LEica SL as an example of bad design

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 owned and used a Sony A7 for a year and more before buying the SL. It was a piece of junk ... a decent if not stellar sensor with an adequate viewfinder packaged into a substandard build body with crappy ergonomics, poor menu control, and the worst shutter I've experienced in a modern camera. Just fitting the camera on its tripod mount with a 100mm lens on it deforms the body measurably. Junk. Never mind that the same lenses used on the SL that I used on the A7 produce far better photographs.

 

A Sony A7 and the Leica SL represent two entirely different classes of cameras. The SL and the Leica M series are in the same class, quality and performance -wise, but represent two entirely different kinds of cameras: the SL is far more versatile and useful for a broader range of photographic endeavors.

Edited September 25, 2017 by ramarren

[FlashGordonPhotography]

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

Keith,

 

It seems you're nearly there...

 

If you get the M system then the SL is less of the same. To shoot with an M you give up AF, IS, zooms, longer lenses, a sophisticated flash system etc.... But the camera and the lenses work so well together. They match each other. They're balanced. Then you get to appreciate the menus and the shutter and you realise that the nit picking about a third of a stop of noise and DR is just such a waste of band width (the M10 sensor is a 1/3 stop better than the current A7II). 

 

The SL is the same, with AF. I didn't want an SL. I saw the release pictures and thought it was ugly. Bigger and heavier than the competition, which I already owned. Then I picked one up......

 

I won't get into the price thing....

 

The SL doesn't handle like any other camera on the market. And the lenses are matched to the camera body. Sure sometimes I wish it was smaller and lighter. Then I have a job where I need the files from my A7R2 and I can't wait to get back to my SL and it's honkin' great lenses. When I put a Sony kit together with a couple of pro grade zooms and a 50 1.4,I don't actually save that much weight. I do get a system where the lenses don't match the body in size, weight or balance. The Leica lenses draw differently. The SL feels better in the hand. The shutter is incredible. The buttons and menus are a frigging joy. The whole thing is just so well integrated and balanced.

 

I suppose that's the thing with current camera marketing. We get an enormous amount of information about how many megapickles a camera has. How many fps. We look at noise charts and declare one sensor a winner and all others crap over a half stop of noise or DR. Lenses are only as good as an MTF chart. Or my favourite chess nut. "You can buy camera "X" for 1/4 the price and the lenses are equivalent". B.....S......

 

We get reviews where three pages are dedicated to the sensor and one paragraph to the balance and handling. Cameras where using a tripod means you can't open the battery door. Systems where every lens has a different design and balance. Systems where every zoom lens makes the camera front heavy. Why do only some Sony lenses have an aperture ring? You change lenses and then have to change how you interact with the camera? Some cameras are too small for the lenses made for them. The buttons are difficult to get to or too easy to push accidentally. The A7II has 1874 buttons and they couldn't put one on there to control the EVF behaviour?

 

Sure the Sony/Fuji is smaller lighter and cheaper. The SL seems huge and stupid. And the lenses are honkin great things. Then you shoot one for a week and don't want to put it down. You wonder why Sony can't steal their menus and Fuji can't use that EVF. You shoot for 10 hours with an A9 and a 24-70GM and your wrist is sore. And it starts to make sense...

 

The SL is bigger so the buttons are in exactly the right spot. The SL is bigger so the eye position doesn't interfere with your right hand. The lenses are big because they have fantastic balance and handling with the incredible optics to match. And the body is sized to match the lenses on the front of it rather than just being small 'cause that's good marketing. When you change from the 24-90 to the 50 the balance of the camera doesn't change. And because the balance is so good they feel lighter than they are. And after shooting a 6 hour wedding on Sunday my hands aren't sore from having to over grip my cameras. It's wonderful.

 

We don't shoot Leica because we think they're going to make better images. That's up to us, not the camera. We understand that all modern sensors are good sensors and that despite the life or death discussions on the D850 sensor there's less than a stop of DR difference and the D850 handles like poo compared to an SL. And it 'aint mirrorless anyway. If your shots are rubbish a D850 probably isn't the solution. We shoot Leica because they look at cameras and lenses differently. Their systems seem to be designed as a system. Cameras and lenses look like they're meant to be together. Everything is in balance. Mostly though, you just want to pick it up. Leica seem to get that process of making the image is as important as the quality of the sensor.

 

As for the 50. I have the M 'lux and the SL version. If you're happy thinking it's the same as an M 'lux or like a Zeiss with AF, fine. Just don't put one on an SL and pick it up........

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

The first impression of SL to every is its size of a white elephant. Not just the SL camera, but also every SL lens. Were it not due to my M9 sensor corrosion and Leica's trade-up program (that M10 is not an option, only M 240 and SL), I would hardly even thinking about this system.  

