LEica SL as an example of bad design

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

and you lose so many things?

 

Including the most important one - micro-contrast.

[Waterden]

I think the myth about the size of the SL originated with the misleading photograph published by DP Review when the camera was announced. Clever camera positioning and lens choice indeed made the SL look like an unwieldy brick in their photo. This is most definitely not the case. Lest I be considered what some rude people term a "fanboy" I should mention that in my four decades of photography with serious cameras (i.e. SLRs, medium format, rangefinders and modern digital) this camera is right up there at the top of the list with the Leica M6, Leica MP and, curiously, the Sony A900, which was a gem of a camera for its time.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Waterden

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Including the most important one - micro-contrast.

Not having experience of the SL Summilux myself -it is not a camera for me for many reasons, but not for the quality of its lenses- would you care to elaborate?

[geetee1972]

Not having experience of the SL Summilux myself -it is not a camera for me for many reasons, but not for the quality of its lenses- would you care to elaborate?

Well put simply, every image example I've seen taken with either the 50SL or the 24-90 lacks micro-contrast. The exception would be the 90-280; the results from that do look really quite lovely.

[wildlightphoto]

Why would anybody buy a Leica SL? For much less money, you can get a Sony A7 or A9, and enjoy a superior sensor, in body image stabilization, and a larger ecosystem. 

 

 

Put some winter gloves on then tell me how you feel about using the a7 or a9 compared with the SL.  Though I admit to using the a7rII for sensor stabilization and the 42MP which reduces aliasing and moire in feather detail to near zero, the handling of the Sony cameras leaves much to be desired particularly when compared with the SL.

[jaapv]

Well put simply, every image example I've seen taken with either the 50SL or the 24-90 lacks micro-contrast. The exception would be the 90-280; the results from that do look really quite lovely.

I can hardly believe that from Karbe lenses. I might be an interesting discussion with examples and comparisons - in another thread.

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can hardly believe that from Karbe lenses. I might be an interesting discussion with examples and comparisons - in another thread.

It's a product of how much glass is in them, not the design. If you double the amount of glass in say the SL50 comapred to the M50 Summilux, you can't expect to get the same subtle rendering of tone and contrast that the latter provides. Glass degrades light, there's no getting away from that. I agree that my claim is not proven though; I remaimn open to being convinced otherwise but as of yet, as I keep saying (some might say banging on about ) I've not seen anything shot with the 50SL or the 24-90 that I think has the same 'Leica look' as the M lenses routinely offer.

[lx1713]

Yup, I have. The SL is very nice with M lenses, but with native SL lenses it is absurd. That Summilux-SL 50 is pointless. Why would anybody want to carry that around, when the only thing you gain over a Summilux-M is autofocus, and you lose so many things? 

 

If I was going to buy a body to use exclusively with M lenses, I may as well buy an M camera. Which is what I did. If I was going to buy a mirrorless camera for use with M lenses, I could buy a Sony A7 or A9 and use an adapter. 

 

And BTW I came to Leica having sold off my Sony A7 system. 

 

I don't find it absurd at all to have both  native SL lenses and M lenses at hand to fit the flow of the occasion. It expands my creative options enormously just by having them with me.

 

I just did a concert (appreciated the quiet shutter), shot the group with a 35mm f1.4 at f2.0 at ISO 400, snatch a 3 second 4K video with the group waving at me in the 30 seconds of group photography time with the same lens, shot an environmental portrait of the conductor at 90mm f4@1/30 second (OIS is the life saver) with flash.

 

Used to do the same thing with 2 Leica Ms, 2 Canons and 6 lenses at 3 times the effort minus the video. That's an edge I like.

 

Leica flash does sucks though.

Edited September 25, 2017 by lx1713

[lx1713]

Well put simply, every image example I've seen taken with either the 50SL or the 24-90 lacks micro-contrast. The exception would be the 90-280; the results from that do look really quite lovely.

 

It might be an issue with the particular lenses. I like the bite of my 24-90 even at 90. It's definitely better than the Canon 24-70.

Edited September 25, 2017 by lx1713

[tom0511]

It's a product of how much glass is in them, not the design. If you double the amount of glass in say the SL50 comapred to the M50 Summilux, you can't expect to get the same subtle rendering of tone and contrast that the latter provides. Glass degrades light, there's no getting away from that. I agree that my claim is not proven though; I remaimn open to being convinced otherwise but as of yet, as I keep saying (some might say banging on about ) I've not seen anything shot with the 50SL or the 24-90 that I think has the same 'Leica look' as the M lenses routinely offer.

