BCMielke Posted February 16, 2016 Share #1 Posted February 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been mulling for quite some time whether the SL would be a worthwhile purchase for me. I've read all the reviews at least twice. Looked over all of the posts in this forum. Asked a few questions, compared specs. I finally realized that actually putting the camera in my hands and seeing how it works might make the most sense. I am in Los Angeles for work the next couple of days and I went by the Leica Store in LA to put my hands on it. I put an SD card in it and see how it works. Below are my comments. The camera is much lighter than what I would have thought. There really isn't much of a difference between the SL and the M in weight. The 24-90 is a behemoth! It's heavy and quite large. Not really longer than I would have though, but much larger around. The camera is far better looking in person than on my computer screen. The grip is much larger, but also fits my hand quite well. As most everyone has written, the viewfinder is gorgeous. It's also a larger area. The Nikon F5 is still my favorite. The buttons layout will be interesting. I think it's something I would like, but it takes some getting used it. If you use the camera every day there shouldn't be issues with how you find what you are looking for. If you don't that could cause issues. I liked the focus peaking. even with the Noctilux it was pretty easy to see what was and is in focus, but the slight red lines make it even more pronounced. I mounted T-Lenses, M-Lenses and the 24-90 on it. They all balanced quite nicely. It was a strange feeling going from the T 18-56 to the 24-90. I sure hope that Leica produces some different focal lengths in the future that are FF lenses. Just briefly looking over the files they look good. Very similar to what I observe with the Q. That makes sense since it is the same sensor. The focus was also similar to what I saw with the Q. I didn't do any focus tracking with it since there really wasn't anything moving inside the store, but I found focus to be fast and accurate. Not quite up to my Nikon, but close. I liked the camera, but I need to sort out how I would use and if it's worth spending the money on. I wish Leica would print out a road map past the 24-90, 90-280 and 50mm. That might help me make the decision easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Hi BCMielke, Take a look here Went to the Leica Store today. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CheshireCat Posted February 17, 2016 Share #2 Posted February 17, 2016 I went to a Leica store to try it, but as soon as I saw it with a 24-90 mounted, I just asked for used M lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCMielke Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted February 17, 2016 I liked it much better with the M-lenses. The weight wasn't much different than my M240, if at all. The 24-90 is a beast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Walker Posted February 17, 2016 Share #4 Posted February 17, 2016 I liked it much better with the M-lenses. The weight wasn't much different than my M240, if at all. The 24-90 is a beast. "Beast" is a relative expression. I come from the medium-format world. The SL and 24-90 is nicely portable by comparison. I've walked for hours with the SL / 24-90 in hand and not suffered - and I'm not a strong person. Last weekend, I climbed 728 steps up to a hill temple; the SL did not get too heavy. I can see the perspective from an M user (used to be one) but I think that "beast" is an exaggeration... Regards Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted February 17, 2016 Share #5 Posted February 17, 2016 Try it with R lenses - the simple Summicron R 50 is available everywhere. You will like it even more. Stephan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCMielke Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share #6 Posted February 17, 2016 645 or 6x7? With the 24-90 I think the SL would be just as heavy as my 645 system with the 80 f/2.8 lens on it. Of course that only has a single focal length. My 6x7 would be *much* heavier. "Beast" is a relative expression. I come from the medium-format world. The SL and 24-90 is nicely portable by comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Walker Posted February 17, 2016 Share #7 Posted February 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) 645 or 6x7? Most recently a Hasselblad H4D usually with a 100mm or 50mm lens: both heavy glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted February 17, 2016 Share #8 Posted February 17, 2016 The 24-90 is not useful if you need a discrete lens, but it is not that much heavier than carrying a handful of M primes and I think that it produces great pictures. I tend to use it for outdoor walkabout and use the faster M lenses indoors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 17, 2016 Share #9 Posted February 17, 2016 The SL plus 24-90 is more compact and a little lighter than my Hasselblad 500CM plus 100mm Makro or 150mm Sonnar, but a little more bulky than the same Hassy with the 80mm Planar. Unless I put the 45° prism on the Hassy ...! Sounds like you had a good time looking at it at the Leica Store. It's been a pleasure to own and use, for me: I felt confident enough to order it the day they announced it. I use it mostly with Leica R lenses, which makes it feel like a modern, digital Leicaflex SL or R8 in overall finish, weight and balance. The M-P with the lenses I normally use on it (35 'Lux v2 or 75/2.4 Summarit) is smaller overall as a package and a bit lighter, but the difference between the SL with 50/1.4 'Lux and M-P with 50/1.5 Nokton is not huge. It is, really, the same difference between M4-2 and Leicaflex SL both fitted with Summicron 50 lenses. The SL's TTL viewing and focusing capabilities are what makes it more versatile, that and the fact that the body's shape gives a good grip for better stability with a very wide range of focal lengths compared to the M-P. The M-P in my hands is best with the 35-50-75 lenses, works well with 24 and 90 as well; the SL works better with 15 to 24 mm, and again with anything longer than 75mm. And with macro lenses, and