless menu option.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't just closed the gap in terms of speed, it seems to have left the competition standing in the dust . . . . 

 

Jono,

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I didn't say the closed the gap in regards to speed...I said they closed the gap because of the speed and the EVF.

Leica has always been a few steps behind the technology curve. When the M9 released the sensor was two steps behind the best sensors available at the time...same with the M240. With the SL they have closed the gap releasing a camera that is faster than everything else on the market and a with a class leading EVF. But they are still a step behind in regards to the MP's, DR and high ISO performance. When you consider the price difference that is significant.

 

Will this stop me from buying? Hell no....but then I have owned nearly every Leica made in the past 25 years. I am sure I will be more than happy with the SL.

Edited by digitalfx
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...