 

Surprisingly, after having the camera on my hand, I fell in love immediately. Now i can't wait to get the SL zoom, either one, 24-90mm or 90-280mm, I can't decide except that I really want both.

I have played with both zooms on my SL. They are not bug at all. In fact, I would have problem if they are smaller. 

 

I think in a way, this is one of  Leica's major failure. You would want to attract people before they buy the camera/lens. You would want to move the heart at the first glance,  

 

 

With the SL zoom, the camera makes sense - the balance, the buttons, the EVF ... it all just hangs together so nicely, as Gordon says above.  Can I suggest you start with the 24-90, rather than the 90-280.  I know that the longer zoom probably performs better, but you will use the 24-90 more.  

 

The only time the camera and lens seem big is when you're hauling it out of the bag.  In the hand, it all feels natural and works so well as an integrated unit.  

 

 

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. 

 

Keith, I'm really not sure what you're getting at.  Yes, the SL is really good with modern M lenses (can be problematic with older wides, but still acceptable).  I'm not sure you can say that with the 50-SL, the only thing you gain over the M Summilux 50 is autofocus; but if that works for you, that's fine.  The M Summilux 50 doesn't really do it for me on the SL - it's too small.  I prefer the Noctilux on the SL.

 

Why the SL?  M cameras don't really work as well with zooms and AF isn't available, nor image stabilisation.  That's not a criticism of the M system; it's just not designed with that in mind.  The M cameras work best in the 28-90 range, in my experience - no external viewfinder, rangefinder works really well (if calibrated), and it's all compact and "old-school".  The SL is more versatile.

 

How, then, do you get to preferring a Sony A7 or A9 as a preferred "mirrorless" for M lenses?  I'm not sure I understand your logic.  An M camera is better, and so is the SL in every respect.

 

The M system is the best camera for M lenses.  If you want AF, OIS, zooms, telephotos and ultrawides, the SL is, in my experience, a better choice.  If you want a Sony, with their Zeiss and other lenses, then get a Sony - why is a Sony relevant to the SL?  You can't use SL lenses on a Sony, and the M lenses on the Sony really don't cut it - that's one of the many reasons I sold my Sony A7r.  The SL is the best universal mount for Leica lenses.

 

Now, you might not like the price of the Leica SL system (or any other Leica product) and that is a fair comment.  Similarly, you might not like the size and weight of the SL and its lenses, but that is a personal view.  There are so many comparisons on the forum of the size and weight of the SL against others, and the lenses.  But the fact that you might like everything smaller doesn't make the system "absurd" does it?

 

Why would anyone want to carry it around?  Well, because it feels nice in the hand, well balanced, the user interface is something Sony will never achieve and it takes fabulous photos.  Why else?

[LeicaR10]

Flash,  Your Post 42 above was most excellent.  People forget cameras are merely a tool.  It is the photographers creative mind and ability to master the camera that makes images either master pieces or just a photo.  When I judge photography club competitions, often the best images are created by people who use simple cameras.  Those images are the ones that make you stop, "see" and feel.  If the image doesn't do that, IMO it is just a "happy snap".  Last, IMO it is not the brand of your camera or size of your megapixels that make your images...it is the ability and creativity of the photographer is what matters.   The proof as you might agree, is...the photograph, that makes you stop, look and even go back too see it again.   r/ Mark

Edited September 25, 2017 by LeicaR10

[Einst_Stein]

If you are comparing Sony A7xx (A7RII for me) to Leica SL, you should know that Sony A7 series has been the savior of may Leica M lens fans that were looking for a modern mirrorless solution.

 

One of the early compelling justification of Sony A7RII is its capability to adapt any mount lenses, particularly Leica M R and Zeiss. Its what-you-see-what-you-get focus peaking also means a lot for people with deteriorated vision. -- You also do not need to worry the Leica M infinite focus drift of the M range finder.  I got my A7RII solely for these.

 

But very soon people find the A7X's "any mount" adaptability is not real. Most popular 35mm or wider M lenses do not fully perform, that you do not get the delicious Leica M signature. M 50mm or longer are acceptable. Then people found to get decent optical quality, the size of the lens would be as big as the Canon super tele. -- actually, to fully reveal the A7RII sensor density, it could be even bigger than the medium format tele lenses. Look at Sony's lens for A7xx, forget about the top notch ones, just look at the medium end. Their size makes Leica M like a toy.  I would be happy to know how many M users that bought A7RII still keep the A7RII.

