A landscape photographer Leica SL review

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Pentax 28-45 is a 22 to 35mm equivalent and works great with Lee 100mm filters. That's close enough to be irrelevant. There's also a discontinued 25mm (19mm equiv) but they're hard to find. So the Pentax (and Leica S) has lenses as wide as the Mamyia 7II plus the option of zooms, macros and substantially longer lenses as well. Some of the lenses have IS.

 

What the new H has is size. But it needs a system to be useful. I'm very interested in the camera as the sensor is the same as the 645Z which blows the SL sensor out of the water. I'm not giving up my SL anytime soon as it fills an important place in my working kit  (and I'm even adding an S) but the 50mp Sony sensor cameras are also fabulous. I really hope it does well. I'm happy with my 645Z. If the H gets a decent set of lenses I'll probably get one but not if I have to give up the coverage my 645Z gives me now.

 

Gordon

 

Same here. Love the idea, design, great sensor, but will not get one until they give me the lenses I need.

 

The X1D will take H system lenses via an adapter, including the 24mm (19mm FOV).....but expensive and not weather sealed.

 

Jeff

 

Which I mentioned in my previous post - and, for what I do, is not wide enough as well.

 

The SL on the other hand is a great platform with its capability of adapting hundreds of lenses to it, both Leica and not Leica. The new Hassy much less so - until we know if the camera has an electronic shutter, the only lenses you'll be able to adapt are Hassy's own H lenses. Even if it has an electronic shutter, you'll be much limited by the image circle necessary: basically only medium format lenses and a few 35mm lenses will do.

 

That said, for many reasons I am very happy with Hasselblad's announcement and newly found courage I hope this will push Leica towards giving us a higher-Mp SL, which would leave a large part of the new X1D's potential switchers dead in the water (and a lot of MF users / potential users as well).

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[Advertisement]

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

[sillbeers15]

I'm happy with my SL and my M. As I'm just an amateur photographer, so the SL+ both native zooms provided me the range of photography beyond my M. Best of all, I can use my Noc & 21Lux on my SL better.

I'm convince that 24MP is a good balance between resolution and speed for my application and not forgetting the reason I choose Leica is because of the quality of the glasses.

 

I'm tickled by the announcement of the X1D for the camera itself seem like a good fit as a landscape camera (except the wide angle lenses not yet available to fit the pkg), so I am watching the progress with enthusiasm.

[vladik]

In the film days, Mamyia 7/7II with the 43 and 65 mm lenses were pretty much all I used. When the digital sensors entered the scene, the dream was a digital version of the Mamiya rangefinder. Perhaps the new Hassey is as close as one can get.

 

If a distraction into the non-Leica past is allowed ... below is a photo shot with the Mamyia 7II/43mm on Fuji Provia 100F film (about 4 sec exposure time, I guess). The boat is the modern but traditional, miniature incarnation of the Viking ship, built by my uncle in the mid 1960-ies. (deleted according to the forum rules).

 

 

Thoughts of getting a SL evaporated yesterday with the announcement of Hasselblad X1D. It will be perfect for my landscape photography. I am not a fan of wide-angle lenses so anything from 35 to 90 mm in 135 format is all that I need. My M 240 as much as I like it will be used for everything else.

[steppenw0lf]

Let's turn back time a few months. I had no SL and instead the money in the pocket.

Would I chose now the X1D instead of the SL ? A clunky slow midrange camera with a very limited choice of expensive midrange lenses ? Without the possibility to add M or R lenses or plenty of other SLR lenses, only Hasselblad lenses exclusively ? And no fast AF or OIS for sports or wildlife ?

If I needed 50MP, would I prefer this to a Canon 5DS ? NO of course not.

I do not desperately need 50MP (I have the 5DS already) and so I would also definitely not prefer this to the SL.

 

The X1D is not my world, and not my budget, and will never be.

I had so much fun with the SL in the last few months, I would not want to miss it. The sensor size does not mean anything to me, much more the handling of the camera and its unmatched flexibility.

 

Additionally I cannot imagine that Hasselblad is suddenly "cheaper" than Leica. And once you have decided for midrange there is no easy way out. (I still have Rollei 6000 lenses and do not know how to use them with digital).

 

By the way, the sensor area per pixel is bigger in the SL than the X1D. 24x36 for 24M  vs  33x44 for 50M.

I remember, no too long ago the larger area per pixel was taken as indication for better IQ (speak for midrange). 