 

I totally not agree In my experience the SL50 easily beats the 50 M Summilux and is more on par with the 50 APO. If you miss the Leica look I believe it is more the gentle imperfection  of some M-lenses  (for example some vignetting but also other factors) of some M-lenses than anything missing in the SL50mm.

[cpclee]

No, AF is not all that you gain with the 50 Summilux SL. It is simply at an entirely different level of imaging performance than the 50 Summilux M ASPH. Whether that matters to you or anyone is a different story.

 

Yup, I have. The SL is very nice with M lenses, but with native SL lenses it is absurd. That Summilux-SL 50 is pointless. Why would anybody want to carry that around, when the only thing you gain over a Summilux-M is autofocus, and you lose so many things? 

If I was going to buy a body to use exclusively with M lenses, I may as well buy an M camera. Which is what I did. If I was going to buy a mirrorless camera for use with M lenses, I could buy a Sony A7 or A9 and use an adapter. 

 

And BTW I came to Leica having sold off my Sony A7 system.

 

[thighslapper]

 

 

Well put simply, every image example I've seen taken with either the 50SL or the 24-90 lacks micro-contrast. The exception would be the 90-280; the results from that do look really quite lovely.

 

It's a product of how much glass is in them, not the design. If you double the amount of glass in say the SL50 comapred to the M50 Summilux, you can't expect to get the same subtle rendering of tone and contrast that the latter provides. Glass degrades light, there's no getting away from that. I agree that my claim is not proven though; I remaimn open to being convinced otherwise but as of yet, as I keep saying (some might say banging on about  ) I've not seen anything shot with the 50SL or the 24-90 that I think has the same 'Leica look' as the M lenses routinely offer.

 

 

Well if you can assess micro contrast from forum sized images on the internet then you clearly possess supernatural powers. 

 

Karbe has stated that the TL and SL range of lenses are the best that Leica has ever made in terms of performance. 

 

I have a safe full of M, R, Voigt and Zeiss lenses from 10-280mm and none offer any performance advantages over the SL lenses.

 

I think the M lens 'Leica look' is generated more between the ears than in the camera. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by thighslapper

[geetee1972]

I totally not agree In my experience the SL50 easily beats the 50 M Summilux and is more on par with the 50 APO. If you miss the Leica look I believe it is more the gentle imperfection of some M-lenses (for example some vignetting but also other factors) of some M-lenses than anything missing in the SL50mm.

Sorry 'beats' how? Maybe it's sharper and has better resolving power but that's not what I'm talking about. MTF charts only show you what is resolved not the quality of what is resolved.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ramarren]

It's a product of how much glass is in them, not the design. If you double the amount of glass in say the SL50 comapred to the M50 Summilux, you can't expect to get the same subtle rendering of tone and contrast that the latter provides. Glass degrades light, there's no getting away from that. I agree that my claim is not proven though; I remaimn open to being convinced otherwise but as of yet, as I keep saying (some might say banging on about ) I've not seen anything shot with the 50SL or the 24-90 that I think has the same 'Leica look' as the M lenses routinely offer.

 

 

Geetee1972 has repeated this meme in every thread that even mentions the SL or SL lenses for the past several months. 

 

Sorry: I don't see it. I have both the M and SL lenses, I have used the M lenses on both the SL and the M-P/M-D bodies. If I put the camera on a tripod, point it at a suitable test target, and make the same exposure with both bodies and the same M lens and then do the same with the SL and SL lens, they are INDISTINGUISHABLE from one another with respect to micro contrast and depth. 

 

You're entitled to your opinion, Geetee1972. But we have all heard it over and over and over and over again now. Some might agree with you, most do not. Such it is.

[cpclee]

Your understanding here is, with all due respect, not accurate.

 

M lenses operate at a significant disadvantage in the digital age. The short distance to the sensor and oblique light rays have long been a challenge if not a limitation of these lenses on the digital sensor. Leica had to go through a lot of trouble, including deploying special microlenses on the sensor, to correct what would otherwise be imaging flaws.

 

The SL system was designed from ground up be free of these constraints. Leica knew as did Zeiss that to fully exploit the potential of today’s best sensors you need to give the lenses more volume (or more degrees of freedom in the design, mathematically speaking). That’s the trend in optical design. If you looka the Sony GM lenses they are also about the same size as SL lenses.