 

I think Leica SL is the answer to those who want the modern AF extended focal range camera system that can also enjoy the M lenses without compromise. However, I don't see SL to compete in anyway to the M, (definitely not M10). Not functionally, but more of stylish. While I am discovering more and more SL's new surprises, the position of Leica M (M9, M10) in my mind is still irreplaceable.    

[sillbeers15]

Hummm...one man's poison is another man's meat.

How true when it comes to the choice of lenses on the SL. I guess there is no absolute logic but appeals take control.

 

If only Leica would produce an AF M to L adapter....I would call the native SL lenses 'big' then.

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Aesthetics, but then if you consider that the only thing that matters about the results any lens, or camera for that matter, produces is whether you like them or not, they are the same thing.

 

I just cannot understand why the only thing that people seem to care about these days is 'performance' as measured by graphs and charts. You don't need these to know if a lens is any good or not and you certainly don't need an optical engineer telling you what you should think because they know more about lens design than you do. Yes, of course you do, but I don't buy a lens because it's been designed by an optical genius, I buy it because it makes wonderful pictures! That's the only thing you need to look at to tell you whether it's a good lens or not.

 

In my view the only reason you end up arguing about one lens being better than another because it's got better scores on an MTF graph is because you've got not the first idea about aesthetics. Why else would you default to data to tell you how good a lens was?

Edited September 26, 2017 by geetee1972

[thighslapper]

Aesthetics, but then if you consider that the only thing that matters about the results any lens, or camera for that matter, produces is whether you like them or not, they are the same thing.

 

I just cannot understand why the only thing that people seem to care about these days is 'performance' as measured by graphs and charts. You don't need these to know if a lens is any good or not and you certainly don't need an optical engineer telling you what you should think because they know more about lens design than you do. Yes, of course you do, but I don't buy a lens because it's been designed by an optical genius, I buy it because it makes wonderful pictures! That's the only thing you need to look at to tell you whether it's a good lens or not.

 

In my view the only reason you end up arguing about one lens being better than another because it's got better scores on an MTF graph is because you've got not the first idea about aesthetics. Why else would you default to data to tell you how good a lens was?

 

I half agree with this ........ but I'm afraid the fact you post 'wonderful pictures' is almost entirely down to your obvious excellent portrait sense, technical and compositional abilities ....., not the lenses ...... 

[lx1713]

Aesthetics, but then if you consider that the only thing that matters about the results any lens, or camera for that matter, produces is whether you like them or not, they are the same thing.

 

I just cannot understand why the only thing that people seem to care about these days is 'performance' as measured by graphs and charts. You don't need these to know if a lens is any good or not and you certainly don't need an optical engineer telling you what you should think because they know more about lens design than you do. Yes, of course you do, but I don't buy a lens because it's been designed by an optical genius, I buy it because it makes wonderful pictures! That's the only thing you need to look at to tell you whether it's a good lens or not.

 

In my view the only reason you end up arguing about one lens being better than another because it's got better scores on an MTF graph is because you've got not the first idea about aesthetics. Why else would you default to data to tell you how good a lens was?

 

I think that's a valid point. But understandably Leica cannot really sell lenses that replicate what has come beforehand. There's no reason for Leica users to buy a lens when a 20 year old lens already delivers what they need. Part of what I like about Leica lenses is the fact that you don't really need to buy a new lens because the older lens is no longer good enough but rather the new lens does something better in some ways. New strokes for new users   but no need if you don't need 

 

Aesthetics though is subjective and I think Leica lenses do work towards an aesthetic goal that will appeal to a different group for each generation of lenses. Part of it comes from the exotic glasses that are limited production. So a tension comes into play as to deliver a more production friendly glass recipe. I think we are looking at a new Leica that needs to do rare glass recipes in a new way that repeatable and yet deliver the unique Leica look that different from Canon and Nikon does.

[lx1713]

I half agree with this ........ but I'm afraid the fact you post 'wonderful pictures' is almost entirely down to your obvious excellent portrait sense, technical and compositional abilities ....., not the lenses ...... 

Which is intimately connected to how Geetee1972 is responding to the excellence of a tool he likes and loves  O how can we separate the right tool in the right hands from the artist

[geetee1972]

Which is intimately connected to how Geetee1972 is responding to the excellence of a tool he likes and loves  O how can we separate the right tool in the right hands from the artist

 

I think you're very right - I have found that the SL with the M 50mm 'lux does indeed work for me and so yes, I am very happy with it. I even sold my Hasselblad 501 as a result. I'm not sure I won't regret that in the long run but for the moment, I am very happy.

[panoreserve]

I have to say that that is YOUR opinion. 

