Leica SL a real camera for the pro.

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Size (and weight) do matter.  Gone are the days when I am prepared to hike around with a pro Nikon Body and long telephoto, plus the trips and gimball to go with it.

 

The main reason that I am prepared to give up AF is the (lack of) weight of the M lenses, compared to my (more versatile) Nikon glass.

[Advertisement]

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

[wildlightphoto]

There are clearly two types of person looking at the SL- those thinking of it as a possible replacement for the M and those thinking of it as an addition.

 

  There are two kinds of people: those who put people into boxes and those who don't.

 

 

When going out I often carry a small backback with some stuff for our kids and myslef, maybe 1 l of wate (=1kg) some bananas etc.

Overall its probably betwenn 3-5kg.

If the small girl gets tired I sometimes put her on my shoulders. I think she weights about 18kg +-

So I am sometimes really surprised how people discuss about 200 gramm more or less. Have you ever weighted your shoos or coats?

Size is another thing since other people might feel strange if a big camera/lens is pointed ot them.

 

 

When carrying a 60-lb backpack every gram matters.

[Peter H]

When you use a camera continuously all day long, holding it to your eye for many hours, raising it and lowering it countless times but many hundreds at least, 200gms can make a difference not just to how keen you are to continue, but to the quality of the work you do.

 

Weight and body- lens balance can be important photographic features. A heavy lens in particular can become a big issue come the evening!

[Peter H]

That same observation applies to the people you referred to earlier who sold their entire SLR kit, and became advocates for their new lives of simplicity, stealth and minimalism with an M camera and a swiftly increasing selection of M lenses. 

 

What at is different here is that there is genuine compatibility with lenses. 

 

I actually suspect quite strongly that we're tempted by new cameras in the same way that we're tempted to accrete lenses and other bits of paraphernalia.

 

Disguised, often from ourselves, as photography, I think the acquisitive impulse and the genuine (if not always permanent) joy of ownership of attractive things is quite another thing.

[colonel]

It is enlightening but does serve to confirm my prejudices. The pertinent comparison for me (when considering a camera I want to carry around on a casual basis) is with a single M body plus 35 Summicron. Even that combination is no lightweight (my Summicron is one of the brass ones and it feels like a small cannonball). My thinking is that if was to carry around 2KG of camera on a routine basis I might as well carry a Hasselblad.

I have put off buying a Pentax 645 or Leica S kit due to the weight. If I convinced myself to get an SL then I would automatically substitute it for one of the above

[AlanJW]

It is enlightening but does serve to confirm my prejudices.   The pertinent comparison for me (when considering a camera I want to carry around on a casual basis) is with a single M body plus 35 Summicron. Even that combination is no lightweight (my Summicron is one of the brass ones and it feels like a small cannonball). My thinking is that if was to carry around 2KG of camera on a routine basis I might as well carry a Hasselblad.

I agree.  I often go out with just my M-P or Monochrome and either 50mm APO or 35mm Summilux.  The APO is smaller and lighter but either combination can be carried for hours without strain.  Having one focal length also imposes some discipline on how I shoot.   To me an SL makes sense as a studio camera with native lenses.   Nevertheless, the reports on how M lenses perform are very enticing.   So far I have held off in favor of seeing first what a new M in the Fall might offer.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I actually suspect quite strongly that we're tempted by new cameras in the same way that we're tempted to accrete lenses and other bits of paraphernalia.

 

Disguised, often from ourselves, as photography, I think the acquisitive impulse and the genuine (if not always permanent) joy of ownership of attractive things is quite another thing.

 

That's almost certainly true. However, stigmatising SL purchases as GAS might be a step too far, don't you think?

 

Your two posts read together could be taken as - the reality is this camera is too heavy to use all day, and anyone buying it hasn't thought it through ...

 

Isn't it more simply the case that this camera signals Leica's return to that sector of photography previously only offered by SLR cameras, with the exception that the SL, being mirror less, does more (eg, take M lenses). All the criticisms of SLRs can be levelled at the SL reasonably validly. If someone doesn't want a dSLR, then the M is probably a better choice (though having held the SL, the SLR comparison only gets you so far - the SL does what SLRs do, but it is smaller. In the hand the SL feels more like an M than a D800). 

 

The he joy of owning attractive things probably applies more to the M than the SL. The SL is just new, that's all. The M is more jewel  like. 

 

I've never used a studio, but if you're inside, under controlled lighting, wouldn't an S be better?  What would the advantages of an SL be?  You don't need long or ultra wide lenses - the range of the S lenses is fine, and if you're shooting tethered, aren't you using a tripod?

 

I know I'm showing my complete ignorance here, but I'd have thought the SL brought very little for studio work that isn't offered better by the S. 

