SL initial thoughts

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bought an SL + the 24-90 zoom.  Initially I was just looking for a digital body to mount my M lenses but eventually I concluded that with the 24-90 really is quite extremely versatile and the ability to mount M lenses became a sort of extra benefit.  I seriously considered a digital M too (had an M8 and an M8.2 in the past) but in the end I decided the SL really is a much more forward looking platform than the M which is bound by many legacy limitations of film.  For example I really don't like how the digital M bodies hold in the hand without a film advance lever to hook my thumb to, and I also don't like how the shutter sounds / feels compared to the cloth shutters of film Ms.

 

M for me will be a film only thing which I still shoot a lot of.

 

The SL is surprisingly mature a product in terms of feature set and competitiveness with rival offerings.  For the first time in many years we have a Leica where one doesn't have to accept strange compromises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

 For example I really don't like how the digital M bodies hold in the hand without a film advance lever to hook my thumb to, and I also don't like how the shutter sounds / feels compared to the cloth shutters of film Ms.

 

 

 

Gear choice is personal...good you found something that suits.  

 

But, for the record, the M can accommodate a 'thumb rest' (various manufacturers), as well as a grip similar to the SL....and the M240 has a small integrated thumb rest not on your M8's.  And, have you tried the shutter on the M240....or the even quieter one on the M262?...neither resembles the M8 or M8.2 re-cock or shutter feel.

 

Jeff

[cpclee]

I had an M240 for one month and tried the M262 briefly in a store.  No doubt they are very capable and well engineered tools.  But every digital M since the M8 has been about addressing some kind of complication / limitation that surfaced when the M went digital.  I'm referring to the IR filters, cover glass thickness, microlenses for corner performance, live view for better focus accuracy, etc etc.    

Your thumb rest accessory is another example.  Seems to me the M inherently is very unsuited for digital but managed to have been made practical by Leica only by virtue of great engineering.  

 

 

 

Gear choice is personal...good you found something that suits.  

 

But, for the record, the M can accommodate a 'thumb rest' (various manufacturers), as well as a grip similar to the SL....and the M240 has a small integrated thumb rest not on your M8's.  And, have you tried the shutter on the M240....or the even quieter one on the M262?...neither resembles the M8 or M8.2 re-cock or shutter feel.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

I had an M240 for one month and tried the M262 briefly in a store.  No doubt they are very capable and well engineered tools.  But every digital M since the M8 has been about addressing some kind of complication / limitation that surfaced when the M went digital.  I'm referring to the IR filters, cover glass thickness, microlenses for corner performance, live view for better focus accuracy, etc etc.    

Your thumb rest accessory is another example.  Seems to me the M inherently is very unsuited for digital but managed to have been made practical by Leica only by virtue of great engineering.  

 

 

Well, the handling issue is a personal matter: I find an unadorned M more comfortable to handle than one with a grip attached, for example. And I find big DSLRs like the full-size "pro" Nikons quite comfortable to use, though not to carry for very long periods. But having said that, the whole thing is a personal matter.

 

As we often say, all cameras are compromises, the SL, the M, the Nikon D5, Rolleiflex, Olympus OM1, every camera you can think of is a compromise.

 

So it's a personal matter as to which set of features are closest suited to what you want, and which sacrifices are easiest for you to make, personally.

[ramarren]

Bought an SL + the 24-90 zoom.  Initially I was just looking for a digital body to mount my M lenses but eventually I concluded that with the 24-90 really is quite extremely versatile and the ability to mount M lenses became a sort of extra benefit.  I seriously considered a digital M too (had an M8 and an M8.2 in the past) but in the end I decided the SL really is a much more forward looking platform than the M which is bound by many legacy limitations of film.  For example I really don't like how the digital M bodies hold in the hand without a film advance lever to hook my thumb to, and I also don't like how the shutter sounds / feels compared to the cloth shutters of film Ms.

 

M for me will be a film only thing which I still shoot a lot of.

 

The SL is surprisingly mature a product in terms of feature set and competitiveness with rival offerings.  For the first time in many years we have a Leica where one doesn't have to accept strange compromises.

