Picked up an SL but decided to leave it

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pascal,

I'd like to add a short summary why I am happy using the SL:

 

Serious: Perfect lenses (all the R and M glass) in high precision metal finish, the SL is a worthy companion. Its sensor and software is optimized for Leica lenses.

Fun: Playground for experimenting with any old or odd or exotic lens. (see many example fotos on this forum).

 

So the SL is for serious fun.

 

I do not mention AF. Later when there will be more AF lenses, that will probably become more important to me. But currently I'm indifferent to it. I use mainly the WATE and R-lenses.

[talt03]

Had the same negative impression on the size of the zoom lens. Went thru the lens catalogs of Nikon, Sony and Fuji (brands I have) and had the same frustration. So the cons are the same but the pros include color rendering, build quality, possible longer life (because Leica?), etc. Enjoy!

[artur5]

The stacked adapters allow using R lenses for full frame images, and the M to T gives full format with M lenses.  The Leica R to M adapter or adapters such as the Novoflex which have had the 6-bit code added, bring up an extensive table which permits identifying the R lens and getting additional profile corrections.  It remains to be seen if the eventual Leica R to T in one step adapter will do more than that. First we will have to see how much function Leica is able to get into the S to T adapter which is due sooner.

 

scott

I wouldn’t count on the R adapter to be ‘smart’ enough for allowing autoaperture. That would require a mechanical actuator which, of course, the SL doesn’t has. Therefore the adapter needs to be fitted with a motor/electromagnet device coupled with a sort of push-pull ‘finger’ to move the iris of the R lens.

No idea how difficult it would be to stuff all those components into such adapter, but I’m sure that it would be very, very expensive. Being the case that the EVF of the SL gives a perfectly visible image even at small apertures, my bet is that Leica will avoid such intrincacies and will offer at most an adapter transmitting ROM data from R lens to SL body.

Cheers

[ramarren]

Thanks Stephan. How did you get over the awkward operating concept of the SL camera?

 

 

I don't know what you mean. What "awkward operating concept"? I find the SL a delight to operate, much better than my Nikon D750 for example. The SL has a nice minimization of controls, configured to do exactly what I want whether I'm using the SL's dedicated 24-90 lens or my R lenses. 

 

I intensely dislike the "a different button, knob, and dial for every function, more when chorded with another button..." design center of the Nikon. 

 

To the OP: Sorry your first impression didn't go so well. It might be that if you rented one and spent a few days with it, you would feel differently, but that's up to you to be willing or motivated to reevaluate the camera. 

 

After a week's use, the SL's controls were completely natural to me and as good as the R8 (which I really like), although very different in design and feel. It's a wonderful camera to use with R lenses. 

[Cliff S]

As most of us have known, each button can have 2 functions (1 for short press and 1 for long press). Once that is set up, there's no looking back and only concentrate on shooting.

I don't believe short presses are customizable. They're set up for camera menu, image, favourites/playback and setup as well as other options if in record or play.

[talt03]

True, the other 4 long presses, live view and fn buttons are. What I was pointing out is the assignment of a 2nd function to a button accessible when you need it instead of digging the menu. Haven't seen that in expensive cameras.

 

But human nature dictates we will not be contented and still wished the screen/ovf and the short presses to be customizable. Hope it comes in some future version.

[leicapages]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

True, the other 4 long presses, live view and fn buttons are. What I was pointing out is the assignment of a 2nd function to a button accessible when you need it instead of digging the menu. Haven't seen that in expensive cameras.

 

But human nature dictates we will not be contented and still wished the screen/ovf and the short presses to be customizable. Hope it comes in some future version.

 

uhhh.... my point exactly. And one should not find this process rather cumbersome and not intuitive?

 

Give me back the classic controls of the R9 please!

[thighslapper]

Cameras are a very personal thing and you either bond with one almost immediately or it is an uphill struggle ........ 

 

but ........ half an hour in a dealers is not very representative .... particularly with a camera that has quite novel concepts like the SL (or the T for that matter).

 

I think you need a day or 2 with the SL to 'get it' ....... a bit like riding a bike ...... and once you do you wonder why other cameras don't work like it. 

 

There are a few things that need tweaking but generally the more you use it the more you appreciate the depth of thought that Leica have put into it ...

[cpclee]

I've always loved the R8/9 and I think they are among the best cameras Leica ever designed. And that the DMR managed to not need a menu system at all (and it couldn't; screen too small) is also admirable.

 

But you simply can't have a camera with the breadth of functionalities as the SL without some button pushing. But I actually think they have done a very good job and most of the time you never need to get into any menu. I got very productive with it without reading the manual for the first 2 weeks. My only complaint is the confusing live view screen style / MF aid customization which gets confusing.

 

uhhh.... my point exactly. And one should not find this process rather cumbersome and not intuitive?

 

Give me back the classic controls of the R9 please!

[cpclee]

The rumored M-D should be very interesting. Can Leica create a successful digital system camera without relying on a screen or buttons. I think it's do-able with the M (and I prefer such an M). But not the SL, which would lose 85% of its functionality if they went for DMR style controls which goes against the universal camera concept that makes the SL appealing.

[earleygallery]

I think opinions regarding the size of the SL zoom lens would have been much more forgiving if it had been a constant f2.8 lens (which it should have been IMHO).