[LocalHero1953]

I know I'm showing my complete ignorance here, but I'd have thought the SL brought very little for studio work that isn't offered better by the S. 

Price?

[IkarusJohn]

Price?

 

Probably. The studios I've been into have been populated with a vast range of cameras of all formats. The one thing I don't think a studio camera necessarily needs is access to telephotos or zooms. Not from what I've seen, anyway. 

 

I'm sure the SL is fantastic in the studio. The weather sealing alone would suggest it has other purposes, though ...

[Peter H]

That's almost certainly true. However, stigmatising SL purchases as GAS might be a step too far, don't you think?

 

Your two posts read together could be taken as - the reality is this camera is too heavy to use all day, and anyone buying it hasn't thought it through ...

 

Isn't it more simply the case that this camera signals Leica's return to that sector of photography previously only offered by SLR cameras, with the exception that the SL, being mirror less, does more (eg, take M lenses). All the criticisms of SLRs can be levelled at the SL reasonably validly. If someone doesn't want a dSLR, then the M is probably a better choice (though having held the SL, the SLR comparison only gets you so far - the SL does what SLRs do, but it is smaller. In the hand the SL feels more like an M than a D800). 

 

The he joy of owning attractive things probably applies more to the M than the SL. The SL is just new, that's all. The M is more jewel  like. 

 

I've never used a studio, but if you're inside, under controlled lighting, wouldn't an S be better?  What would the advantages of an SL be?  You don't need long or ultra wide lenses - the range of the S lenses is fine, and if you're shooting tethered, aren't you using a tripod?

 

I know I'm showing my complete ignorance here, but I'd have thought the SL brought very little for studio work that isn't offered better by the S. 

 

I don't think anyone can say which camera or piece of equipment is more subject to GAS than another without bringing one's own prejudices and preferences to bear. I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether GAS applies more to the M or SL.. Equally, would be my guess. Who can possibly know? Even the victims them(our)selves often don't properly understand what and why we're rationalising so much. That's why instinct is such an immensely powerful force.

 

 

I don't fully understand your points about studio use, though I don't think i disagree with anything you say there. Economics aside perhaps, if I were buying a Leica for studio use it would be an S, no argument there.

 

And yes, the SL is essentially a top-quality Nikon/Canon competitor with an EVF. Again, there's nothing wrong with that if you want that type of camera, but again, I suspect from the very many posts on the subject, it's at least as much to do with the intrinsic appeal of a brand new Leica than the format or the precise set of features that will make the launch of the SL a great success.

[dkCambridgeshire]

That's almost certainly true. However, stigmatising SL purchases as GAS might be a step too far, don't you think?

 

Your two posts read together could be taken as - the reality is this camera is too heavy to use all day, and anyone buying it hasn't thought it through ...

 

Isn't it more simply the case that this camera signals Leica's return to that sector of photography previously only offered by SLR cameras, with the exception that the SL, being mirror less, does more (eg, take M lenses). All the criticisms of SLRs can be levelled at the SL reasonably validly. If someone doesn't want a dSLR, then the M is probably a better choice (though having held the SL, the SLR comparison only gets you so far - the SL does what SLRs do, but it is smaller. In the hand the SL feels more like an M than a D800). 

 

The he joy of owning attractive things probably applies more to the M than the SL. The SL is just new, that's all. The M is more jewel  like. 

 

I've never used a studio, but if you're inside, under controlled lighting, wouldn't an S be better?  What would the advantages of an SL be?  You don't need long or ultra wide lenses - the range of the S lenses is fine, and if you're shooting tethered, aren't you using a tripod?

 

I know I'm showing my complete ignorance here, but I'd have thought the SL brought very little for studio work that isn't offered better by the S. 

 

The SL is potentially a cost effective studio camera compared to the Leica S with S lenses.  Any lens which can be adapted to Leica M bodies will also adapt to the SL e.g. Olympus OM and Canon FD lenses - which include quality shift lenses. There is also the possibility of using the SL with a Zork shift adaptor - enabling use of cost effective manual focus medium format lenses with their greater image circle. 

 

dunk

[IkarusJohn]

I don't think anyone can say which camera or piece of equipment is more subject to GAS than another without bringing one's own prejudices and preferences to bear. 

 

Of course you can.  The new shiny one ...

[IkarusJohn]

The SL is potentially a cost effective studio camera compared to the Leica S with S lenses.  Any lens which can be adapted to Leica M bodies will also adapt to the SL e.g. Olympus OM and Canon FD lenses - which include quality shift lenses. There is also the possibility of using the SL with a Zork shift adaptor - enabling use of cost effective manual focus medium format lenses with their greater image circle. 

