Leica SL Image Thread ...post your examples here ....

[teiki arii]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 The Leica 90, r 80 1.4, and Sigma Art are all options I am thinking about at the moment, so appreciate your input.The Mitakon seems like a wonderful option; one I had not really considered before../..

 

Hi Rob,

I have Sigma Art 35/1.4 & 50/1.4. These lenses are excellent without talking about their excellent price quality ratio, but I actually prefer my Leica Summicron-R 35/2 for Walter Mandler rendering which is lighter, has a better focus ring and is good after f:2.8 although it's one of the weakest Leica-R lenses. The Leica Summicron-R 50/2 is very good after f:2.8 with a Walter Mandler rendering too which means very good microcontrast and a great tonal/gray scale...

[teiki arii]

The R 80/1.4 is an affordable choice and excellent performer. 

I've thought a fair bit about this and finally decided to go longer still with the Sigma Art 135/1.8.

Gives Noctilux like DOF wide open, great for candid portraiture from an unobtrusive distance and is useful for landscape/architectural detail.

I have 75, 80 and 90 covered already by multiple Leica lenses and in reality use them very little. The 90-280 is wonderful for portraiture but too heavy to routinely carry about 'just in case' 

Although I have the Noctilux and SL 50/1.4 ...... the 24-90 is such a good all round performer it takes rather specific needs to displace it from the SL. 

Of course, it's just a matter of need/expectation and what you have left in your wallet... I have had my Leica-R lenses for a while and don't want to replace its, because they are very small, very light, oustanding for their compacity and their focus ring is the perfect choice for me...

Edited May 28, 2017 by teiki arii

[ropo54]

And, I have experimented with using the Leica T with the VE 24-90, and some other M lenses, to add the 1.5 length. I have high hopes and expectations that the new T will have superb AF speed, more pixels on its sensor, and a terrific evf. That has made me pause a bit on the medium telephoto options.  

 

I have an option on an R 80, but just haven't pulled the trigger, thinking the noctilux on a new T will be a substantial equivalent (for my purposes).

 

Rob

Edited May 28, 2017 by ropo54

[farnz]

You don't have to use the T or TL to get the 1.5x crop factor and resultant magnification because the SL offers the same by selecting APSC under Sensor Format.

 

Pete.

[meerec]

 

Also, tried out a pre-owned 90mm 2.4 and it was very nice and sharp; when I decided to purchase it though it had been sold.

 

I have the summarit-m 90mm 2.4 for sale. AS NEW. It's a beautiful lens.

I'm selling it because I've bought a 25 year old vintage summicron-m 90 2.0.

Let me know Rob if you're interested.

[ropo54]

You don't have to use the T or TL to get the 1.5x crop factor and resultant magnification because the SL offers the same by selecting APSC under Sensor Format.

 

Pete.

 

Pete,

Thank you; I had never thought of that!

Terrific.

Rob

Edited May 29, 2017 by ropo54

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To Pete or anyone else:

 

Please excuse my ignorance.

 

If I shoot in APS-c mode to take advantage of the 1.5 crop factor, I know that when using T lenses that I am dealing with 10mp size files. I'm not sure that I understand why this mode does not render 16mp size files as the sensor does in the T.

 

Is it because the size of the pixels of the SL sensor are larger, so that there are simply fewer of them in the compressed area of the APS-c sensor?  (Which would also mean that SL lenses will also produce 10mp files?)

 

Thanks,

Rob

Edited May 29, 2017 by ropo54

[thighslapper]

 

 

Is it because the size of the pixels of the SL sensor are larger, so that there are simply fewer of them in the compressed area of the APS-c sensor?  (Which would also mean that SL lenses will also produce 10mp files?)

 

Thanks,

Rob

  T lenses are designed for the smaller sensor ..... so as you suspect the same area when spread over a full frame 24mpx SL sensor only covers 10mpx

[farnz]

Rob,

 

Further to what Thighslapper has written, I've just dug out the SL Manual and I notice that it states that the crop factor using the APSC format is "approx. 1.2x" rather than the 1.5x I had expected.  The relative sensor sizes are 24 x 36 for "35 mm" and 15.7 x 23.6 for "APSC".

 

Pete.

[taosantamonica]

The R 80/1.4 is an affordable choice and excellent performer. 

 

 

 

 

Agree...  