[tom0511]

As someone liking and using the SL for what it is I am still sure the new Hassy would beat it for IQ (DR and specially color and skin color). I also would not call it clunky but rather slim. Not that I would exchange my SL for it, but for people who do not need fast pace and who do not need too many focal length I am sure it is a enrichment. If I had to decide today between a S and the X1D I would look deeply into both options before deciding for one.

[steppenw0lf]

I took this from another thread to illustrate the differences:

camera -- size -- weight -- fps -- min. time

Pentax 645Z -- 156 x 117 x 123 mm -- 1550 g -- 3.0 -- 1/4000

Hasselblad X1D -- 150 x 98 x 71 mm -- 725 g -- 2.3 -- 1/2000

Leica SL -- 147 x 104 x 39 mm -- 847 g -- 11.0 -- 1/8000 (1/16000).

I called the X1D clunky (which is not totally correct), with the lenses in mind: It is not possible to use the tiny M lenses, only midrange lenses, which are substantially bigger - and probably will always be.

I had this picture in mind - though the camera alone is not really clunky. But this is the smallest lens. (35mm prime FF equivalent)

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!

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I had this picture in mind - though the camera alone is not really clunky. But this is the smallest lens. (35mm FF equivalent)

 

 

You mean the smallest native lens, which provides full function, e.g., AF.  Apples to apples, let's see a pic with the smallest native SL lens, e.g., the forthcoming 50.  Balance in hand also has importance, not merely specs and pics.  I'll reserve judgment.

 

In any case, I suspect more people will weigh the pros and cons of the HD1 versus the S, not the SL.

 

Jeff

[steppenw0lf]

[Guest VVJ]

That said, for many reasons I am very happy with Hasselblad's announcement and newly found courage I hope this will push Leica towards giving us a higher-Mp SL, which would leave a large part of the new X1D's potential switchers dead in the water (and a lot of MF users / potential users as well).

 

 

I would expect the number of MP of the Leica S to be bumped up though, otherwise that camera is going to struggling IMHO.

 

That would also allow the next versions of the M and the SL to move into the 30-36MP range.

[Vieri]

I would expect the number of MP of the Leica S to be bumped up though, otherwise that camera is going to struggling IMHO.

 

That would also allow the next versions of the M and the SL to move into the 30-36MP range.

 

 

Joris, my hope exactly. Personally, I am looking forward to more than 30-36 Mp, up to 40-50 Mp for a high-resolution SL, while 24 Mp is great for a speedy SL. I also think that having 40 Mp in the SL and 50 Mp in the S would be good in terms of product differentiation; in fact, I'd go as far as saying that there is probably room for both even if both had 50 Mp: even if this would make life for the S a bit ore difficult, there is enough system-difference to satisfy both customer bases.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[sillbeers15]

In film days, physical dimension of film matters as prints are reproduced out of them. So the bigger the film plus resolution of film (ISO speed) is the foundation of things.

In digital format, prints are formed out of pixels. So in theory, so long as the number of pixels are present is not relevant to sensor size unless it has got physical problem on containing number of sensors, am I correct? 

What would be the effect on prints of say 36MP on 35mm FF vs 36MP on MF?

[sillbeers15]

With stitching tool available in LR, why would a higher pixel sensor camera be necessary for landscape work? 

[IkarusJohn]

With stitching tool available in LR, why would a higher pixel sensor camera be necessary for landscape work? 

 

I guess it isn't.  With care, you can stitch together a number of photos to very good effect.

 

I stitched together around 30 images (from a hill above Wanaka), taken with my M Edition 60 and APO-Summicron 90.  The end result, stitched together in Photoshop, was phenomenal, but the final image was around 2.7GB ... obviously not ideal, but the detail and resolution was fantastic.

 

Then again, a well exposed image shot with a Monochrom and 75 Summilux blew up nicely.

[Vieri]

In film days, physical dimension of film matters as prints are reproduced out of them. So the bigger the film plus resolution of film (ISO speed) is the foundation of things.

In digital format, prints are formed out of pixels. So in theory, so long as the number of pixels are present is not relevant to sensor size unless it has got physical problem on containing number of sensors, am I correct? 

What would be the effect on prints of say 36MP on 35mm FF vs 36MP on MF?