 

dunk

 

Shift in the studio?  Isn't that what tripod adjustment is for?

 

I take your point on cost, though even that is not as significant as some might think.  The cost is deductible, and if a camera is used professionally to generate income, there are far more significant costs that the cost of the camera - albeit, the S is a very expensive one (though seemingly coming down in price).

 

Despite its "pro" aspirations (from the Leica marketing department), I do wonder if that is as Peter and others (including me) have been saying - it is a quality statement for the wealthy amateur.  It may become a pro camera with time, but that time is a way off.  I just don't necessarily see anything particularly "studio" or "wedding" about this camera - looks like a jack of all trades to me.

[Bill Livingston]

 

Despite its "pro" aspirations (from the Leica marketing department), I do wonder if that is as Peter and others (including me) have been saying - it is a quality statement for the wealthy amateur.  It may become a pro camera with time, but that time is a way off.  I just don't necessarily see anything particularly "studio" or "wedding" about this camera - looks like a jack of all trades to me.

 

I agree, although 'Jack of all Trades' is a little harsh

 

Any amateur with the means who would want to replace their top of the range Canon or Nikon for something really beautifully built and designed should take a look at the SL. It seems to me to be the perfect camera to win customers over to Leica who otherwise wouldn't consider an M,  simply down to their requirements of a camera, something up until now Leica haven't really been able to address.

 

I don't think it is an alternative to an M. I see it as a completely different proposition

 

I can also see existing Leica M owners buying it if their current M doesn't quite meet all their requirements in their shooting style or the things they enjoy photographing, but love the build quality, the cachet and the sheer pleasure of using something as unique as a Leica.

 

I can also see the point of someone owning both... (which is unfortunate... )

 

As I said the other day, having now used one for a short while, anyone who actually buys and uses this camera will own something truly special, wonderful to use and capable of stunning image quality.

[earleygallery]

Until the SL came along, all those M users who have jumped in and bought one were happily making photos with their M's (I assume). If they really needed and 'SLR' solution surely they'd have bought one? 

 

So, whereas the R was a different and for some complimentary system to the M, the SL is perhaps being seen more as an alternative the an M. 

 

I haven't seen any posts yet from new/new Leica users, just M users. Maybe this is down to the range of 1 AF lens currently available for the SL?

[dkCambridgeshire]

Shift in the studio?  Isn't that what tripod adjustment is for?

 

I take your point on cost, though even that is not as significant as some might think.  The cost is deductible, and if a camera is used professionally to generate income, there are far more significant costs that the cost of the camera - albeit, the S is a very expensive one (though seemingly coming down in price).

 

Despite its "pro" aspirations (from the Leica marketing department), I do wonder if that is as Peter and others (including me) have been saying - it is a quality statement for the wealthy amateur.  It may become a pro camera with time, but that time is a way off.  I just don't necessarily see anything particularly "studio" or "wedding" about this camera - looks like a jack of all trades to me.

 

Not sure if that's a 'tongue in cheek' comment ... however:

 

Lens shift and tilt on a FF camera are very useful in a studio or gallery environment … e.g. product photography, artwork, museum exhibits, catalogue shots, architectural models etc … in fact anything requiring perspective and DOF control. Novoflex offer a system with a comprehensive set of lens adaptors (including Leica R and M ) which are useful for FF (24mm x 36mm format) macro and product shots … and which offers full lens movements. 

 

https://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/bellows-systems/tilt-shift-bellows/

 

 

dunk

[IkarusJohn]

Until the SL came along, all those M users who have jumped in and bought one were happily making photos with their M's (I assume). If they really needed and 'SLR' solution surely they'd have bought one? 

 

No, I don't think that's true, James.

 

Speaking purely as an M photographer, I have been perfectly honest about the need for a camera like the SL for the last 5 years - to scorn and ire of many here, but I have been consistent, to the point of buying and selling Sony and Nikon cameras.  None of them were up to the SL.

[Likaleica]

My thinking is that if was to carry around 2KG of camera on a routine basis I might as well carry a Hasselblad.

 

Why on earth would you want to carry an inferior camera system?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Likaleica]

So I am sometimes really surprised how people discuss about 200 gramm more or less

 

Your back and neck muscles must generate 19.6 Newtons to hold 200g 10cm in front of the central spinal axis. 

[rick_dykstra]

One feature the SL is missing that the a7II has is sensor stabilization.  

Hi Doug. 

 

You'll be as familiar as me with the GW approach to stabilising long Leica lenses. Gitzo + Wimberley. Works every time, operated by a 0 Volt fingertip, maintains full optical performance and keeps the camera pointed where it's needed. Looks real pro too.