 

 

Best of luck with your new SL! 

 

I've had mine since November 16; I find it an extremely capable camera that is also fun to use. I use the SL mostly with R lenses; although they're not small like M lenses, they balance beautifully and have an excellent, consistent control feel on the SL body. And the SL sensor does beautiful things with the R lenses. 

 

I'm not so enthralled with the 24-90 mm lens, mostly because I'm never so comfortable using zoom lenses but also because it's just a bit too large and heavy for my comfort zone. I have it, it makes beautiful photos, but I don't use it as much as the R lenses.

 

The M-P is still in my kit and I use it mostly with Summilux 35mm v2 and Summarit-M 75mm lenses. I like it as much as the SL, honestly, but it is a less versatile camera. It handles best for me when fitted with a good half-case and with lenses in the range from 35mm to 75mm. Much outside that range and it seems a bit cumbersome, and it's not as easy to use for macrophotography or even simple close up work, even despite the Live View/EVF. There are a couple of details of its use that surpass the SL at this point in time—an indication of its more mature firmware—and although the same lenses also work on the SL very well, they fit the M-P better and are more natural to use there. 

 

As Peter H said, all cameras are ultimately compromises. Best thing to do is not worry about all the various opinions of others as to which is better or worse, find the one that suits you best, and just enjoy using it. I hope the SL continues to make you happy and look forward to seeing your photos! 

[Jeff S]

I had an M240 for one month and tried the M262 briefly in a store.  No doubt they are very capable and well engineered tools.  But every digital M since the M8 has been about addressing some kind of complication / limitation that surfaced when the M went digital.  I'm referring to the IR filters, cover glass thickness, microlenses for corner performance, live view for better focus accuracy, etc etc.    

Your thumb rest accessory is another example.  Seems to me the M inherently is very unsuited for digital but managed to have been made practical by Leica only by virtue of great engineering.  

 

I find the RF the best focus solution for lenses from 28-90.  LV mostly assists with macro and telephoto.....and last I checked, the Visoflex used with film Ms was a huge and inconvenient attachment, unlike the EVF (electronic Visoflex) for digital.  Apples to apples.  

 

I used film M's for several decades and switched to the M8.2 in 2009, and now the M240.  I use each of them stock...naked...no accessories....and the M240 is the best  RF machine I've used.   Different strokes....

 

Jeff

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I agree that the SL is a very flexible and nice camera, but I totally dont share your opinion about the M.

I have used the M6, later RD1, M8, M9, M type 240 and I like how Leica managed to have the transition from film to digital and still keeping the simplicity and feel of the M.

[cpclee]

My views are entirely my own and totally subjective.  But while I think some of the charms of film Ms were lost when they went digital, I do think the digital Ms are fantastic cameras in their own right.  The premise here is that I could afford one digital body currently and the SL made more sense at present, to me.  I won't rule out picking up an M down the road once budget allows, especially if they manage to bring back the classic M dimensions (pre-M6 TTL).  I tried the M262 and thought it was quite "there" in terms of the feature set I want in an M.   I doubt they will ever bring back the cloth shutter though.  

 

I don't necessarily think the SL can be a replacement for the M for many M shooters. It is substantially bigger / heavier and with wide lenses (say 28/35) I can't focus as fast manually as I can with a rangefinder. But I've always been a simultaneous R/M shooter, and the SL is an extremely versatile bridge option.

 

As to the engineering difficulties and compromises involved in designing digital Ms, these are well documented and Leica has not been shy in openly acknowledging them.  Digital Ms require very specific innovations to materialize and cumbersome lens/rangefinder calibrations to make practical.  The design constraints are real and are not going away anytime soon, if ever.

 

Hi,

I agree that the SL is a very flexible and nice camera, but I totally dont share your opinion about the M.

I have used the M6, later RD1, M8, M9, M type 240 and I like how Leica managed to have the transition from film to digital and still keeping the simplicity and feel of the M.