 

silbeers15,

 

even though is not a linear equivalence, you can think about it this way: what in film days was film size, is today pixel size. Example: the Nikon D810 has 36 Mp on a 36 x 24 mm sensor, for a pixel size of 4.88 µm. The Leica S has 37.5 Mp (almost the same for the purpose of this argument) on a 45 x 30 mm sensor, for a pixel size of 6 µm. Pixel size is important for many aspects of image quality. It's a bit too long to write it detail here, and since it is an argument that has been around for a long time with a quick search online you can easily find all the information you need about it (and much better ones that what I could write here).

 

With stitching tool available in LR, why would a higher pixel sensor camera be necessary for landscape work? 

 

Yes indeed. Stitching works in some case, but it doesn't work in many others. Since even in landscape photography things move, think wind, waves, clouds, etc, stitching doesn't work easily all the time - and sometimes it doesn't work at all. Again, while there are exception you can think about it this way: the longer the exposure, the higher is the risk that things will not work.

 

For instance, I am a landscape photographer that does a lot of long exposures, and for my work stitching would not be a viable option in the 95% of the cases.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[tom0511]

In film days, physical dimension of film matters as prints are reproduced out of them. So the bigger the film plus resolution of film (ISO speed) is the foundation of things.

In digital format, prints are formed out of pixels. So in theory, so long as the number of pixels are present is not relevant to sensor size unless it has got physical problem on containing number of sensors, am I correct? 

What would be the effect on prints of say 36MP on 35mm FF vs 36MP on MF?

 

The difference would be:

1) you would have to bring those 36MP through a smaller area of glass. This means you would need a better lens the smaller the sensor.

2) Same MP on a smaller area means smaller pixel means worse/nore noise. Harder to bring up shaddows and disadvantages in dynamic range. This might also have an influence in color

3) The rolloff between focused plane and background looks different from different sensor sizes.

[Vieri]

The difference would be:

1) you would have to bring those 36MP through a smaller area of glass. This means you would need a better lens the smaller the sensor.

2) Same MP on a smaller area means smaller pixel means worse/nore noise. Harder to bring up shaddows and disadvantages in dynamic range. This might also have an influence in color

3) The rolloff between focused plane and background looks different from different sensor sizes.

 

 

Very well said, Tom, thanks.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[sillbeers15]

Thanks Tom & Vieri for your reply. As much as how much I see & experience, it is nice to have other's opinion, for my intended SL application I'm keen to explore the areas which my M240 lacks as I intend to use both systems hand in hand. The advantage from both systems are such that I can use the magnificent Leica M glasses on SL for landscape and portrait which does not require AF and maintain the compact experience which the M system uniquely provides. I personally see that the optical quality of the Leica glasses compensating less sensor size through the Image clarity & great dynamic range which the M & SL brings and not to mention the pleasing color rendering offered by the Leica sensors. It is a point of decision I have to choose between the image quality of medium format sensors bring and the versatile application the SL provides. However I still entertain the thought that at some point in time, it is perhaps a good idea to add a X1D with a wide angle lens just for Landscape application.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

With stitching tool available in LR, why would a higher pixel sensor camera be necessary for landscape work? 

 

Well, there are scenes that won't stitch properly. Mostly those with moving elements in the scene. There's also no need to nodal slides and no parallax error.

 

And if you can stitch the SL, I can stitch my 645Z which is incrementally bigger again.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Vieri]

Thanks Tom & Vieri for your reply. As much as how much I see & experience, it is nice to have other's opinion, for my intended SL application I'm keen to explore the areas which my M240 lacks as I intend to use both systems hand in hand. The advantage from both systems are such that I can use the magnificent Leica M glasses on SL for landscape and portrait which does not require AF and maintain the compact experience which the M system uniquely provides. I personally see that the optical quality of the Leica glasses compensating less sensor size through the Image clarity & great dynamic range which the M & SL brings and not to mention the pleasing color rendering offered by the Leica sensors. It is a point of decision I have to choose between the image quality of medium format sensors bring and the versatile application the SL provides. However I still entertain the thought that at some point in time, it is perhaps a good idea to add a X1D with a wide angle lens just for Landscape application.

 

 

Keeping both the M and the SL is a great solution, if one has both or can keep both. More than "the compact experience", I'd keep my M for "the rangefinder experience". the SL is not much bigger than a M, and just slightly heavier; but seeing the world through a rangefinder or an EVF is a completely different experience. Just my .02.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[Vieri]

Well, there are scenes that won't stitch properly. Mostly those with moving elements in the scene. There's also no need to nodal slides and no parallax error.

 

And if you can stitch the SL, I can stitch my 645Z which is incrementally bigger again.

 

Gordon

 

Very true Gordon, on all counts. Best,

 

Vieri