Leica SL a real camera for the pro.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

jaapv, on 08 Dec 2015 - 10:13, said:

I agree with you, but that one will be hotly contested.

Unjustly so - one should consider that we are talking two generations of sensor here, and the older one -and Leica's first attempt at a CMOS M sensor- is still good enough to be considered the equal of the newer SL sensor. It would be foolish not to wait what the next M brings to the table in this game of quality leapfrog.

 

Foolish!

 

My!

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

The SL may be overtaken very soon as the new M comes. It cannot be expected that the EVF and possibly sensor will remain the same. That makes the SL an expensive gamble in my book (sorry, Leica, it would boost sales, I know )

My point is that I made  a choice for the M system long ago for good (to me) reasons, and that the SL does not change any of those reasons.

[colonel]

You're missing the point.

 

Size and weight (within reason) don't stop you from doing anything with the camera, and AFAIK there's only one other FF mirrorless camera on the market.

 

The point is that some current M users have/are going to switch to the SL, because it's a Leica and because it takes their M lenses and offers them a more accurate way of focussing.

 

Not only do size and weight stop me doing things with a camera, they stop me using cameras systems completely,

RIP my DSLR collection ...

+ I mentioned many other advantages as well ...

 

People do switch between camera systems. The M is not immune from that, but it has plenty of USPs to keep me in the system and I prioritise it over the Sony A7, although Sony really needs a 24-70mm f2.8 FE IMHO

 

I might potentially buy the SL at some point (GAS is one of my problems), but it will not replace the M system for what I use it for, which is the majority of my photography  ..

[jaapv]

IkarusJohn, on 08 Dec 2015 - 10:23, said:IkarusJohn, on 08 Dec 2015 - 10:23, said:

Foolish!

 

My!

Of course...    It is up to every individual to decide what to do with their money...

[Paulus]

Except that the SL can do everything the M can do, and more.

 

 

Not everything. : The rangfinder experience. IMHO it is different of using a SLR or SL for this meaning. The rangfinder forces you to take a picture with you right  eye, thus using a different part of your brain. The SLR cameras are mostly used with the left eye. Blackening the other eye in the proces. I believe that Erwin Puts wrote a nice article about it some 15/20  years ago in the Dutch magazine: FOTO

[jaapv]

Are they? I never knew that.... So I use my right eye for both.

[Leicaiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am merely repeating what Leica themselves said, that the SL is behind the M in terms of usage of M lenses:

 

"Schulz pointed out that, not only will the SL be compatible with S and R lenses, but it will accept M lenses, also via an adaptor, ..... The SL, Schulz enthused, will be the 'second best camera for Leica M lenses in the world market ..... although the Leica M remains King"

 

I think he was refering to a whole range of things, for example corner performance, rather then out and out sensor performance in the centre

 

 

Did you expect him to say the SL is as good as the M with M lenses ?

[jaapv]

Well, if he wished to push the SL line he would. In a few months time he would be able to claim the opposite again, doubling sales.

[earleygallery]

Not only do size and weight stop me doing things with a camera, they stop me using cameras systems completely,

RIP my DSLR collection ...

 

Well yes and I commented on the size of the SL and zoom before but was shot down in flames for that by current M users who say size/weight is only a bit more than an M and not an issue!

 

So for some the size isn't an issue at all but I understand that for some others it is.

 

I'm talking here about M users who are also buying into the SL as an alternative to their M bodies. I don't see so many threads from R users, as expected they've mostly since moved on to other systems or 'solutions' for their R lenses and it remains to be seen if the dedicated R adaptor do anything on the SL that mounting an R lens on another make of body can't.

 

Going back to size/weight, compared to a FF DSLR it's different of course.

[Paulus]

Are they? I never knew that... . So I use my right eye for both.

Maybe I can look for it in an old pile of magazines. Or maybe Erwin himself remembers the article. It kept me thinking at the time. It was an article about the M forcing another creativity on the photographer.

[Manoleica]

Not everything. : The rangfinder experience. IMHO it is different of using a SLR or SL for this meaning. The rangfinder forces you to take a picture with you right  eye, thus using a different part of your brain. The SLR cameras are mostly used with the left eye. Blackening the other eye in the proces. I believe that Erwin Puts wrote a nice article about it some 15/20  years ago in the Dutch magazine: FOTO

I only have 1 eye (left) - so should I sell my M? - therefore, if I purchase the SL presumably my photographic ability will alter?!! Mmm

[Paulus]

I only have 1 eye (left) - so should I sell my M? - therefore, if I purchase the SL presumably my photographic ability will alter?!! Mmm

 

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

IMHO if one has only one eye, the brain will compensate the second eye for a bit, just like it will compensate smell and touch for blind people. You might feel this, when you try to see depth with one eye. It will not " physically" work, but something in you will compensate. Am I right in suggesting this?

