Returning to the M Body after High Hopes with the SL

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The inference is straightforward. The smaller is the sensor, the more resolving power a lens needs for the same sensor resolution, the less possibility for good microcontrast, as simple as that. That's why a picture from a smaller sensor always looks less 3D than of the larger one, other things being equal. Just as a 35mm image does not have as much depth as a MF picture, APS-C photo is flatter than the 35mm and so on.

You seem to be saying that 

      Goodness  =  resolution  *   microcontrast  ,

 

and thus if you have more of one, you will have less of the other, for a given total goodness that the manufacturer puts in. But designers get cleverer, new types of glass become available, and manufacturing tolerances improve, albeit slowly.  Thus goodness available keeps going up, and if the customer is willing to pay more it goes up faster.  I'll use this line of thought to argue that the best APS-C camera and lens system of this year (CL + 35/1.4) can be competitive with the M240 + 50 Summilux, which was state of the art 4 years ago.  (And for less than half the cost of an SL + SL50 this year.)

Edited March 25, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

In an ideal world, I would certainly buy both.  I have "drunk the Kool-Aid," and I can see that the SL glass is very special for certain types of shooting.  But, I'm much more interested in the options available for M lenses.  Earlier, I referred to the "system."  At the current point in my thought process, I am not really considering the SL as a system, but solely as a body for M primes.  

 

I read something that Thorsten von Overgaard wrote about autofocus taking something away from the photographer and it's been on my mind for a week or so.  Today, I visited a local botanical garden with my six year-old and turned off my Nikon AF and shot some photos with zone focusing -- something I haven't done in probably ten years, just because the AF has always been there for me and I don't like the throw of AF lenses.  But, it was actually liberating.  Without waiting for the AF motor to lock in, I was able to get shots that I otherwise would have missed.  I relieved my mind from one action (waiting) and then put my energies on composing and capturing a moment -- usually of my daughter's action.  I become one with the moment and not subservient to the camera.  It's like I locked this type of shooting out of my mind once I switched over to AF back in 2001 and I never again considered manual focusing.  And again, this liberation is the allure of moving to a M lenses (as the core of the system).  My main deliberation now is which body to use?  The SL seems like a slam dunk and I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.  The inaccurate aperture in the viewfinder seems to be one drawback, but that seems about it.  Then again, the M doesn't even show the aperture in the viewfinder.

An M9P then, you dive into the M-world coming from Nikon, so you can’t know whether it suits you. The SL is not that radically different from the SL as an M and perhaps too close to Nikon to get easily used to it

[chris_tribble]

So, what are the disadvantages to shooting M lenses on an SL? Besides weight and size, what were the features and specs that caused you to give up on the SL and stick with an M body?

Returning to the OP's original question:

1. The challenge (in my experience of accurate focusing on wide lenses

2. The problem of infinity focus with all M lenses

3. The relative slowness of focusing most M lenses below 75 on the SL compared with an M

4. Issues of bulk and relative weight.

 

I'm sure that with native lenses the SL is a great system camera (though I'm not sure how much greater than Nikon or Canon pro bodies + pro lenses - and there are real arguments around EVF compared to pro body OVF DSLRs).  In my experience, however, (and I think that of many others who have commented here) the best body for M lenses is an M.

[Irakly Shanidze]

You seem to be saying that 

      Goodness  =  resolution  *   microcontrast  ,

 

and thus if you have more of one, you will have less of the other, for a given total goodness that the manufacturer puts in. But designers get cleverer, new types of glass become available, and manufacturing tolerances improve, albeit slowly.  Thus goodness available keeps going up, and if the customer is willing to pay more it goes up faster.  I'll use this line of thought to argue that the best APS-C camera and lens system of this year (CL + 35/1.4) can be competitive with the M240 + 50 Summilux, which was state of the art 4 years ago.  (And for less than half the cost of an SL + SL50 this year.)

 

I agree with your standing in theory, yet, whatever I saw from the CL with any lens so far has not supported this idea. While I do not feel 100% confident discussing M240, both M9 and M10 pictures leave the CL trailing behind. On the other hand, for someone switching from another APS-C and even any of Japanese full-frame DSLR systems, CL definitely shows a very noticeable step-up in the visual appeal of the image.

[Alistairm]

Returning to the OP's original question:

1. The challenge (in my experience of accurate focusing on wide lenses

2. The problem of infinity focus with all M lenses

3. The relative slowness of focusing most M lenses below 75 on the SL compared with an M

4. Issues of bulk and relative weight.

 

I'm sure that with native lenses the SL is a great system camera (though I'm not sure how much greater than Nikon or Canon pro bodies + pro lenses - and there are real arguments around EVF compared to pro body OVF DSLRs).  In my experience, however, (and I think that of many others who have commented here) the best body for M lenses is an M.