[cpclee]

There is no reason to expect a 24-90/2.8-4 design to be smaller than a 24-70/2.8 such as what other manufacturers more typically offer.  The length of a zoom lens is a function of the longest focal length, so lengthwise we expect the 24-90 to be longer.  As to the diameter, it is a function of the focal length divided by the aperture. So 90/4 = 22.5 for the 24-90, and 70/2.8 = 25 for the 24-70/2.8.  So diameter wise we also expect the 24-90/2.8-4 to be about the same as a 24-70/2.8.

 

So on no basis should we expect the 24-90/2.8-4 to be smaller than a typical 24-70/2.8. And in fact they really are all about the  same size.  So I don't see how Leica has not delivered.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[MarkP]

Well the SL is quite diminutive in such esteemed company.

[Peter H]

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

 

So on no basis should we expect the 24-90/2.8-4 to be smaller than a typical 24-70/2.8. And in fact they really are all about the  same size.  So I don't see how Leica has not delivered.

 

 

 

I don't think many people seriously believe a top quality zoom in this range, with AF and IS could be much smaller. And a constant 2.8 aperture would almost certainly make it larger, so it's a realistic compromise that won't suit everybody, because nothing does.

 

But it is a large lens and no amount of comparisons with similarly large lenses from other manufacturers will shrink it.

 

So when it was announced some people like me felt that it was a Leica version of a genre of equipment that they had either rejected previously, or already owned. So whilst some people fall in neither of these categories, a significant proportion of Leica users evidently do, hence some of the perfectly rational mix of feelings that still attach to this lens and the whole SL idea. 

[cpclee]

It takes a bit of getting used: because mirrorless bodies are so thin, that their lenses need to be longer to make up for what used to the length occupied by the mirror box.  See the new 35/1.4 for the T.

 

And as in the case of the 24-90, the largish hood here isn't really helping.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[steppenw0lf]

Regarding the comparison image from cpclee:

 

If you look at the lens (24-90) cut open, you can see that the glass is only a small part of the whole beast.

The glass seems ok, but for the rest (mechanical stuff, electronics) it seems that a lot of space has been wasted (potentially).

So I hope that soon a second version of the lens follows: same optics, but much slimmer. (more advanced electronics maybe)

Compare this to the WATE where no space was wasted. (I mention it because it's also a zoom).

 

Stephan

 

You find the picture on the leica site. (In the SL flyer). (SL  Leica Katalog p. 08) (https://de.leica-camera.com/Fotografie/Leica-SL/Downloads)

 

By the way, it seems that this is the new Leica design style. All three new SL lenses are too big around their hips (at least that seems so).

And also many of the T and S lenses. It reminds me also of the first japanese lenses with ultrasonic motor and later with vibration reduction. To make them more reliable their first versions were often unnecessarily big as seen from today. Of course this was not so easy at the time of development or production.

 

By the way I'm also too big around the hips  , so this is maybe the new lifestyle.

[CheshireCat]

So on no basis should we expect the 24-90/2.8-4 to be smaller than a typical 24-70/2.8. And in fact they really are all about the  same size.  So I don't see how Leica has not delivered.

 

 

A little biased comparison only agains the Nikon biggest lens.

 

What about these:

 

Leica 24-90/2.8-4: 88x138mm 1140g

Canon 24-70/2.8:  88x113mm 805g

Sony 24-70/2.8:     88x136mm 886g

Sony 24-70/4:        73x94mm 430g

[CheshireCat]

It takes a bit of getting used: because mirrorless bodies are so thin, that their lenses need to be longer to make up for what used to the length occupied by the mirror box.  See the new 35/1.4 for the T.

 

This is false. It depends on FL and lens design (e.g. retrofocus for wides).

As an example, my M is a mirrorless camera and my Summilux-M 35 is quite smaller than the new T lens.

As a side note, I would never buy an APS-C lens (regardless of the size) as the world is moving to full-frame.

[steppenw0lf]

Let's make the comparison complete:

Leica 24-90/2.8-4:                 88x138mm 1140g              longer (90mm) and with IS/VR

Nikon 24-70/2.8:                    83x133mm 900g                 no VR

Nikon  24-70(2.8 VR:             88x154.5mm  1070g

Canon 24-70/2.8L:                 88x113mm 805g                 no IS

Canon 24-70/4.0L IS:            83x93mm        600g

Sony 24-70/2.8:                     88x136mm 886g                 no IS/OSS

Sony Zeiss 24-70/4 OSS:      73x94.5mm 430g

Sony 24-70/4 OSS:               73x83mm  295g

 

My personal opinion (24-90): The length is fine and shows very high optical craftmanship, but the width and weight could be improved. (slimmer electronics, maybe mechanics reworked). The width at the "hip", not at the front end.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

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

As a side note, I would never buy an APS-C lens (regardless of the size) as the world is moving to full-frame.

 

 

 

This is not intended to be a loaded question, even though it sounds like one:

 

Is there any evidence that the world is moving to full-frame?

 

Anecdotally, on my travels and at home, which is a popular destination for photo-clubs and photographers of all sorts, and in my work with art and photography students, I see far more people carrying/using small mirrorless cameras than DSLRs and the trend feels quite strong. I have no evidence to back this up though, and a quick Google for statistics proved fruitless.