Is the SL the digital R?

[Silver Fresco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hate to bring this up, but have recently acquired an SL. I use R lenses on it 99% of the time and from what I've seen here and on other "pages", R lenses are the way to go.

 

I'm one of those heretics that will say R lenses will kill M lenses...

 

I could be wrong, but the SL is almost as good as the DMR...?

 

 

[Bill W]

I would say that the SL is better than the DMR just from the standpoint of size and not even going into the tech side. And if you want auto focus well??? As far as R lenses killing M. I think that if is a little late for that.

[Advertisement]

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

[caissa]

Yes, from a R users point of view the SL is the rebadged R10 - that many expected in 2008.

But the SL is much more than only that, and the quality is much better than the DMR - which was terribly expensive and technically not on par with contemporary products. It had a crop factor destroying the usefulness of UWA lenses. And a really limited ISO range. And think of the batteries ! You needed to be careful if you took a series.

I read the report on Overgaards website, and was surprised that the best software to treat the DMR RAWs is from Hasselblad. I should have known ten years ago. The results are much better than in my memories.

The SL combines the best of the R and M systems. And offers a new world of native autofocus lenses with insanely high IQ.

 

In my eyes it is not a killer, but a unifier.

Edited April 30, 2017 by caissa

[Silver Fresco]

I would say that the SL is better than the DMR just from the standpoint of size and not even going into the tech side. And if you want auto focus well??? As far as R lenses killing M. I think that if is a little late for that.

 

Bill W... I must disgrdee

 

I don't  know... Ive got my M lernses... but th4e R lenses... Okay, I suspect no one wants to      talk about them...

[ramarren]

I hate to bring this up, but have recently acquired an SL. I use R lenses on it 99% of the time and from what I've seen here and on other "pages", R lenses are the way to go.

I'm one of those heretics that will say R lenses will kill M lenses...

I could be wrong, but the SL is almost as good as the DMR...?

 

 

The SL is definitely the best follow-up to the Leica R system and DMR on the market. The SL's technology is considerably advanced past the capabilities of the DMR and the SL camera is a better digital camera than an R8/R9 fitted with DMR: it's smaller, lighter, more responsive, has significantly more sensitivity and dynamic range, etc. The ergonomics of R system lenses work very well with it, and Leica has taken pains to provide good lens profiles that optimize the images so that the R lenses produce results that meet the original intent of their design with the SL. 

 

I couldn't care less whether "R lenses will kill M lenses". The notion is completely irrelevant. Leica M and Leica R lenses are both top notch performers. The fact that the SL supports use of both M and R lenses, with optimizations for both, provides even more capability and opportunities for owners than the R8/R9 with DMR could. And then there are the new SL dedicated lenses, which are on par with or surpass both M and R lenses while supporting modern desirable features like autofocus and image stabilization... 

 

So yes, the SL is a considerably more advanced and desirable camera than a DMR could be. 

[Bill W]

 

I would say that the SL is better than the DMR just from the standpoint of size and not even going into the tech side. And if you want auto focus well??? As far as R lenses killing M. I think that if is a little late for that.

 

Bill W... I must disgrdee

 

I don't  know... Ive got my M lernses... but th4e R lenses... Okay, I suspect no one wants to      talk about them...

 

I guess I so not understand what you meant by R lenses will kill M lenses. Did you mean they will kill them in IQ or will kill them by making them antiquated which as we know did not happen since the R lens line has not been made in many years and the M has thrived. I have used both R and M lens for many years (since 1985) and they are both superb performers.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

R lenses will not kill M lenses, nor have M lenses killed R lenses .  The R lenses stopped evolving at about the high point of design of lenses for film with classic types of glass.  Computerized design had not reached the point at which it could control the number of degrees of freedom now seen in lenses with 12-25 elements, moving independently.  As a result the R lenses, let's call them "Mandler-style" lenses optimize tradeoffs between aberrations, resolution and contrast to achieve unique character.  And in the framework of the R bodies, close focusing and long throws make them precisely controllable.  M lens design has continued to evolve as additional glass types, increased computer design power, better mechanical and manufacturing tolerances and the possibility of digital postprocessing all have become available.  Let's call them "Karbe-style" lenses, although all of these lenses are the work of a much larger team.  (Note that the Summicron 90-asph R and some of the very late long R telephotos also have this character.)  These styles appeal to different people, fit different pictorial needs.  And the SL supports both, as well as the SL autofocus lenses and the cinema lenses that have been flowing steadily out of Solms and Wetzlar.

 

Leica lenses never die.

 

scott

Edited April 30, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[amoebahydra]

I use both SL and DMR, in my humble opinion, the image quality of DMR is still better than SL.  The drawback of DMR apart from pixel count is ISO performance, if you need quality picture than you have to limit the ISO to under ISO 200 ...............

[Vieri]

The SL is much more than a digital R.

 

True, it's great with R lenses, and it's the only platform where you can use your R lenses digitally today natively, with profiles and full functionality including lens recognition, without fiddling with mount changes etc, not to mention with their originally intended focal length (DMR had a crop factor).

 

That aside, the SL allows you to use M lenses perfectly: again, natively profiled, easier to focus than with a M especially for either WA or long lenses, etc.

 

More, the SL has a lineup of extremely good AF zoom lenses, the best I have ever tried in similar focal lengths, and what might just be the best 50mm ever made (I haven't tested it yet, but report are confirming that).

 

Finally, you can use pretty much every lens ever made on the SL: Nikon, Canon, Pentax 645, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc etc.

