Jump to content

SL - a quick hands on review!


earleygallery

Recommended Posts

The black out seems very variable. Sometimes it is quite long, sometimes barely noticeable. I am using cards that are faster than the write speed of slot 1 at 150 MB/s, so I am not convinced it is card related. If it was card related, surely it would be constant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using just one Sandisk Extreme Pro 32 GB card until a pair of better ones arrive. That's the one that was particularly slow with the M. My practice is not particularly slick at this early stage, but I'm not noticing your degree of variability.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think card speed should have any influence on the blackout time.

 

At least not until the buffer limit is reached.

 

I have tried several different SD cards from old slow 16GB, 32GB 90MB/s to brand new 150MB/s, and I see no difference at all in the blackout time on my SL.

 

The blackout time is certainly much less than on my Nikon D810.

 

Please note that review time must be set to "off" for this test to have any meaning.

 

I would say that the blackout time is significantly less than 100ms, probably less than 50ms.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

Edited by trond
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think card speed should have any influence on the blackout time.

At least not until the buffer limit is reached. ... 

 

That's what I'd expect as well. 

 

I fitted two Sandisk Extreme Pro 64G 95Mbps cards as soon as the SL arrived. They're all I've used or tried with the camera. I made sure auto review was off as soon as I put a battery into the camera. As I reported before, the SL's blackout time is identical to that which I observe in my Nikon F6 at the same shutter speeds.

 

I've been shooting with SLRs for so long that I barely notice it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you're wrong. The SL is a new system. If I end up buying one it will be at the expense of my M. Therefore It will have to be an improvement over it.

 

 

That's a question of definition, of course. You compare the SL to your Nikon and Rollei systems, while overlooking the fact that in addition to the one lens released with the camera (one swallow does not summer make), the SL takes every lens Leica has ever made, including everything the M(240) can shoot. 

 

The M may work better with some of these lenses, but for me these cameras are complementary, and the SL does little more than extend the system I have. That is a core requirement of this camera for me, and it is also why I sold the A7 and the D800E. I have zero intention of duplicating my M lenses with SL lenses, unless there is a compelling reason. 

 

Toy?  Somewhat dismissive, don't you think?  It's quite okay to say "Not for me". 

 

Cheers

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a question of definition, of course. You compare the SL to your Nikon and Rollei systems, while overlooking the fact that in addition to the one lens released with the camera (one swallow does not summer make), the SL takes every lens Leica has ever made, including everything the M(240) can shoot. 

 

The M may work better with some of these lenses, but for me these cameras are complementary, and the SL does little more than extend the system I have. That is a core requirement of this camera for me, and it is also why I sold the A7 and the D800E. I have zero intention of duplicating my M lenses with SL lenses, unless there is a compelling reason. 

 

Toy?  Somewhat dismissive, don't you think?  It's quite okay to say "Not for me". 

 

Cheers

John

 

No no, I said it would be a toy for me. All along i've tried to make it clear that my observations relate to my own photographic priorities. How other people use their cameras is up to them.

 

Anyway, it's two great virtues are that it has AF and a modern EVF. The fact that's it's compatible with every Leica lens really means very little to me, since I have all the lenses I want and they're all perfectly compatible with the body I already have, so I see no advantage there in the SL. For me. At the very most the EVF is better, but I'm not paying sterling£5,000 for a better EVF.

 

So, unless I buy a few SL AF lenses to make use of the full capability of the SL, in other words a new system, it will add nothing else for me other than an alluring body, (though I do prefer a petite frame) but in terms of photography, nothing of value. 

 

So yes, it's not for me. That's what I thought I was saying all along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No no, I said it would be a toy for me. All along i've tried to make it clear that my observations relate to my own photographic priorities. How other people use their cameras is up to them.

 

 

Sorry, Peter, that's a distinction sometimes lost on John when he is passionate about a product, as I have found.

 

For me, the M lenses I own are perfect for M use; no reason to contemplate another camera to do the same.   I'll wait for the next M to decide if a better EVF warrants any different lens purchases....but no rush.   I also find the S/SL interface not very intuitive, despite the elegant and simple looking unmarked buttons, while others feel otherwise.  In that regard, I don't find the two systems totally synergistic, even though lenses might be interchangeable.   I hope the M doesn't go that route.

 

But I haven't played with the SL....so all reaction is preliminary....actual use is key for me, and that starts with the viewing system.  If that doesn't suit, nothing else matters; it's a major reason why I bond with the M.  

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like every Leica before, it has polarised the forum into believers and non-believers. I started off as a non-believer due to the weight and bulk but then I thought M + 90 + 50/.95 + 18 and probably 35/2 or 1.4 as well just because it is my favourite focal length, comes to as much as the SL and zoom. The foolproof GPS compared with the crippled GPS of the M240, is going to save me a lot of time as well. Now that I have it, I can see I am going to like it a lot but it is one heck of a lump. It is also quite a steep learning experience plus it has a couple of bugs that Leica say they are aware of, the text entry of spaces on profiles and flash compatibility in aperture priority mode for the SF 24, 26 and 58 not locking the shutter speed. I have a meeting with Leica UK to go through the last point early next month, as whereas they realised the flash problem was present on the Q, they did not realise this error had been carried forward to the SL. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Believers, non-believers ... it's just a tool which hopefully will add functionality and enable me to to more than my M cameras can do. I don't see it as a replacement. 

 

What has surprised me about this discussion is the unexpectedly strong views over what the camera isn't, rather than coming to grips with what it is. The discussion is not dissimilar to the M60 release. It's baffling. The camera is what it is, and it will do some things well, and maybe others not so well. Speaking personally, size is fine (it sits well in my hands), weight is okay (it seems Leica has a CNC machine - this might be the future), price is in line with the rest of the Leica cameras. Would I want it lighter and cheaper? Of course. 

 

In terms of what Leica has designed, and where it is placed, I have been asking for a camera like this from Leica for years. Search the forum - many experts here have given excellent reasons for why Leica wouldn't make it. Thankfully, they have. 

 

Now, it comes down to  how it works. The first task will be to understand how to operate it in a way which works for me, and then to see if I'm happy with the results. If not, it gets the flick, following the T, the Sony & the Nikon.  Apart from a loss in money, I won't spare it a second thought. 

 

Horses for courses - this one looks promising, but the finish line is some way off. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't contribute to the usage of the SL but I am confused why so many people are comparing them. It seems obvious to me that the M is for someone who wants lightweight and manual control and the SL is more for someone who wants auto many things, fast output and ruggedness.

 

If I was a pro studio photographer I would consider the S, for event photographer I would consider an SL, for travel and leisure I would consider the M.

 

Seem fairly straightforward IMHO

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't contribute to the usage of the SL but I am confused why so many people are comparing them. It seems obvious to me that the M is for someone who wants lightweight and manual control and the SL is more for someone who wants auto many things, fast output and ruggedness.

 

If I was a pro studio photographer I would consider the S, for event photographer I would consider an SL, for travel and leisure I would consider the M.

 

Seem fairly straightforward IMHO

 

It may come as a surprise to many of us on this forum but there are those among us whose interests are greater than their financial resources.

Edited by wildlightphoto
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may come as a surprise to many of us on this forum but there are those among us whose interests are greater than their financial resources.

 

What, you mean I'm not alone in not being able to afford the SL plus 24-90 plus Noctilux in one go?  :wacko:

  • Like 2
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...