I find M lenses just as easy to focus on the SL (or CL) as the M. For me the main reason to keep the M is the rangefinder’s view of the world, seeing outside the framelines and choosing what to include.

[jaapv]

I agree with your standing in theory, yet, whatever I saw from the CL with any lens so far has not supported this idea. While I do not feel 100% confident discussing M240, both M9 and M10 pictures leave the CL trailing behind. On the other hand, for someone switching from another APS-C and even any of Japanese full-frame DSLR systems, CL definitely shows a very noticeable step-up in the visual appeal of the image.

In my experience the CL pictures are sometimes more brilliant than the M240, sometimes a bit less. In general, I prefer the CL. It all depends on the lenses, of course. The 18-56 is very good, but the 55-135 is outstanding. It is better than the 135 APO on the M240. I am blown away by the Summilux-M 24 on the CL. Not surprising, the corners were always a bit behind on that lens.

 

Regarding your previous post, I agree that the difference between 135 and medium format is significant, however the step between APS-C and full frame is less so.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Regarding your previous post, I agree that the difference between 135 and medium format is significant, however the step between APS-C and full frame is less so.

 

Understandably so... The difference in the frame area between 645 and 35mm is 3.125, while between APS-C and 35mm is 2.06. However, the visual difference is still there. To be fair, with Leica cameras this difference is much less visible than with other brands.

 

Also, you are right: CL has a new generation sensor, which is much better than the one employed in M240, hence the brilliance.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Irakly Shanidze

[geopatriot]

Returning to the OP's original question:

1. The challenge (in my experience of accurate focusing on wide lenses

2. The problem of infinity focus with all M lenses

3. The relative slowness of focusing most M lenses below 75 on the SL compared with an M

4. Issues of bulk and relative weight.

 

I'm sure that with native lenses the SL is a great system camera (though I'm not sure how much greater than Nikon or Canon pro bodies + pro lenses - and there are real arguments around EVF compared to pro body OVF DSLRs).  In my experience, however, (and I think that of many others who have commented here) the best body for M lenses is an M.

 

It's funny when people say, "Just go and try it.  Give it a feel.  You'll know what works for you."  A buyer would never learn about the infinity focus issue from an in-store demo.  

 

From posts on this forum, this appears to be a big problem.  So why are so many people using M lenses on the SL?  I'm confused?  Is this a random issue?  Do people just not shoot infinity with this approach?  Do they just tolerate soft focusing? 

 

I keep hearing from so many people that the best body for an M lens is an M body.   But, then why are so many people -- including Leica -- gushing about M lenses on an SL?  

[scott kirkpatrick]

Understandably so... The difference in the frame area between 645 and 35mm is 3.125, while between APS-C and 35mm is 2.06. However, the visual difference is still there. To be fair, with Leica cameras this difference is much less visible than with other brands.

 

Also, you are right: CL has a new generation sensor, which is much better than the one employed in M240, hence the brilliance.

Much of digital MF is 44x33mm, and the area ratio of 44by 33 to 35by 24 is 1.68.  The last generation of MF CCDs were bigger than that, and so is the 100 MPx generation.

[mmradman]

Much of digital MF is 44x33mm, and the area ratio of 44by 33 to 35by 24 is 1.68.  The last generation of MF CCDs were bigger than that, and so is the 100 MPx generation.

44x33, call it Medium Format APS-C 

 

The fact remains when it comes to sensor or film size bigger is better if image quality is the main aim.

 

16X24 < 24x36 < 33X44 (or 30x45)  < 40x54

 

or

 

APS-C < Full Frame (135) < Compact Medium Format Digital <  Medium Format Digital

 

Only advantage of CL it is the latest Leica sensor so it has some improvement over earlier sensors (Moors law) however it is still APS-C.  If compactness is objective difficult to beat Leica M providing some big M lenses are not first choice.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Much of digital MF is 44x33mm, and the area ratio of 44by 33 to 35by 24 is 1.68.  The last generation of MF CCDs were bigger than that, and so is the 100 MPx generation.

 

I still shoot Phase One P25. It has a 1.1 crop from 645 frame.

[jmahto]

It's funny when people say, "Just go and try it.  Give it a feel.  You'll know what works for you."  A buyer would never learn about the infinity focus issue from an in-store demo.  

 

From posts on this forum, this appears to be a big problem.  So why are so many people using M lenses on the SL?  I'm confused?  Is this a random issue?  Do people just not shoot infinity with this approach?  Do they just tolerate soft focusing? 

 

I keep hearing from so many people that the best body for an M lens is an M body.   But, then why are so many people -- including Leica -- gushing about M lenses on an SL?  

Well, "infinity focus issue" doesn't mean that M lenses can't be focused on infinity. It means that you can't blindly do infinity focus by turning the focus ring to infinity lock (as you can do on M). You will need to use the EVF to focus correctly. For this point M body is superior with M lenses.

