Three weeks in Myanmar with the SL and 24-90

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just come back after nearly three weeks in Myanmar with the SL and 24-90. I took just over 2000 images while there, plus a further 250 with my Leica C112. I have got to know the camera a lot better and the following are my thoughts of its benefits and problems, compared with my usual RF Leicas, which I have been using for over 50 years. 

 

1) No surprise - it is a heavy old lump and I reckon I must have built up the muscles in my left shoulder, where I normally carry it, as it seemed less heavy at the end than it did at the beginning. For a full day with a camera, I would still prefer my M240 (or other M) with a 35 Summicron. 

 

2) The GPS works very well and is a big advance on the M240 MF grip, which barely works at all. However it still does not work as well as the GPS on my wife's V-Lux 20, which not only gives you the coordinates but also can show the nearest place name at the bottom of the LCD. It has been very useful with pictures taken on the Irrawaddy river, to click from Capture One, "Show on map" which then links to Google maps to show the exact location of the shot. I am delighted that my frequent badgering of Phase One along with others, has finally paid off, with Version 9.1 including SL support, waiting for me on my return. The SL profile is a noticeable improvement on DNG Neutral or Leica Q, which I had been using. 

 

3) The image quality is a small advance on the M240 IQ in daylight but a substantial advance in low light, where both 3200 and 6400 ISO produce usable images. However I suspect it still lags a bit behind the Sony A7-II in this respect. 

 

4) The IQ from the 24-90 cannot be faulted. This is a magnificent lens and by some margin, the best zoom lens I have ever used. Extending the wide end down to 24 mm was an excellent decision. There were a number of times I could get the whole of a building/temple/stupa into a shot, whereas others with a zoom lens only going down to 28mm EFOV could not. 

 

5) The AF is "work in progress". Comparing it with a Nikon D5, which one of the other guests on the river steamer had, the SL is much fussier on picking up a focus and does not work well at the moment in low light. I usually changed to a 0.95 Nocti in low light, both to get MF and a faster lens. I find you have to work the joystick quite a lot on nearly every shot to select your focus point. After a few days, this becomes pretty much instinctive. The AF definitely needs work from the firmware update department, as there were times it was plain irritating. The MF on the 24-90 does not work as seamlessly as it should with a noticeable lag between turning the ring and the lens focusing. It is much slower to MF than an RF lens on an M. 

 

6) The customisable controls and profiles are excellent. Having been now using them for 4 months, I would struggle to think of any significant improvement needed on these. 

 

7) Flash - for god's sake Leica - get your act together and get this working. Four months after the camera was released is FAR too long to get this sorted. Releasing the two dedicated flashes before the camera can use them, is putting the cart before the horse, big time. If I did not have a Nocti to use flashless, I would be even more irritated by this. 

 

8) I really missed not having the 90-280 lens and in retrospect, wished I had taken my 80-200 Vario Elmarit R with me. I had hoped the C112 would substitute where a longer lens was needed but I hate using the Zombie pose taking a photo at arms length and the tiny EVF is close to useless. 

 

Overall I am now convinced the SL and 24-90 are a "keeper" and I would guess will be my main camera for some years to come. 

 

Wilson

[CheshireCat]

About the AF, I am afraid that firmware optimizations apart, contrast-detect AF is "broken by design". 

The future is in-sensor PDAF. Leica will get there eventually. E..v..e..n..t..u..a..l..l..y.....

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

I just remembered another small feature which I felt would have been useful. On the auto-ISO settings, as well as being able to select the top ISO, it would be nice to be able to select the floor/lowest ISO, particularly where working in lower light situations. I know that in effect you can do this by setting the ISO step up speed to a specific shutter speed, 1/focal length or 1/twice focal length but there are times when a set floor ISO would be useful. On the M240, where the base ISO is 200 and 100 is pull, this is not really needed but with a base ISO of 50 on the SL, you can quite often get camera shake as the shutter speed has fallen lower than you realise. 

 

Wilson

[Guest JonathanP]

Thanks for the useful report Wilson.
 

I am delighted that my frequent badgering of Phase One along with others, has finally paid off, with Version 9.1 including SL support, waiting for me on my return. The SL profile is a noticeable improvement on DNG Neutral or Leica Q, which I had been using.

 
A big thanks to Scott Kirkpatrick for loaning his personal SL to Phase One for them to profile - its a shame that a customer had to do this and Leica couldn't do the honourable thing and supply a loaner themselves!