 

When I first saw the SL body, it struck me as simplistic, severe, functional, Bauhaus to the limit: I loved it instantly. A fitting follow up to the now deceased R8 and Leicaflex SL (both of which I had at the time). When I first saw the SL24-90, I said to myself, "Hmm, another big pro zoom. Do I need that, or should I use my R lenses?" AF,  OIS ... Both nice-to-haves, neither a necessity. 

 

At first I ordered just the body. I called back to my dealers a day later and ordered the SL24-90 lens too: It occurred to me that it wouldn't make sense not to have at least one lens that could utilize every feature of the body. 

 

When I received the camera, I was delighted ... immediately! Super fit and finish, superb ergonomics, excellent viewfinder, etc etc. I've never been much of a zoom user: it took me a year to get comfortable using the SL24-90 because of that, not because of its size or weight. It's a big heavy lens, yes; not a big deal. Its quality and capability outstrip any reluctance to use it on weight and size considerations. Over time, I realized that the SL90-280, affectionately termed "The Bazooka", would be a better pick for my long lens needs than the collection of older R teles I owned. I effected a trade-in with my dealer to help fund it. Now having used it for half a year: absolutely. It's one superb lens too. 

 

I think the usual beefs you mention have all come from Leica M users who wanted to see the SL as some kind of super-modern Leica M. It wasn't, it isn't—it will never be. My DSLR friends are not put off by the size of the SL lenses at all ... If they have any reaction in that direction, it's because they read about it from some dumb ass review by someone who wanted to think it was a Leica M and was put off by the size of the lenses. When I hand it to them, to a one they all look at me and say, "Hey, this is REALLY nice! I wish Nikon would make a pro body this compact!" And don't even mention the lenses: they're used to big, heavy, fast zooms. 

 

I've owned and used the SL extensively since the first day it was available to the public. Using it eclipses ALL the other gear I had at that time ... I've sold off all the other digital cameras I had then, as well as most of the film cameras. I keep a Leica M-D for when I want my kit to be more compact, I keep some film cameras for the fun of it. The SL is my main camera, and will be for a long time yet to come. The R lenses I kept and its SL zooms are what I use on it.

 

And I am completely, absolutely delighted with it, every step of the way. I'm glad I spent the money on this, the most expensive single camera purchase I've made in my entire life. It will likely last the rest of my life.

 

Very good points. And exactly my story, too.

[panoreserve]

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

 

"MTF charts only show you what is resolved not the quality of what is resolved." 

A truly remarkable insight .

[geetee1972]

"MTF charts only show you what is resolved not the quality of what is resolved." 

A truly remarkable insight .

And yet so many people don't seem to get it....

[cpclee]

But why do you assume those references that have been made here about optical qualities were based on charts and graphs and not actual shooting?

 

And yet so many people don't seem to get it....

[geetee1972]

But why do you assume those references that have been made here about optical qualities were based on charts and graphs and not actual shooting?

 

 

Well I don't per se and again, I'm really happy for people to post examples that change my mind, but given that no one has yet posted an image that shows this lens to do anything other than offer very sharp images with no CA or distortion combined with the fact that most of the arguments that have been made to counter my (I agree, rather beligerent) point, have done so with references to 'optical performance', i.e. the measured performance of the lens.

 

I agree the lens is very sharp; that is an objective fact that you can't really argue.

 

Please someone show me something beautiful made with this lens......

[frame-it]

interesting..not many pics on flickr with the SL_50

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3058496@N24/pool/

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/3136259@N24/pool/

[LD_50]

You can find more on Flickr by searching for Summilux-SL than what you see in that group. Flickr uses tags and not everyone joins a group for the lens.

 

As for aesthetics and optical performance, everything I’ve read says the Summilux-SL renders very similarly to the Summilux M ASPH with better resolution and less vignetting. I have no reason to disbelieve this from the few photos I’ve seen, including two direct comparison tests online.

 

With that said, I don’t understand this idea that the Summilux-SL doesn’t or cannot produce great images, and instead only test results. More likely those stating this have not tried it for their particular style or they are really just critiquing the price and size.

 

There will likely never be a huge sample of images out there. To determine the actual “quality” of what’s resolved by this lens you’ll have to try it out or continue to seek out more samples to find your preferred style.

[geetee1972]

 

You can find more on Flickr by searching for Summilux-SL than what you see in that group. Flickr uses tags and not everyone joins a group for the lens.

 

Frustratingly though that search just brings back everything that was shot on an SL with any 'Summilux' lenses including those at other focal lengths.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

If you type it as “Summilux-SL” you’ll find photos with that lens.

 

You can search with various tags to find more. It’s not as simple as their camera finder and not foolproof if photos are mis-tagged.