LEica SL as an example of bad design

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

 

 

Frankly, 'performance' as measured by graphs and charts... is the last thing I consider when I evaluate a lens or camera. I make the possibly silly assumption that any new lens delivered today is actually a good enough performer on a technical measurement scale to do the jobs I have in mind. What I read here is you generalizing on an opinion based on your impression of other people, nothing to do with the cameras and lenses themselves. 

 

When I evaluate a lens, I put it on a camera and spend a few months making a thousand or more photographs with it. If I'm evaluating two similar lenses, I swap them back and forth over that same period of time so I can see what each of them does. That's how I ended up with the M lenses I have ... none of which are in the esteemed opinions of the bits and charts folks anywhere near the ultimate "quality", but all of which satisfy me very well. They render and draw nice photographs when I have learned sufficiently how to get the best out of them. 

 

With the SL, I didn't have much choice when it came to native lenses but I had/have a lovely set of R lenses that I like a lot, picked the same way as my M lenses. The more I use the SL native lenses, however, the more I find myself remarking just how excellent they are and how they return photographs that are even better than both my R and M lenses for some uses. 

 

I don't have nor care much about the graphs and charts. I don't do formal lab-type lens testing on any regular basis. I make photographs, and get enthusiastic about a piece of equipment when the photographs sing to me.

 

Why do photographers end up debating about one lens being better than another so much? Partially because it's so much easier to point at a graph or chart, show some detail in an image, then it is to discuss intent and aesthetics without sounding like some pretentious twaddler. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by ramarren

[robgo2]

Well you can if you use the M lenses on it. At that point it is more small enough to be convenient and effective enough to better the M's compromised focusing mechanism in critical situations (I'm not saying you can't focus an M critically, only that it's hard to do). But otherwise I agree with you. If you intend to use the SL with  the native AF lenses, I don't get why you wouldn't buy a Nikon or Pentax (having owned a Sony I know why you wouldn't include that in the mix).

 

I agree that M lenses are the way to go on the SL. If and when TechArt or someone else brings out a user-friendly AF adapter for the SL, I expect sales to take off. Even though MF is reasonably fast and easy on the SL, really good AF using M lenses would attract many potential buyers.

[Advertisement]

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

[geetee1972]

I agree that M lenses are the way to go on the SL. If and when TechArt or someone else brings out a user-friendly AF adapter for the SL, I expect sales to take off. Even though MF is reasonably fast and easy on the SL, really good AF using M lenses would attract many potential buyers.

I agree entirely, though it won't appear until the SL has phase detection as the Techart doesn't work with contrast detection (at least not on the version they offer for the Sony cameras).

[robgo2]

I agree entirely, though it won't appear until the SL has phase detection as the Techart doesn't work with contrast detection (at least not on the version they offer for the Sony cameras).

 

Well, I read a quote from someone at TechArt who said that they will be working on an M to L adapter. Perhaps they already are. If it becomes a reality, there will be quite a long line of people wanting to purchase one. I just hope that it is less fiddly than the one for Sony cameras. My feeling is that Leica should beat them to market with their own version of an AF adapter, as it seems inevitable that there will be one eventually. So, why shouldn't Leica have their own?

[IkarusJohn]

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 agree with this, Greg. Hence my question about your comments on microcontrast, etc.

 

However, you attribute things to me that I have never said. I don’t know how to read an MTF chart, and I have no interest in finding out. I’m not sure where I have ever “defaulted to data” and I’m more than a little insulted that you suggest I have “not the first idea about aesthetics”. Where do you get off saying that to anyone? That just smacks of rudeness and arrogance.

 

I appreciate you have strong views on this, but please do not misquote me. If you paused in your rage over this lens, you might realise that I have been long and consistent in my scorn and mockery of the testing by the “fruit and vege man”. My question was to clarify your position on this lens was one of taste - you raised microcontrast, not me.

 

I just happen to like the aesthetics of what I’ve seen from the SL-50. Will I buy it? Hell no, I also have the excellent M 50 Summilux and the Noctilux. Careful who you shoot at.

[geetee1972]

I agree with this, Greg. Hence my question about your comments on microcontrast, etc.

 

However, you attribute things to me that I have never said. I don’t know how to read an MTF chart, and I have no interest in finding out. I’m not sure where I have ever “defaulted to data” and I’m more than a little insulted that you suggest I have “not the first idea about aesthetics”. Where do you get off saying that to anyone? That just smacks of rudeness and arrogance.