 

The optical performance of lenses like the 50 Summilux SL are simply mind boggling. And there is also a video clip with pictures shot with the 75 Summicron SL (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H8f9HwRg4IU). Again the pictures look extremely impressive to me.

 

It's a product of how much glass is in them, not the design. If you double the amount of glass in say the SL50 comapred to the M50 Summilux, you can't expect to get the same subtle rendering of tone and contrast that the latter provides. Glass degrades light, there's no getting away from that. I agree that my claim is not proven though; I remaimn open to being convinced otherwise but as of yet, as I keep saying (some might say banging on about ) I've not seen anything shot with the 50SL or the 24-90 that I think has the same 'Leica look' as the M lenses routinely offer.

[geetee1972]

Geetee1972 has repeated this meme in every thread that even mentions the SL or SL lenses for the past several months.

 

Sorry: I don't see it. I have both the M and SL lenses, I have used the M lenses on both the SL and the M-P/M-D bodies. If I put the camera on a tripod, point it at a suitable test target, and make the same exposure with both bodies and the same M lens and then do the same with the SL and SL lens, they are INDISTINGUISHABLE from one another with respect to micro contrast and depth.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, Geetee1972. But we have all heard it over and over and over and over again now. Some might agree with you, most do not. Such it is.

Ok but we've all heard everyone else's memes about just how wonderful this and other SL lenses are so there's no reason to single my post out.

 

It's ok that we don't agree. The debate is what matters.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cpclee]

There was some speculation on this forum as to whether that video I linked to was shot on the 75 Summicron SL. Yesterday a regional manager of Leica confirmed to me that it was.

[geetee1972]

Your understanding here is, with all due respect, not accurate.

 

M lenses operate at a significant disadvantage in the digital age. The short distance to the sensor and oblique light rays have long been a challenge if not a limitation of these lenses on the digital sensor. Leica had to go through a lot of trouble, including deploying special microlenses on the sensor, to correct what would otherwise be imaging flaws.

 

The SL system was designed from ground up be free of these constraints. Leica knew as did Zeiss that to fully exploit the potential of today’s best sensors you need to give the lenses more volume (or more degrees of freedom in the design, mathematically speaking). That’s the trend in optical design. If you looka the Sony GM lenses they are also about the same size as SL lenses.

 

The optical performance of lenses like the 50 Summilux SL are simply mind boggling. And there is also a video clip with pictures shot with the 75 Summicron SL (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H8f9HwRg4IU). Again the pictures look extremely impressive to me.

 

 

Again I'm not questioning the 'optical performance'. The lens might well be free of CA and distortion and sharp as razor but if what it resolves looks meh what's the point.

 

And again I'm happy to be proven wrong. Someone just needs to post something worthwhile to demonstrate this. I'll take anything really, it doesn't have to be portraiture, architecture, landscape, still life whatever the genre, just something that can be regarded as aesthetically pleasing to prove the point.

 

And on that note, I'm out. Otherwise the thread will just derail.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IkarusJohn]

Again I'm not questioning the 'optical performance'. The lens might well be free of CA and distortion and sharp as razor but if what it resolves looks meh what's the point.

And again I'm happy to be proven wrong. Someone just needs to post something worthwhile to demonstrate this. I'll take anything really, it doesn't have to be portraiture, architecture, landscape, still life whatever the genre, just something that can be regarded as aesthetically pleasing to prove the point.

And on that note, I'm out. Otherwise the thread will just derail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you referring to aesthetics? Or performance of the lens? I’m unclear.

 

I’d second Jaap’s comment above. You’ve been very consistently critical of this lens, but it seems on shifting ground. It would be interesting to see a controled test explaining exactly what you mean - not size, weight or cost, but performance, objectively illustrated.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Einst_Stein]

Why would anybody buy a Leica SL? For much less money, you can get a Sony A7 or A9, and enjoy a superior sensor, in body image stabilization, and a larger ecosystem. And if you were willing to carry around the absurd weight of the SL lenses, you could be carrying around Carl Zeiss lenses instead, which are just as large, are slightly cheaper, and arguably just as good when it comes to image quality. 

 

For me to be remotely interested in the SL system, the lenses would have to be cheaper and smaller. I am not interested in paying so much money to carry something that heavy around when it arguably offers less than the competition. 

 

The M system is a different matter. There is nothing else in the market that offers so much quality in such a small package. You can not make the same argument for the SL system. 

 

I have exact the same thought before I got my SL, and I did have a Sony A7RII. That's why I think SL is a bad design.