 

Jonathan

[CheshireCat]

A big thanks to Scott Kirkpatrick for loaning his personal SL to Phase One for them to profile - its a shame that a customer had to do this and Leica couldn't do the honourable thing and supply a loaner themselves!

 

 

Unbelievable.

Software support is critical for the success of a camera system.

Leica should send them a SL as a free sample to keep.

[Hugues33]

I just remembered another small feature which I felt would have been useful. On the auto-ISO settings, as well as being able to select the top ISO, it would be nice to be able to select the floor/lowest ISO, particularly where working in lower light situations. I know that in effect you can do this by setting the ISO step up speed to a specific shutter speed, 1/focal length or 1/twice focal length but there are times when a set floor ISO would be useful. On the M240, where the base ISO is 200 and 100 is pull, this is not really needed but with a base ISO of 50 on the SL, you can quite often get camera shake as the shutter speed has fallen lower than you realise. 

 

Wilson

 

+1

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unbelievable.

Software support is critical for the success of a camera system.

Leica should send them a SL as a free sample to keep.

 

Unbelievably Leica and Phase One seem to be having a hissy fit with each other. This does neither of the companies any credit and is very much not in the interest of both their customers. Get over it guys!

 

Wilson

[Adam]

It is the same with M lens. C1 does not have many profiles. From what I understand, Leica will not lend the lens to have them done. Bizarre.

[wlaidlaw]

I suspect it all goes back to the failed merger/take over of I think 2008, between Leica and Phase One. It was soon after that and I assume in reaction, that Leica started to offer Lightroom rather than Capture One as their bundled RAW developer. Also the competition between Leica's S line with Phase One's Mamiya based MF system and now their home developed XF modular system may be causing additional friction. Instead Leica merged with Sinar, which I am guessing has not been the world's most electrifying purchase, just at a time when many professionals were moving away from rail cameras. 

 

The speed which Phase One has rolled out their latest autofocus MF lens range in collaboration with Schneider Kreuznach, has made Leica look rather staid. I also note that Phase One are offering a five year warranty with their cameras and lenses. Now I know Leica has such a generous warranty policy, that you might say they offer the equivalent. However, to actually put it on paper would demonstrate their confidence in the longevity of their product and would be an excellent selling point against their often considerably cheaper competitors of Canikosonolypan. 

 

Wilson

[wattsy]

I also note that Phase One are offering a five year warranty with their cameras and lenses. Now I know Leica has such a generous warranty policy, that you might say they offer the equivalent. However, to actually put it on paper would demonstrate their confidence in the longevity of their product and would be an excellent selling point

 

 

Yes, I agree with this, particularly as Leica's digital-era products have not proven to be wholly reliable. A 5 year warranty should be standard IMO. Hasselblad (who are much stingier than Leica when it comes to official warranty period) should also take note of Phase One's policy in this regard and realise that it is no longer ok to ask for a four figure payment to extend a warranty to two years on a product costing the same as a car.

[farnz]

...

8) ... I had hoped the C112 would substitute where a longer lens was needed but I hate using the Zombie pose taking a photo at arms length and the tiny EVF is close to useless. 

...

Sorry you feel this way, Wilson, I personally find the C's viewfinder to be quite useable and adequate for a p&s camera.  It's of course not on the same planet as an M, Q, or SL etc but I, too, loathe arms length shooting and it certainly happily saves me that awkwardness.

 

Pete.

[wlaidlaw]

Sorry you feel this way, Wilson, I personally find the C's viewfinder to be quite useable and adequate for a p&s camera.  It's of course not on the same planet as an M, Q, or SL etc but I, too, loathe arms length shooting and it certainly happily saves me that awkwardness.

 

Pete.

 

Pete, 

 

I don't know if it is my ageing eyesight but I find these tiny EVF's very difficult now. I remember in the early days of digital, the Fuji-Leica Digilux zoom and the later 4.3, had a very useable zoom optical VF, complete with diopter adjustment. I don't know why modern P&S cameras don't fit this rather than the miniscule EFV's. I also think the SL has rather spoilt me for any other EVF's. The VF-2 on the M240 now looks terrible. As Leica use the Epson module for their video driver, I never understood why they did not upgrade to the far better VF-4 for the 240/262. Olympus who also use the Epson module in their MFT cameras, were able to upgrade cameras of older vintage than the M240 to use the VF-4. 