[jaapv]

Paulus, on 08 Dec 2015 - 10:55, said:Paulus, on 08 Dec 2015 - 10:55, said:

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

IMHO if one has only one eye, the brain will compensate the second eye for a bit, just like it will compensate smell and touch for blind people. You might feel this, when you try to see depth with one eye. It will not " physically" work, but something in you will compensate. Am I right in suggesting this?

You are. I had very little sight in my left eye for decades. Corrected now due to modern medicine. Still I did not feel the loss in depth vision at all, nor did it hamper me in my work. The brain  substitutes perspective for stereoscopic vision.

[Manoleica]

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

IMHO if one has only one eye, the brain will compensate the second eye for a bit, just like it will compensate smell and touch for blind people. You might feel this, when you try to see depth with one eye. It will not " physically" work, but something in you will compensate. Am I right in suggesting this?

Mostly I think the brain will compensate with a 3D image including distance etc. I have been driving with 1 eye since my very 1st driving test (at the age of 17) in the UK. Playing Ball games is for me virtually impossible, brain cannot compute position and speed when object is outside my narrowed field of view... My father insisted that I had a Metropolitan Police driving instructor teach me to drive. It was agreed by all that only on the instructors say so would I apply for my license. I subsequently passed first time and went on to hold an advanced drivers certificate...I passed all US driving exams/drive 1st time.. L

[Guest]

Ok, just a quick post after visiting the Washington DC Leica store yesterday to look at the SL and to compare it with an S at the same time. Yes I know that's somewhat unfair considering the price differential but I was looking at both cameras in terms of a new working professional system.

First of course the SL extremely well made.........But there it ends for me.

With the available zoom it's really unwieldily, unbalanced, heavy and certainly not a "carry around" camera although I'm sure it's much better when a M lens is mounted.

I held the SL for less than a couple of minutes before I knew it wasn't the camera for me, I wasn't impressed with the viewfinder at all.

Compared with the S there's no comparison. The EVF on the SL may be good, better than the Q which in itself is very good for that form of viewfinder, but both pale when you look through the S's OVF. Also I found the S to be so much better balanced when handheld than the SL with a zoom up, ( I forget which one was up on the S at the time ).

For me I've yet to see an EVF that comes anywhere close to an OVF, the one on the S is beautiful. The S is for me the natural continuation of the R series of cameras, not the SL.

I came away wanting an S, now I have to figure out how to justify that expense......

[wattsy]

The rangfinder forces you to take a picture with you right  eye, thus using a different part of your brain. The SLR cameras are mostly used with the left eye. 

 

That's the first time I've heard this. I think most people use their dominant eye, irrespective of the type of viewfinder. Naturally, it is a little more awkward for left-eye dominant people to use a Leica RF but it's not something you can't get used to fairly quickly.

[rick_dykstra]

I came away wanting an S, now I have to figure out how to justify that expense......

 

Peter - walking away from that experience and wanting an S is entirely understandable. Shows you're sane. 

 

Is the 1/125th flash sync speed OK for you? You could opt for the circular shutter lenses of course. Unfortunately that's not an option for me - looking for an 'R10-like' solution to use with long R lenses, with 1/180th or 1/250th flash sync, which the S can't do, if I read correctly. So, back to the SL, in terms of which your impressions (not) of the viewfinder are most interesting. Thanks for posting those.

[colonel]

That's the first time I've heard this. I think most people use their dominant eye, irrespective of the type of viewfinder. Naturally, it is a little more awkward for left-eye dominant people to use a Leica RF but it's not something you can't get used to fairly quickly.

 

 

Splitting the brain

A radical operation to separate the two halves is sometimes used to treat extreme forms of epilepsy. Studies of separated-hemisphere patients gave early understanding of differences.

A split-brain person on the surface may seem quite normal, yet they will also display some very interesting behaviors.

Roger Sperry won the Nobel Prize in 1981 for his work in this area. Michael Gazzaniga, one of Sperry's students, developed this understanding further.

 

Left brain

The left brain (or dominant hemisphere) has a focus in analysis, extracting individual elements of experience. It is good at recognizing serial events.

The left brain also controls speech. If the left brain is damaged or something is shown to the right eye of a split patient, the person may recognize the item but cannot name it. When thinking is verbal, it can seem that the conscious mind is in the left brain.