 

I appreciate you have strong views on this, but please do not misquote me. If you paused in your rage over this lens, you might realise that I have been long and consistent in my scorn and mockery of the testing by the “fruit and vege man”. My question was to clarify your position on this lens was one of taste - you raised microcontrast, not me.

 

I just happen to like the aesthetics of what I’ve seen from the SL-50. Will I buy it? Hell no, I also have the excellent M 50 Summilux and the Noctilux. Careful who you shoot at.

 

Buddy apologies, I never intended those specific remarks to be aimed at you. I was answering your question (on aesthetics vs. performance) and then going on to make a more general comment/observation of something I have seen/read/heard people do but not directed at anyone in particular.

 

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Greg - I appreciate it wasn’t aimed at me, despite the very direct language of the last paragraph.

[LD_50]

I agree that M lenses are the way to go on the SL. If and when TechArt or someone else brings out a user-friendly AF adapter for the SL, I expect sales to take off. Even though MF is reasonably fast and easy on the SL, really good AF using M lenses would attract many potential buyers.

Does the Techart actually work well for AF with M lenses in the same way native lenses work well?

 

I shoot the 35 Summilux ASPH and 50 Summilux ASPH and both have floating elements. As does the Noctilux, the 50 APO, the 75 APO, the 24 Summilux, etc. (In other words most of the lenses I would be interested in shooting with the adapter). I don’t believe these lenses would work well with the Techart without manually focusing and fine tuning because it simply moves the entire lens assembly back and forth, without allowing the floating elements to do their thing.

[tom0511]

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.

 

One reason could be the price. Not that many people rolling out so much money for a 50mm lens, and not so many SL users, and the lens has not been available for a long time.

I believe specially for a fast lens with shallow DOF a precise AF is a big advantage. I know the EVF of the SL also helps to make the SL a great camera for manual focus, but some subjects dont wait for the photographer.

[geetee1972]

Does the Techart actually work well for AF with M lenses in the same way native lenses work well?

 

I shoot the 35 Summilux ASPH and 50 Summilux ASPH and both have floating elements. As does the Noctilux, the 50 APO, the 75 APO, the 24 Summilux, etc. (In other words most of the lenses I would be interested in shooting with the adapter). I don’t believe these lenses would work well with the Techart without manually focusing and fine tuning because it simply moves the entire lens assembly back and forth, without allowing the floating elements to do their thing.

That's an interesting point actually. I don't know what 'floating les element' actually means in terns of how it focuses but it does suggest that one element moves independently of the others and what would be compromised by the Techart.

 

All of which is moot anyway until the SL gets PDAF.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have both the SL and M 50' luxes. Personally I prefer the SL lens. It draws in a subtly different way to the M version. Both are superb. Just a bit different. I do appreciate the SL lens corrects CA and fringing better than the M. For some reason I've become quite sensitive to that of late and it annoys me. But that's just me. The SL lens does have character. It's not just a clinically sharp and uninspiring lens. None of the SL lenses are.

 

The differences are so small that I never go out with the M10 and 50 'lux wishing I had the SL version. People who like the balance and handling of the M lens on the SL body aren't missing anything. But I also think most people who shoot the SL version for a couple of weeks would then be less worried about its size and less inclined to go back to the M version. Or maybe have both. One for the smaller size and the other for the balance and usability. Not everyone wants to have both an M and SL.

 

I much prefer the larger lens on my SL. I have a RRS grip permanently attached to both my SL bodies and the M 'lux is too small and fiddly for my liking on that body. I have tried both the standard and black chrome version. Didn't enjoy using either as much as the SL50. The SL50 is large but it feels like it's supposed to be when it's actually on the body. Same with the Noctilux which feels at home on the SL and unbalanced on the M10. The focus ring is far enough from the camera as to be natural to reach to. I really appreciate the AF, especially after a long working day.

 

Also the M lens isn't actually a 50. It's slightly longer than the SL by a couple of mm. From memory it's a 52.5mm. Stand in the same spot and you get a slightly different field of view from each lens. I slightly prefer the wider SL lens.

 

Gordon

[Leicaiste]

Does the Techart actually work well for AF with M lenses in the same way native lenses work well?

 

I shoot the 35 Summilux ASPH and 50 Summilux ASPH and both have floating elements. As does the Noctilux, the 50 APO, the 75 APO, the 24 Summilux, etc. (In other words most of the lenses I would be interested in shooting with the adapter). I don’t believe these lenses would work well with the Techart without manually focusing and fine tuning because it simply moves the entire lens assembly back and forth, without allowing the floating elements to do their thing.