bellows, etc. This really is as it's always been when comparing RF and SLR cameras, and the SL is essentially a modern SLR-like camera with an all electronic viewing/focusing system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 17, 2016 Share #10 Posted February 17, 2016 Once you have used the 24-90 for even a few days, you will be converted. It is by some margin, the best zoom lens I have ever used. Yes it's big but you soon start to forgive that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCMielke Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share #11 Posted February 17, 2016 With my Nikon System my walk around lens is the 24-120 f/4. I will have to compare the weight difference between that set up. The Nikon is longer, but the Leica is faster. If I were to get the SL that is the system it would replace if not at first, but eventually, as more lens' come to market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted February 18, 2016 Share #12 Posted February 18, 2016 I wish Leica would print out a road map past the 24-90, 90-280 and 50mm. That might help me make the decision easier. +1. Even more so if what you are launching is already a very incomplete system with only one native lens... Even the Fuji X-pro1 (3 lenses), the Sony A7 (2 lenses) and the Leica T (2 lenses) did better... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCMielke Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share #13 Posted February 18, 2016 I looked up the weights. Nikon D750 847g Leica SL 840g Nikon 24-120 f/4 710g Leica 24-90 1140g Nikon 24-70 VR 1070g So really a more direct comparison would be the 24-90 and the 24-70. At only 70g more AND and extra 20mm it really isn't that much different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 18, 2016 Share #14 Posted February 18, 2016 +1. Even more so if what you are launching is already a very incomplete system with only one native lens... Even the Fuji X-pro1 (3 lenses), the Sony A7 (2 lenses) and the Leica T (2 lenses) did better... None of them were quite so well equipped to make use of the large body of M and R lenses that are already in the marketplace, in the hands of Leica customers. It makes sense that the SL will appeal to those of us who own a good deal of older Leica lenses first, while Leica works to fill out the lens system with new, SL models. This system is a long term purchase, not something that is going to be obsolete in 18 months. It took Olympus almost a decade to have a complete lens system for the Olympus E-System SLRs, and they similarly leveraged it when they released their 'professional' grade OM-D line of bodies. Now, three years later, they've almost got a full pro line of matching lenses in mFT mount. These things take time to do right. I'd rather Leica continues to do the SL right rather than rushes it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
appleman Posted February 18, 2016 Share #15 Posted February 18, 2016 I also went to the Mayfair store and handled the SL as I was interesting because of the lauded EVF and zoom. Thanks Leica but no thanks. It is huge and has complicated sub menu's. In my opinion Leica are going in the wrong direction. This is Nikon territory with an expensive price tag. Go back to your roots Leica and keep improving the M series. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 18, 2016 Share #16 Posted February 18, 2016 Don't worry, they will. This is diversifying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 18, 2016 Share #17 Posted February 18, 2016 I also went to the Mayfair store and handled the SL as I was interesting because of the lauded EVF and zoom. Thanks Leica but no thanks. It is huge and has complicated sub menu's. In my opinion Leica are going in the wrong direction. This is Nikon territory with an expensive price tag. Go back to your roots Leica and keep improving the M series. Comparing the SL to my D750, the SL's controls and menus are simplicity itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCMielke Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share #18 Posted February 18, 2016 Comparing the SL to my D750, the SL's controls and menus are simplicity itself. I thought something similar. I used to say that Nikon had an easy menu system. That was around the D700 time frame. it's gotten more an more confusing. I seem to be a rarity, but I can always find what I'm looking for in the Leica menu. The Fuji menu is the worst of all the camera's I use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 18, 2016 Share #19 Posted February 18, 2016 I thought something similar. I used to say that Nikon had an easy menu system. That was around the D700 time frame. it's gotten more an more confusing. I seem to be a rarity, but I can always find what I'm looking for in the Leica menu. The Fuji menu is the worst of all the camera's I use. Actually, the main point with the SL is that you don't need to access the menus at all once you have the buttons assigned to what you want and profiles that get you to a variety of set-ups for different things. I have gone days accessing nothing .... and the odd time when I do it is invariably to set the time delay ...... which inexplicably is squirrelled away in the drive mode menu. I think it's a shame that people discount it after a quick play based purely on the size ...... which for anyone coming from an M is a surprise ...... but if you stick an M lens on it the difference diminishes substantially. There is no zoom lens for the M ....... and if you use an R zoom with an adapter you soon add bulk and weight .... without the benefits of AF. Leica has NOT left it's roots ...... and if it just stuck to tinkering with the M it would be back to the situation years ago where it was decades behind in digital technology rather than close to the forefront...... and be thankful that the T, Q and SL exist ....... as the changes will trickle down into the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted February 19, 2016 Share #20 Posted February 19, 2016 If the SL was 200 grams lighter I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Maybe Solms is listening, how about a slimmed down SL-E for next year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.