[tom0511]

yes, rangefinder lenses sometimes need calibration. But overall IMO the digital Ms work very well.

 

There are engineering compromises with the SL as well by the way. For example limited dynamic range of EVF (read like some people complain about too dark viewfinder in contrasty situations), big size lenses caused by AF and IS and contrast AF, for manual focus you cant frame while focusing in magnified viewfinder, so you eventually might miss the moment,....

[LocalHero1953]

.........., for manual focus you cant frame while focusing in magnified viewfinder, so you eventually might miss the moment,....

Yep, that's a real bummer - someone at Leica was asleep on the job when they designed that bit. 

[ramarren]

yes, rangefinder lenses sometimes need calibration. But overall IMO the digital Ms work very well.

 

There are engineering compromises with the SL as well by the way. For example limited dynamic range of EVF (read like some people complain about too dark viewfinder in contrasty situations), big size lenses caused by AF and IS and contrast AF, for manual focus you cant frame while focusing in magnified viewfinder, so you eventually might miss the moment,....

 

 

I'm not entirely sure how I could frame while focus magnification was operating in any case, with any camera. Some others do a "picture in picture" mode where the magnification is applied to a quarter of the frame in the center, so you can see the edges, but it is hard to frame a shot as long as magnification is active. 

 

Even with the M's rangefinder, or an SLR with split image or micro prism focusing aid, it's hard to frame while your concentrating on the focus indication in the center of the field of view. Our eyes and visual cortex just work that way. 

[IkarusJohn]

Yep, that's a real bummer - someone at Leica was asleep on the job when they designed that bit. 

 

 

It gets worse than that.  Not only is it impossible to check framing while focus-magnifying, it's very hard to adjust ISO, aperture and White-Balance at the same time, let alone have the shutter half pressed so you can check actual exposure through the EVF; forget about doing anything with the shutter.  

 

Deal-killer for many, I'm sure!

[cpclee]

Agreed that digital Ms work very well overall.  

 

I also agree that the EVF on the SL, however good, still has room for improvement.  But it's only going to get better from here, so the the system is very promising.  To my eye, the EVF already exceeds the best R system groundglass viewing by a large margin in terms of visible details (with or without magnification engaged), so manual focusing on SL's EVF is much easier/faster/more accurate than any groundglass focusing I've used. Doesn't beat rangefinder focusing yet in speed when using wide angles, but accuracy is not reproachable especially when magnification is switched on.  I do love the rangefinder viewing experience though.

 

I've not found focus peaking to be useful at all.  It's too forgiving and you can end up being quite far from critical focus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, rangefinder lenses sometimes need calibration. But overall IMO the digital Ms work very well.

 

There are engineering compromises with the SL as well by the way. For example limited dynamic range of EVF (read like some people complain about too dark viewfinder in contrasty situations), big size lenses caused by AF and IS and contrast AF, for manual focus you cant frame while focusing in magnified viewfinder, so you eventually might miss the moment,....

[ramarren]

...

I've not found focus peaking to be useful at all.  It's too forgiving and you can end up being quite far from critical focus.

 

 

Focus peaking is most useful for quickly getting the focus roughly correct, or for checking focus after you've fine focused with magnification on. It does take a bit of practice to understand exactly what it's telling you too. I found it very helpful the other day to confirm that my focus was on the money with the 250+2x doubler setup ... it couldn't work when actually focusing due to the inevitable jiggling of the image in the viewfinder. But after the camera re-stabilized, if I had the focus where I wanted it, the highlights lit up and I knew I had my focus point dialed in. 

 

Many lenses lack the critically needed micro-contrast when used wide open ... stop down a little and the focus peaking is much more useful, but stop down too much and it's too indiscriminate. 

 

Like with all focusing aids, patience, some experimentation to find out when something is going to be useful, and a lot of practice using the feature nets the best results. Most of the time, focus peaking isn't as useful to me as focus magnification, and with the SL I find that even magnification is only rarely needed with longer lenses unless I have a particularly critical subject. But I do think it's a useful feature for specific situations, and presuming that you have lenses for which it works well. 