The floating elements found in some of the Contax Zeiss lenses were said to degrade the quality of the pictures taken at close range with the 1996 Contax AX, which was able to autofocus manual lenses. AF was achieved by moving the film plane. I have never seen any real comparison to substantiate this claim.

 

But it seems logical to assume there will be a degradation.

[Einst_Stein]

If you hold tight the lens and the camera with Techart M AF adapter, something is going to break.

[sillbeers15]

I agree entirely, though it won't appear until the SL has phase detection as the Techart doesn't work with contrast detection (at least not on the version they offer for the Sony cameras).

I do not agree technically?

All the current AF system's phase and contrast detect sensors and processor circuit are built into camera body. The AF lens only contains an electric micro motor and and simple circuit and it is passive. It only continues to move the focusing mechanism until the signal from the camera stops it. An AF adapter only needs to provide a motorized linear platform to replace the mechanism of the AF mechanism within the barrel of an AF lens. It has nothing to do with type of detection system. Therefore an AF adapter should not be difficult to develop and low cost to produce.

[Einst_Stein]

II believe the responsiveness of the motor matters a lot.

 

Imaging you have a F35 jet fighter but only a mediocre jet engine, or a good jet engine but the momentum of the fighter is like a aircraft carrier ...

Edited September 27, 2017 by Einst_Stein

[sillbeers15]

II believe the responsiveness of the motor matters a lot.

 

Imaging you have a F35 jet fighter but only a mediocre jet engine, or a good jet engine but the momentum of the fighter is like a aircraft carrier ...

 

Most M lenses are light and compact. So technically it should not be much of a problem. Perhaps slower than SL 90-280mm AF. But it is fine. You have a choice to wait for SL native prime lenses to appear. Besides, SL lenses have the additional benefit of weather proof which the M lenses and adapter will not be. Hi

[Guest VVJ]

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 have been using the 24-90 almost exclusively since I bought the SL 1.5 years ago, about 46K pictures now.  I have absolutely no complaints about it, nor do I feel any desire to replace it with M primes.

 

During that period I did buy a Voigtlander 10mm (not covered by Leica) and an Elmarit-M 28mm (walkaround/weight).  I definitely wish there were more (and also lighter) SL lenses available.

[geetee1972]

I do not agree technically?

All the current AF system's phase and contrast detect sensors and processor circuit are built into camera body. The AF lens only contains an electric micro motor and and simple circuit and it is passive. It only continues to move the focusing mechanism until the signal from the camera stops it. An AF adapter only needs to provide a motorized linear platform to replace the mechanism of the AF mechanism within the barrel of an AF lens. It has nothing to do with type of detection system. Therefore an AF adapter should not be difficult to develop and low cost to produce.

I freely confess to not knowing the technicalities of how it all works though I get that the Techart system is just a motor.

 

My only point of reference is that techart say the adapter does not work with Sony cameras that do not have Phase Detection AF. I don't know why PDAF is so important to make their system work, but it is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulsydaus]

I do not see it as Leica's fault of poor communication but rather it were customer expectations that is tricky to manage.

The most common complaint I hear about the SL are:

1 Bulk and weight of SL lenses;

2 I do not need AF.

 

There are generally 3 category of customers for any product:

1 Those who know what they want;

2 Those who know what they don't want;

3 Those who do not know what they want and don't want.

 

If you fall into the forest two group. It is straightforward to deal with.

So if you clearly belong to the last group, you only know after you try out. It can't be Leica's fault.

Lol I think you could apply that rule to almost anything. I am going to steal it. Thank you!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[cpclee]

The 24-90 is awesome. I had no plans of buying it until the day I picked up the SL when last minute I decided to get it as something good to have on the few occassions when it might be useful. Ended up being my most used lens on the SL and I see no reason to go to the primes except the rare cases when I need the primes for a shallower DOF.

 

My strategy with the SL has changed completely. I will likely get the 90-280 and round out my bag with just one prime, the 50/2R, for those rare cases.

 

I’ve surprised myself because I used to be a prime purist and would most of the time just carry one or two primes.

 

 

I have been using the 24-90 almost exclusively since I bought the SL 1.5 years ago, about 46K pictures now. I have absolutely no complaints about it, nor do I feel any desire to replace it with M primes.

 

During that period I did buy a Voigtlander 10mm (not covered by Leica) and an Elmarit-M 28mm (walkaround/weight). I definitely wish there were more (and also lighter) SL lenses available.

Edited September 28, 2017 by cpclee