M or SL with M lenses

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Excuse the selective quote.

..............

 

So, my question is, why the difference?  Both sensors designed for 35mm format for use with M lenses for Leica. Why should one perform better?  Is it because the SL apparently makes more adjustments in camera?  The truth is that both cameras digitally enhance the image to some degree. 

 

To my mind, there are good reasons to prefer one camera over the other, but I have a lingering doubt that the performance of M lenses on either camera isn't one of them. 

 

 

Me too, regarding the selective quote.

 

This is just a guess, but could it simply be the benefit of three-ish years of extra development? There's a lot going on inside modern cameras so there are a lot of ways to change and  improve the relationship between lenses and the final image.

 

As we've said before, it would be very surprising indeed if the next iteration of the M didn't show some appreciable improvements over the existing M in this regard as well as others. So whilst, obviously, we can't make comparisons with cameras that don't yet exist (at least not in the public domain), we may not be comparing like with like in terms of equivalent generations of the cameras in question.  This isn't another defence of the M on personal grounds because that would be a nonsense in this context, it's just an attempt, based admittedly on stupendous technical ignorance, to understand what's going on.

 

If it's broadly agreed that the SL generally performs better with M lenses than the M does, then we really do have to wait for the next M to find out what sort of future it may have. 

 

This is bringing me right back to where I started a couple of months ago, by the way!

[scott kirkpatrick]

Many of these experiments have been done, and need be done again only if you want to see how important any problems are to you.  The critical distance for both white wall tests (is there a color shift at the edge) for image clarity on center and in the corners, is at infinity, since that puts the lens closest to the imaging chip.  The white wall (with daylight illumination) can be as close as a foot or two, as long as you don't make shadows, since focus is just a distraction.

 

Next week I'll pick up my SL, as well as some R lenses that are waiting for me in a duty-free country.  I'm traveling on business, and I'll probably lose a day giving the battery a full charge to avoid any problems, but if all goes well I will share any test results with the awesome-sounding Elmarit-asph 15 and the useful-seeming Vario-Elmar 35-75/4.0.  Hopefully, some pictures as well.

 

scott

[IkarusJohn]

Sorry, Peter, my post was poorly expressed. 

 

I have no doubt the sensor in the next M camera will be at least as good as the SL.  Why wouldn't it?  I'm just questioning the assertion that the M(240) is better with M lenses than the SL - well, with my M lenses, to be honest. I'll share what I find, but have limited interest in CV colour skopars and the like, save what they tell me about the camera generally. Old and difficult lenses  available cheaply secondhand are interesting, but with a camera like this, more recent lenses are probably more relevant. Actually, the idea of buying a $7,500 camera and then recommending a $500 lens from Cosina Voigtlander seems odd. 

 

I do look forward to someone slapping an Otus on the SL. Comparisons to the 28 Summilux, 50-APO and AA-90 to the Otus collection will be interesting. 

 

For M lenses used without comparison, I'm suspecting the SL will be fine. I wasn't planning on including the M Edition 60 in my testing. 

[wlaidlaw]

Thanks Wilson. 

 

Maybe we should try to establish a register?  When I get my camera (hopefully before Christmas), I will be trying the following:

 

15 Distagon (expecting horrendous colour shift)

 

 

John, 

 

I had the 16 Distagon in Zeiss Contax G (actually the same lens but Leica rounded down and Zeiss rounded up) and a pretty weird lens it was too. I found you really had to use a radially graduated density filter or the vignetting was so extreme as to make the photo close to useless. The lens was slow enough at f8 but the filter took it down to f16, so you could only use it in bright sunlight, with very fast film or on a tripod with a long exposure. In the four years I had it, I would doubt if I took 50 images with it. That is what is so nice about the 18SEM on the SL and the M240 - easy to use and no compromises. If I want weird with the SL, I have an M fit 16mm/f2.8 fish-eye and an 80mm tilt-shift R fit. 

 

 

BTW I received a hint today from a reliable source, that the R to T/L, when it comes out will read ROM chips, if there is any way it can be managed. This may be one of the reasons for the delay. 

 

Wilson

[Peter H]

..................................

 

I do look forward to someone slapping an Otus on the SL. Comparisons to the 28 Summilux, 50-APO and AA-90 to the Otus collection will be interesting. 

 

.......................

 

 

I can see why it might be.

 

For my purposes such comparisons are no longer worthwhile since all modern Leica lenses, on all platforms that I've tried, including the SL which I haven't tried yet, plus the lenses from a number other manufacturers, and the bodies, are perfectly good enough to express what I want to express photographically.