[cpclee]

Might be technique related, but I have not found that peaking is faster or more accurate than just using the unmagnified / unaided EVF.  In one test using my 35 FLE at f4.0, peaking started at a focus distance of 2 meters and ended at 7 meters.  This was actually wider than what was on the depth of field scale!  That to me is quite useless, and I can do better without any aid.

 

Focus peaking is most useful for quickly getting the focus roughly correct, or for checking focus after you've fine focused with magnification on. It does take a bit of practice to understand exactly what it's telling you too. I found it very helpful the other day to confirm that my focus was on the money with the 250+2x doubler setup ... it couldn't work when actually focusing due to the inevitable jiggling of the image in the viewfinder. But after the camera re-stabilized, if I had the focus where I wanted it, the highlights lit up and I knew I had my focus point dialed in. 

 

Many lenses lack the critically needed micro-contrast when used wide open ... stop down a little and the focus peaking is much more useful, but stop down too much and it's too indiscriminate. 

 

Like with all focusing aids, patience, some experimentation to find out when something is going to be useful, and a lot of practice using the feature nets the best results. Most of the time, focus peaking isn't as useful to me as focus magnification, and with the SL I find that even magnification is only rarely needed with longer lenses unless I have a particularly critical subject. But I do think it's a useful feature for specific situations, and presuming that you have lenses for which it works well. 

[ramarren]

Might be technique related, but I have not found that peaking is faster or more accurate than just using the unmagnified / unaided EVF.  In one test using my 35 FLE at f4.0, peaking started at a focus distance of 2 meters and ended at 7 meters.  This was actually wider than what was on the depth of field scale!  That to me is quite useless, and I can do better without any aid.

 

 

Sounds like that's not a good lens to use peaking with then. I have found it useful, occasionally, with nearly all my lenses but moreso with some than with others. For instance, it was nearly useless with the Elmar-R 180mm wide open the other day, but set to f/4 it got me to the right focus point faster than I could with magnification. Similarly with the Super-Elmar-R 15mm, stopped down two stops and focusing for close-up work, it does a fantastic job of identifying the right focus plane ... 

 

But I still use just the viewfinder or the viewfinder + magnification and ignore peaking most of the time. 

[leicapages]

Sounds like that's not a good lens to use peaking with then. I have found it useful, occasionally, with nearly all my lenses but moreso with some than with others. For instance, it was nearly useless with the Elmar-R 180mm wide open the other day, but set to f/4 it got me to the right focus point faster than I could with magnification. Similarly with the Super-Elmar-R 15mm, stopped down two stops and focusing for close-up work, it does a fantastic job of identifying the right focus plane ... 

 

But I still use just the viewfinder or the viewfinder + magnification and ignore peaking most of the time. 

 

 

Interesting. Did you get your Super-Elmar-R 15/3.5 to work with the SL?

It did not list as compatible on the Leica website, contrary to the later Super-Elmarit 15/2.8 ASPH, and that is a real bummer for me...

[scott kirkpatrick]

Interesting. Did you get your Super-Elmar-R 15/3.5 to work with the SL?

It did not list as compatible on the Leica website, contrary to the later Super-Elmarit 15/2.8 ASPH, and that is a real bummer for me...

Both R 15 mm lenses work fine on the SL, and there are profiles for both.  You can find examples posted on this forum.

 

scott

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

Interesting. Did you get your Super-Elmar-R 15/3.5 to work with the SL?

It did not list as compatible on the Leica website, contrary to the later Super-Elmarit 15/2.8 ASPH, and that is a real bummer for me...

 

 

The Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 works beautifully on the SL, and there is a lens profile for it. I've posted several photos made with it here; they're available on my flickr.com account as well (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/ for my photostream, and 

 for my "Leica SL only" album). 

[Peter H]

The Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 works beautifully on the SL, and there is a lens profile for it. I've posted several photos made with it here; they're available on my flickr.com account as well (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto/ for my photostream, and 

 for my "Leica SL only" album). 

 

 

I took a look at your Flikr photos. I like the SLK that goes with the SL.