Some of the strange effects that can be seen in split-brain people include:

• The left hand will put down a book that is being enjoyed by the verbal left brain, because it does not stimulate the right brain, which controls the left hand.

• The left hand may surprisingly make obscene gestures as it reflects right-brain emotion.

Consciousness is often associated with the left brain as the verbal areas allow us to put perception into words.

 

Right brain

The right brain has a focus in synthesis, putting together elements to understand the whole. The ability to understand maps and draw pictures is thus a right-brain activity.

It is typically thought of as being 'creative' in contrast to the left-brain's language-driven logic.

Some of the effects that can be seen in split-brain people include:

• Show a spoon to just the left eye and the person cannot name it, but they can draw it.

• Apply a smell to the right nostril and they say they smell nothing.

• Show the command 'laugh' to the right eye and the person laughs, but does not 'know' why they did so.

The right brain also manages temporal and spatial relationships and analyzes nonverbal information. It is also used in communication of emotion.

 

For photography ?

Therefore it would seem that using the right eye for photography with the left eye closed is more simulative to the creative function. Although I am not sure if this is reversed with a left handed person

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

I don't agree

 

1. The SL can not match the M weight

2. The SL can not match the M size

3. The SL is not as good with M lenses as the M. Frankly it's an odd platform IMHO to buy mainly for M lenses

4. The SL does not have the RF manual focusing

5. The SL is not a comfortable to hold as the M, from a grip and centre of gravity perspective

6. The SL doesn't have anything like the lens collection of the M and I doubt it ever will be as extensive

7. The SL can not match the M for optical viewfinder, if that's your thing, and can not see anything "out of frame"

 

Saying the SL can do everything the M can can be said for many systems when compared superficially

 

The SL is a fast, well made, professional camera and I think excels for events. If I had unlimited funds I would prefer the S for studio but in any event I don't believe it can compete with the M for travel

 

As in all these things it also depends on your bank account

 

Rgds

Absolutely true.... from your perspective!  Turn through 180 degrees and it can look quite different.

1 and 2: true, but quite manageable differences.

3 : an unnoticeable difference for most people. Odd? It's an excellent platform for M lenses! Just depends on your viewpoint. 

4: True. But it has EVF focusing, which can be quicker and easier. Or not -  depending on your usage and practice. l actually like not having to focus and recompose, l like focusing with a WYSIWYG image, and l like seeing the actual DoF.

5: | have no problem with comfort and the grip. I'd prefer it lighter, but that's all. I haven't noticed a centre of gravity issue with M lenses.

6: Incorrect! The SL has the whole of the M lens collection and more. The difference is one letter engraved on the lens. 

7:  In many respects the EVF can match and beat the OVF - it just depends on your criteria. My mind now ignores residual differences in clarity, and lag is to my eye non-existent. l would like the context of the out of frame view, but I also like the directness of the WYSIWYG view.

 

Colonel, you're not wrong, from your standpoint. But change your standpoint and it all looks a bit different. We have to distinguish facts from preferences and habits. 

 

Edit: FWIW l am keeping my M. For me the M and SL are complementary. But there is a hell of an overlap.

[colonel]

Absolutely true.... from your perspective!  Turn through 180 degrees and it can look quite different.

1 and 2: true, but quite manageable differences.

3 : an unnoticeable difference for most people. Odd? It's an excellent platform for M lenses! Just depends on your viewpoint. 

4: True. But it has EVF focusing, which can be quicker and easier. Or not -  depending on your usage and practice. l actually like not having to focus and recompose, l like focusing with a WYSIWYG image, and l like seeing the actual DoF.

5: | have no problem with comfort and the grip. I'd prefer it lighter, but that's all. I haven't noticed a centre of gravity issue with M lenses.

6: Incorrect! The SL has the whole of the M lens collection and more. The difference is one letter engraved on the lens. 

7:  In many respects the EVF can match and beat the OVF - it just depends on your criteria. My mind now ignores residual differences in clarity, and lag is to my eye non-existent. l would like the context of the out of frame view, but I also like the directness of the WYSIWYG view.

 

Colonel, you're not wrong, from your standpoint. But change your standpoint and it all looks a bit different. We have to distinguish facts from preferences and habits. 

 

Of course everything is a preference, but having a small lightweight FF system has always been a big seller for the M, at least with folk I speak to ....

 

I don't consider a non-native lens any part of another systems collection. If you say that then the M system is part of Olympus, Panasonic,  Fuji, Sony, etc...

 

The other things seem to me to be squeezing a square into a round hole. Many things will go with force of course, but its not natural ....

If I buy the SL I want full fat AF with everything that system has to offer, not a half-assed attempt to try and use a different mount lens