 

east l.a. r80/lux

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by taosantamonica

[geetee1972]

To Pete or anyone else:

 

Please excuse my ignorance.

 

If I shoot in APS-c mode to take advantage of the 1.5 crop factor, I know that when using T lenses that I am dealing with 10mp size files. I'm not sure that I understand why this mode does not render 16mp size files as the sensor does in the T.

 

Is it because the size of the pixels of the SL sensor are larger, so that there are simply fewer of them in the compressed area of the APS-c sensor?  (Which would also mean that SL lenses will also produce 10mp files?)

 

Thanks,

Rob

 

The pixel pitch on the Leica T is 4.77 micrometers whereas on the SL it's 6 micrometers. That means there is a higher pixel density on the T, which also means more information per unit area. For the same surface sensor area, the SL thus has about 35% less information/resolution/pixels etc than the T, which is why the APS-C mode on the SL gives you a much small file than on the T.

 

Back on topic, here is another from my project 'On the Beach'. All these images are taken with the 50mm M Summilux between tha hours of sunrise and 8am on Brighton Beach.

 

Ayla - On the Beach by Greg Turner, on Flickr

Edited May 29, 2017 by geetee1972

[ropo54]

Rob,

 

Further to what Thighslapper has written, I've just dug out the SL Manual and I notice that it states that the crop factor using the APSC format is "approx. 1.2x" rather than the 1.5x I had expected.  The relative sensor sizes are 24 x 36 for "35 mm" and 15.7 x 23.6 for "APSC".

 

Pete.

 

Again, I apologize for my confusion . . . . When one uses the T lenses on the SL, one will still get 1.5 magnification, correct, but with just fewer pixels (10m vs. 16m)? When one uses full frame lenses, one will get a 1.2 magnification instead (with 10m pixels)? 

 

Pixel size is also a factor, too? I am told that the size of the pixels - larger on the SL - is "better". So, is it "better" to have 16m 'smaller' pixels rather than 10m 'larger' pixels?  In other words, should one have "better" resolution with the 1.5 crop factor using full frames lenses on the T, or on the SL?

Edited May 29, 2017 by ropo54

[Marac]

Zhyong Yi 85mm f1.2 at f1.2 ISO50 and a ridiculous shutter speed of 16k if I'm not mistaken (incredible) this is direct from camera with a slight straighten in LR

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Vogelweide]

Leica SL⎢VARIO-ELMARIT 1:2.8-4.0/24-90mm ASPH. OIS⎢30mm⎢f/3.5⎢ISO 800⎢1/60 sec.
Off CameraFlash and Magmod MagBeam incl. Gel

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 29, 2017 by Vogelweide

[farnz]

Again, I apologize for my confusion . . . . When one uses the T lenses on the SL, one will still get 1.5 magnification, correct, but with just fewer pixels (10m vs. 16m)? When one uses full frame lenses, one will get a 1.2 magnification instead (with 10m pixels)? 

 

Pixel size is also a factor, too? I am told that the size of the pixels - larger on the SL - is "better". So, is it "better" to have 16m 'smaller' pixels rather than 10m 'larger' pixels?  In other words, should one have "better" resolution with the 1.5 crop factor using full frames lenses on the T, or on the SL?

Rob,

 

Crop factor relates to the sensor size and is independent of any lens so both your full frame and T lenses will be subject to the same virtual magnification.  Leica says the crop factor at APSC on the SL is 1.2x so that's also what you'll get with your T lenses and full frame lenses.

 

Larger pixels have the ability to capture more light (it's bigger bucket) so more 'signal' is captured and the ratio of signal to noise (ie light to noise) is higher so less noise is evident.

 

 

 

Perhaps it's time to move the discussion to a new thread and leave this one to carry on for posting pictures.

 

Pete.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Don't know why Leica would say 1.2 is APS-C multiplication factor.  It's 1.5.  Ratio of sensor sizes determines it.  Big pixels are nice, and 10M are a lot of them for many purposes.

 

now back to pictures.

Edited May 29, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[helged]

Spring. SL + 24-90.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[helged]

...but still winter in the mountains. SL + 24-90.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 29, 2017 by helged

[helged]

another fjord, waiting for the ferry... SL + 24-90.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

before heading back home to the daily life. SL + 24-90 (surely a beautiful and versatile lens, albeit a little biggie).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 29, 2017 by helged