 

The SL is truly an universal camera, while the R wasn't. Non relevant to your question, R lenses aside the SL as a digital camera has great IQ to boot, one of the best cameras I have ever used. I just sold the S 007 and bought a second one

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[helged]

The SL is much more than a digital R.

 

...

 

I just sold the S 007 and bought a second one

 

 

For curiosity: Have you sold your S-glass as well; or do you use the S-glass on the SL and/or awaiting the specs of the new S?

[Vieri]

For curiosity: Have you sold your S-glass as well; or do you use the S-glass on the SL and/or awaiting the specs of the new S?

 

Well, the SL glass is so good that I didn't see the point in keeping S glass just to use it on the SL, so I sold everything except for the 24mm S which is great and a bit harder to find second hand than the rest - as you said, I have hopes for a new S, at some point...

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[Likaleica]

OMG  This is astounding, Vieri.  Your S landscape photos have the quality of 4x5.  This is your career, so obviously you have made a careful decision.  Do you find your larger prints from the SL to have quality similar to those from the S?  

[IkarusJohn]

Strawman

[Vieri]

OMG  This is astounding, Vieri.  Your S landscape photos have the quality of 4x5.  This is your career, so obviously you have made a careful decision.  Do you find your larger prints from the SL to have quality similar to those from the S?  

 

Hello Tim,

 

thank you very much for your comment about my work, much appreciated. The S's sensor is great and S lenses are amazing, so as we all know the result of it + S lenses are extremely beautiful. However, for a working photographer there are other matters at play: convenience, weight, practicality in the field, etc. Let me try and explain my rationale behind leaving the S (just for now, I hope).

 

1. S 007 doesn't do long exposures longer than a minute; for my work, I often need to go past one minute; obviously, it often happens that I need to take a shorter exposure and a longer one of the same scene, and while I could swap cameras and lenses this is not always convenient in the field, it would result in different focal lengths and different composition (I was using S lenses adapted to the SL, which have a different FOV equivalent on either cameras, forcing me to move and recompose, which is not always possible) and doing so would mean I need to use the SL anyway, loosing the S's sensors and lenses' extra quality anyway;

2. I love to use ultra-wide lenses for my work, so I'd need to bring a SL with me anyway to use them (Voigt 15mm and 10mm);

3. S 007 doesn't have lenses longer than 180mm; I had just 24 - 35 - 70mm S leneses. While not very often, for my work I sometimes need to go longer than that;

 

therefore, as of now I was using the S for non-long-exposure shots with focals between 24 and 70mm (19 - 56mm FOV equivalent). I was using the SL for long-exposure shots, for shots with the 10 and 15mm no matter the shutter speed, and for shots with lenses longer than 56 mm FOV equivalent (with my 24-90mm).

 

I was presented with the dilemma of either buying the 180mm, which becomes a 144 FOV equivalent on the S and a 180 on the SL; this would have fixed the long lenses conundrum, but made my bag extremely heavy and still left me with the problems in points 1 and 2. Or, I could have bought the 90-280 for the SL and a second SL body, fixing everything at the expenses of a little IQ, which is what I ended up doing. Now I have the flexibility of a kit with 2 SLs, the 10, 15mm Voigt, the 24-90mm and 90-280mm, which fits great in my bag, it's not too heavy, and I can use the same batteries, cards, chargers.

 

As far as image quality goes, personally I find the S 007's files to be better looking than the SL's; however, I find the SL's files very beautiful and good enough to print up to the sizes I need - I was using the SL for my work even before this reorganisation! - and I find the advantages of my new setup outweigh the disadvantages.

 

Of course, if a new S 00x will give me long exposures I will rethink this and, very likely, go back to my previous setup (SL + S). I hope this helps clarifying my process.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[Vieri]

Strawman

 

?? If this is directed to me, I will not dignify it with a reply.

 

Vieri

[Ko.Fe.]

....

 

I'm one of those heretics that will say R lenses will kill M lenses...

 

....

 

It looks like M killed R sometime ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_R_bayonet "On 5 March 2009, Leica announced plans to cease production of its R-Series manual focus SLR and lenses."

[IkarusJohn]

?? If this is directed to me, I will not dignify it with a reply.

 

Vieri

Not at all. You don't need to dignify anything.

 

The OP raises a fatuous proposition about the SL being a new R camera, then suggests that the DMR is better than the SL. He then raises a contentious argument (with himself, as it's his topic) that the DMR is better.

 

How did you read this as being aimed at you?

[Vieri]

Not at all. You don't need to dignify anything.

 

The OP raises a fatuous proposition about the SL being a new R camera, then suggests that the DMR is better than the SL. He then raises a contentious argument (with himself, as it's his topic) that the DMR is better.

 

How did you read this as being aimed at you?

 

Just because it was right under two post between Tim and myself, and because you didn't quote the OP. All good then Best,

 

Vieri 

[ferdinand]

Not at all. You don't need to dignify anything.

 

The OP raises a fatuous proposition about the SL being a new R camera, then suggests that the DMR is better than the SL. He then raises a contentious argument (with himself, as it's his topic) that the DMR is better.

 

How did you read this as being aimed at you?

 

SL or DMR?

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[caissa]

Enjoy your DMR - and we will enjoy our equipment.

No need to defend the DMR. It is simply a thing of the past, so it had its time.

The pics are certainly still ok, especially at the resolutions here. But nobody wants to go back ...  (with a few exceptions maybe      )

Edited May 3, 2017 by caissa