 

That game is finished for me. It's now just personal whim and fancy. 

[Rick]

John,

 

Understand, Sean is a relatively older guy, with a bunch of old lenses, and a basic understanding of HTML.  We have no idea if he has any way of keeping the plane of the sensor parallel to his target or if he has any idea of how field curvature of his selected lenses play into his sharpness findings.  In the end, these vegetable and garage-board-collage targets he uses for testings are not very scientific.  

 

Enjoy your camera.  Make great images and enjoy your camera.  Maybe, the M240 is slightly sharper in the corners, maybe not. I'm fairly certain Leica has taken the M lenses into account and made the SL as perfect as it can be with all of the legacy Leica lenses.  

 

This is the camera to own if, you want to shoot Leica lenses. 

 

Let's see some images!!!

 

Rick

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter,

 

Understand, the M is the camera you want to own if you want to shoot M lenses.  Maybe, it is sharper in the corners than the SL, maybe not.  But, I'm sure Leica has (and will always) optimize the M for legacy and current Leica M-lenses.

 

Also, like you, I know that the M is the best way to shoot M-lenses, for us.  Sure the SL has a great EVF... but, that is a different experience and a different story.  

 

The M is the camera to own if, you want to shoot M lenses.

 

Rick

[IkarusJohn]

... We have no idea if he has any way of keeping the plane of the sensor parallel to his target or if he has any idea of how field curvature of his selected lenses play into his sharpness findings.  ...

 

 

That is a good point, which hadn't occurred to me.  Thanks Rick.

 

No camera, no images ...

[Steve Ash]

The M240 was designed under the assumption that some might use it with R-Lenses. I hope that Leica get rid of this pipeclay and comes up with an even better iteration of the M next year.

Steve

[scott kirkpatrick]

Understand, Sean is a relatively older guy, with a bunch of old lenses, and a basic understanding of HTML.  We have no idea if he has any way of keeping the plane of the sensor parallel to his target or if he has any idea of how field curvature of his selected lenses play into his sharpness findings. 

 

In Sean's defense --

 

He doesn't seem so old to me.

He uses jigs to keep the camera's image plane parallel to his target and measures lighting evenness to 1/3 of a stop or less.  He uses focus bracketing at full aperture, then presents shots at all apertures using the set of focus points that were sharpest wide open.  He compares corners to each other and corners to center to identify focus shift and field curvature (as opposed to misalignment).

 

But I won't defend his taste in software or his paranoia about having his images copying.

 

scott

[Rick]

In Sean's defense --

 

He doesn't seem so old to me.

He uses jigs to keep the camera's image plane parallel to his target and measures lighting evenness to 1/3 of a stop or less.  He uses focus bracketing at full aperture, then presents shots at all apertures using the set of focus points that were sharpest wide open.  He compares corners to each other and corners to center to identify focus shift and field curvature (as opposed to misalignment).

 

But I won't defend his taste in software or his paranoia about having his images copying.

 

scott

 

I didn't say he was old.  I said he was relatively old as a way to explain to John why Sean has an interest in his older lenses because, John has complained about the fact that John wants to see modern lenses.

 

It is great to hear that Sean is careful in his testing.  But, in graduate optics classes the optical bench we used were not jigs and they were just a starting point to align up our lenses.  We had front surfaced mirrors and lasers to achieve alignment and centration.  Correct parallel surface alignment is difficult, as is correct focus.  Then, there is copy variation of lenses and camera.  Also, Field Curvature cannot be corrected.  Designing a test to measure what you want to measure is subject in itself.  And, even then, it is difficult to extrapolate and make concussions.  Just to name a few.  And, this isn't just about Sean.

 

And, finally, what does it have to do with making a good picture.  Once off the optical bench it all may be different.  For example, the Sony A7r had so much shutter vibration that all of the sharpness if the sensor in the corners, or lack there, of made no difference  at all when you took the camera out and tried to hold it still. 

 

Read the review - absolutely, and then just go out and shoot the camera.  If, there is a problem and you aren't satisfied with your results, move on. 

 

Rick

[IkarusJohn]

I couldn't agree more, Rick. 

 

In relation the lenses available, they have little relevance to the camera test (I guess) - Sean could use some other means altogether to test the sensor (DXO probably has some fancy test), but it does reflect on the relevance of his testing.  It's a paid site. If he can't test the camera as a whole with current Leica lenses, I'm beginning to wonder if his testing has any relevance beyond pixel peeping. 