[AlanJW]

I find M lenses just as easy to focus on the SL (or CL) as the M. For me the main reason to keep the M is the rangefinder’s view of the world, seeing outside the framelines and choosing what to include.

I agree with this. Of course, it is personal, but with my aging eyes, getting the rangefinder lined up (and finding a place where it makes sense to line up) is harder than focusing with the EVF and focus assist.  I also have come to really like the real time look at exposure the EVF gives you.  I have both M10 and SL because sometimes -- with especially 35 and 50 mm lenses the RF is still good, and you do get that look outside the frame.   The new(er) Summaron 28 on an M10 is quite a compact system, and zone focus is pretty easy. Also an M10 (without Visoflex) is smaller and lighter. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I still shoot Phase One P25. It has a 1.1 crop from 645 frame.

Right.  49x37mm, and yours has 9 micron pixels.  I've kept a P45+ for the V-series (which also works on the SWC) and use it on occasion.

[chris_tribble]

Well, "infinity focus issue" doesn't mean that M lenses can't be focused on infinity. It means that you can't blindly do infinity focus by turning the focus ring to infinity lock (as you can do on M). You will need to use the EVF to focus correctly. For this point M body is superior with M lenses.

Thanks for expressing this more clearly than I did. In my use of the SL this was THE critical issue. I could have dealt with the relatively greater size and weight of the SL if it weren’t for this. I lost too many shots at the wide end, and the gains I made with telephoto lenses weren’t enough of a compensation.

[pgk]

I agree that the difference between 135 and medium format is significant, however the step between APS-C and full frame is less so.

 

Neither medium format nor APS-C offer the range, variety and specifications of full-frame lenses. Technical/theoretical differences are quickly negated if you need a lens unavailable in anything but full-frame . Personally I've tried various APS cameras and do still have one (they can be useful for macro) but somehow I always drift back to using full-frame and the APS gear is left aside. I've also tried and still own some EVF cameras - for specific uses - but again I always pick up an RF in preference if it will do the job. I've played with an SL but it really doesn't tempt me at all .....

[wizard]

Well, "infinity focus issue" doesn't mean that M lenses can't be focused on infinity. It means that you can't blindly do infinity focus by turning the focus ring to infinity lock (as you can do on M). ...

 

Which is something I really do not understand. If an M lens is correctly adjusted, this would seem to imply that the flange to sensor (or film) distance is such that an M lens set to infinity will produce a sharp image at infinity. It should do the same regardless of whether it is used on an M camera or an SL body, since both are full-frame cameras and thus should have exactly the same flange to sensor distance (in the case of the SL, including the adapter for mounting M lenses). 

 

If an M lens set to infinity does not produce a sharp image at infinity if used on an SL, there are in my view two possibilities: Either the lens is not correctly adjusted (in which case it should also have problems at inifinity if used on an M camera) or the flange to sensor distance of the SL including the adapter differs from that of an M camera (which would surprise me).

 

Cheers, Andy

[jaapv]

The point is that adapters in general allow a lens to be focused slightly past infinity, probably to avoid any problems caused by mechanical tolerances.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[scott kirkpatrick]

This is an old subject.  The longer R lenses, for example, have always permitted focusing a bit beyond infinity, since the reflex viewing permits more accurate focusing on hot days when things expand.  The same is possible with any EVF, where you have the actual image and focus magnification to help.  Setting the infinity stop for a wide-to-medium angle lenses as accurately as possible for the M allows quicker focusing, but is not as accurate.  Perfectionists don't take this for granted but visit specialists to tune these things, usually sending the camera along.  I am not a perfectionist.

[pgk]

This is an old subject.  The longer R lenses, for example, have always permitted focusing a bit beyond infinity, since the reflex viewing permits more accurate focusing on hot days when things expand.  The same is possible with any EVF, where you have the actual image and focus magnification to help.  Setting the infinity stop for a wide-to-medium angle lenses as accurately as possible for the M allows quicker focusing, but is not as accurate.  Perfectionists don't take this for granted but visit specialists to tune these things, usually sending the camera along.  I am not a perfectionist.

 

My take on this is quite simple. SLRs and RFs are both high precision instruments capable of very fine tuning and allowing the user absolute control over precise focusing. EVF cameras are equally capable but are not quite as easy to use as absolute precision instruments (although they are capable of high precision if used carefully). Its this last bit that many don't seem to appreciate. Using an EVF for precise focus control means using manual focus, enlarging the area to be focused on and being careful, and using all appropriate aids. Personally I still think that a dSLR has the edge in AF myself, although I do use EVF cameras in AF (and have no choice sometimes) and have to force them to focus as I want. For MF nothing really beats the Leica M within its limitations and when accurately calibrated. So you pays your money and takes your choice.