 

Wilson

[AlanJW]

Pete, 

 

I don't know if it is my ageing eyesight but I find these tiny EVF's very difficult now. I remember in the early days of digital, the Fuji-Leica Digilux zoom and the later 4.3, had a very useable zoom optical VF, complete with diopter adjustment. I don't know why modern P&S cameras don't fit this rather than the miniscule EFV's. I also think the SL has rather spoilt me for any other EVF's. The VF-2 on the M240 now looks terrible. As Leica use the Epson module for their video driver, I never understood why they did not upgrade to the far better VF-4 for the 240/262. Olympus who also use the Epson module in their MFT cameras, were able to upgrade cameras of older vintage than the M240 to use the VF-4. 

 

Wilson

Yes, SL can spoil you.  The word was the M processor was not up to the VF4.  Having tried the VF4 on an Oly, it is a huge improvement, but VF4 is not up to the standards of Q and SL, and  the VF2, which never was state of the art, is now quite inferior.  Since I got an SL I have not used M240 with EVF. 

[wlaidlaw]

Yes, SL can spoil you.  The word was the M processor was not up to the VF4. 

 

Alan, 

 

I just don't believe that. If my ancient Olympus EP-2 can be updated with an FW change to use the VF-4, I would be very surprised if the M240 could not use it, even if the refresh rate was limited, which it is on the EP-2 compared to the EP-5. I would have thought it was the video driver system and chip that was the limitation and I have been told that the M240 uses a standard Epson display suite. This would make sense as I think both the EVF and LCD are Epson products. I suspect it was more down to lack of will or technical ability and indifference that led to the VF-4 not being adopted.  

 

Wilson

[ramarren]

Alan, 

 

I just don't believe that. If my ancient Olympus EP-2 can be updated with an FW change to use the VF-4, I would be very surprised if the M240 could not use it, even if the refresh rate was limited, which it is on the EP-2 compared to the EP-5. I would have thought it was the video driver system and chip that was the limitation and I have been told that the M240 uses a standard Epson display suite. This would make sense as I think both the EVF and LCD are Epson products. I suspect it was more down to lack of will or technical ability and indifference that led to the VF-4 not being adopted.  

 

Wilson

 

I have both the Olympus VF-2 and VF-4, and have used them both on the E-PL1, E-PL7, and E-M1. 

 

The E-PL1 firmware required an update to be able to drive the VF-4. Doing so only allowed the VF-4 to be used, it did not improve the EVF display at all. It ran at the same refresh rate and with the same number of pixels as the VF-2. The VF-4 requires the later hardware of the E-M1 and E-PL7 to show its full capabilities. 

 

The Leica M typ 240/246 output hardware was designed for the VF-2 class display. It does not have the capability to be used with the later hardware because Leica did not see the point to updating the firmware in order that the later viewfinder could be used but posed no advantage whatever; it would require them do invest a lot of development money for no net gain to the customer. They were investing development into a new EVF too, but with a different hardware interface intended for the T and X typ 113. 

 

So why did Olympus update the firmware for their older cameras? Because for them it is a win to say that their new EVF runs on their old hardware, and they can discontinue production of the older EVF in the process and save some money. 

 

BTW, the VF-2 (and its Leica EVF-2 sibling) were EVF state of the art in the 2010-2012 time period when they were introduced, the best EVF available. The only comparable one at the time was the built-in EVF on the Panasonic G1 series (which uses a completely different technology). The M typ 240 was designed to use that EVF hardware because it was the best available. 

[Jared]

Any pictures to share?

 

- Jared

[wlaidlaw]

Jared, 

 

I have been posting a few pics on the SL(601) section of facebook. 

 

Wilson

[Jared]

Thanks, I'll take a look.

[steppenw0lf]

Wilson,

 

can you add a link to your pictures ? 

I did not join FB and have no intention to. So I try to avoid searching too deeply in there.

 

Thanks.     Stephan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wlaidlaw]

Stephan, 

 

You will actually find a whole lot of useful stuff on Leica special interest groups e.g. SL-601 and Noctilux on Facebook. You can tailor your privacy settings so that you don't get deluged with rubbish. I also find it is very useful for seeing what various members of my extended family are up to. 

 

A few links 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1263816593634341&set=gm.1533670516929474&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1258933854122615&set=pcb.1531795207117005&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1258894360793231&set=pcb.1531778120452047&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1259508087398525&set=a.156609431021735.42946.100000180386774&type=3&theater

 

Wilson