 

Jono's analysis is, frankly, far more useful to me.  

[LocalHero1953]

At risk of pouring petrol on the focusing flames....

And perhaps contradicting my earlier post....

 

l took the SL to a local market yesterday, to check how it handled colour and whether l needed to adjust my custom colour profile. So street photography among crowds, with an Apo-Summicron-M 75. When l would normally use my M, not least because of its speed of focusing in ambiguous scenes, as well as because it is light-ish and discreet.

 

And l think l find the SL quicker and easier to focus than the M. Quicker, because l did not use focus aids, which take time, so l just used my judgement of visual sharpness, and easier because l could focus with the whole of the screen (no focus and recompose), and because l could see the actual DoF. Carrying that combination round did not seem much heavier either.

 

Early days. But if the next M happens to have a built-in EVF at least as good as the SL, and no OVF-RF - would l buy it instead of the M240? Hmmmmm.

 

Edit: l may be the wrong side of 60 now, but my judgement here is not affected by my eyesight. It's not that l find the M difficult to focus - l don't - the SL was just quick as well, perhaps quicker.

[Rick]

Early days. But if the next M happens to have a built-in EVF at least as good as the SL, and no OVF-RF - would l buy it instead of the M240? Hmmmmm.

 

 

Keep up the reporting.  We (I) need to stay open-minded.  I really liked the SL's EVF when I used it on November 13th for the better part of the afternoon.  It was difficult to immediately tell that it wasn't an OVF.  

 

I wouldn't mind that for my M lenses.  I'd try an M with an EVF that good.  But, then that would be an SL... and then I get confused as to what is essential.      

 

Rick

 

[ramarren]

John, 

 

I had the 16 Distagon in Zeiss Contax G (actually the same lens but Leica rounded down and Zeiss rounded up) and a pretty weird lens it was too. I found you really had to use a radially graduated density filter or the vignetting was so extreme as to make the photo close to useless. The lens was slow enough at f8 but the filter took it down to f16, so you could only use it in bright sunlight, with very fast film or on a tripod with a long exposure. In the four years I had it, I would doubt if I took 50 images with it. That is what is so nice about the 18SEM on the SL and the M240 - easy to use and no compromises. If I want weird with the SL, I have an M fit 16mm/f2.8 fish-eye and an 80mm tilt-shift R fit. 

 

 

BTW I received a hint today from a reliable source, that the R to T/L, when it comes out will read ROM chips, if there is any way it can be managed. This may be one of the reasons for the delay. 

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

 

For Contax G System, that was the Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T*, a totally different lens design from the Distagon 15mm (or 16mm, I forget...). 

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson,

 

For Contax G System, that was the Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 T*, a totally different lens design from the Distagon 15mm (or 16mm, I forget...). 

Must have been too late at night, you are absolutely correct. I was of course, thinking of the Hologon, which is I believe basically the same optics for the Contax and Leica-Zeiss versions. There were no Distagons for the Contax G, only the 21 and 28 Biogons for wide angle lenses. The 25mm f2.8 Contax Distagon which I had for my RTS and RX cameras, was the only mediocre Zeiss lens I ever had, the rest were all from good to very good. It was an old design dating back to the 1950's. 

 

Wilson

[jonoslack]

John,

 

Understand, Sean is a relatively older guy, with a bunch of old lenses, and a basic understanding of HTML.  We have no idea if he has any way of keeping the plane of the sensor parallel to his target or if he has any idea of how field curvature of his selected lenses play into his sharpness findings.  In the end, these vegetable and garage-board-collage targets he uses for testings are not very scientific.  

 

HI Rick

I think Sean is in his 40s still (FWIW), and I  believe his website is done in Flash. Added to which I'm absolutely certain that his experimental method is exemplary and he certainly understands about curvature of field and parallel sensors - he always does a large range of focus bracketing as well - tedious work about which he is compulsively conscientious  . . . I agree with you about the targets, and foolish in his part to choose ones that will rot!

 

But I also don't really think that's the correct distance to do the tests - my feeling is that they should really be done at infinity (where the rear element of the lens is closest to the sensor). I've got a whole bunch of tests I did in Venice last month, which I'll post as soon as I have a minute. 

 

Curvature of field is an interesting subject - should you take it into account when testing . . or not . .  or do both? quite complicated really (zzzzzzzzzzzzz)

[jonoslack]

Excuse the selective quote.

 

I am interested in the oft repeated mantra that M lenses are best used on M cameras. Certainly true in the case of the Sony A7 cameras, but why so on the SL?  The sensor on the SL is made to a Leica spec, with every intention to be M compatible, and it's a development of the M(240) sensor, via the Q camera along the way. The register distance is the same with an M adapter mounted. Why should M lenses perform any different on the SL than they do on the M?  If the M(240) is used with the EVF, even the focusing is the same (though the EVF is better on the SL). 

 

Yet, I accept that both Jono and Sean have found differences with some lenses - I've only seen one lens I own tested, so it's too early to tell.  

 

 

Hi There

Sorry not to chip in about this before. 

There is an issue with cover glass thickness which has an effect on the corner resolution - which Leica have understood right from the beginning, hence the very thin cover glass on the M8 and the concomitant IR problems. The thinner the coverglass (the story goes) the better the corner resolution. I actually think that the microlenses and probably other factors are relevant (especially with the Sony A7) - but that's another story.

 

So, my question is, why the difference?  Both sensors designed for 35mm format for use with M lenses for Leica. Why should one perform better?  Is it because the SL apparently makes more adjustments in camera?  The truth is that both cameras digitally enhance the image to some degree. 

 

To my mind, there are good reasons to prefer one camera over the other, but I have a lingering doubt that the performance of M lenses on either camera isn't one of them. 

 

 

Well, the coverglass on the SL is slightly thicker than the coverglass on the M - simple as that!  However, the coverglass on the SL is much thinner than the coverglass on the Sony A7 cameras. 

 

However - I think that this is a fundamentally problematic issue . . . because personally I wouldn't worry about using any M lenses on the SL (including the 28 'cron and the 35 'cron). So that the 'performing better on the M' remark, whilst it's true . . probably isn't terribly relevant.

[tompoes]

As you know i made the switch from the M 240 to the Leica SL and must say that i am very happy with this camera. The SL is only 80 gram heavier and the size is not too bad.

With regard to focussing with the EVF compared to the M 240 i did some tests with the Summilux 35 mm, Summilux 50 and Summarit 75 mm without and with magnification at aperture values 1.4, 4 and 8.
- 35 mm at 1.4 without magnification 50 % hitrate, with magnification 100 % 
- 35 mm at 4.0 without magnification 50 % hitrate, with magnification 100 %
- 35 mm at 8.0 without magnification 100 % hitrate, with magnification 100 % 
- 50 mm at 1.4 without magnification 85 % hitrate, with magnification 100 %
- 50 mm at 4.0 hitrate 100 % both methods
- 50 mm at 8.0 hitrate 100 % both methods
- 75mm hitrate 100 % both methods 
For me, i can safely say that focussing without magnification works well from 35 mm f8, 50 mm and 75 mm all apertures.
But rangefinder focussing provides a feeling of higher confidence whilst focussing.
Hope that a firmware update provides the same focussing features as with the M 240 whilst using the EVF (automatic magnification)

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

As you know i made the switch from the M 240 to the Leica SL and must say that i am very happy with this camera. The SL is only 80 gram heavier and the size is not too bad.

With regard to focussing with the EVF compared to the M 240 i did some tests with the Summilux 35 mm, Summilux 50 and Summarit 75 mm without and with magnification at aperture values 1.4, 4 and 8.

- 35 mm at 1.4 without magnification 50 % hitrate, with magnification 100 % 

- 35 mm at 4.0 without magnification 50 % hitrate, with magnification 100 %

- 35 mm at 8.0 without magnification 100 % hitrate, with magnification 100 % 

- 50 mm at 1.4 without magnification 85 % hitrate, with magnification 100 %

- 50 mm at 4.0 hitrate 100 % both methods

- 50 mm at 8.0 hitrate 100 % both methods

- 75mm hitrate 100 % both methods 

For me, i can safely say that focussing without magnification works well from 35 mm f8, 50 mm and 75 mm all apertures.

But rangefinder focussing provides a feeling of higher confidence whilst focussing.

Hope that a firmware update provides the same focussing features as with the M 240 whilst using the EVF (automatic magnification)

 

Sounds like you're doing well learning how to focus with the SL!

 

(bolded) That will take more than a firmware update. The M knows that you're turning the focusing ring because the rangefinder lever is moving. To do that on the SL will require a revised M mount adapter with a sensor to indicate movement of the focusing mount to the body.