SL+primes vs medium format

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One problem with APS-C there is no system available which I really see as a full replacement in regards of handling, lenses and built.

For my taste the CL is fine but too small and not weatherproof and long lenses lack IS. So I wouldnt want it as my only system. Also while the lenses are fine they are not fully up to the SL lenses in IQ (at least some of them).

Fuji is a nice body but I am not a x-trans fan. Nikon and Canon dx offer too few size advantages in regards of lenses compared to FF IMO.

And I agree-as soon as one wants to achieve the same shallow DOF options lenses have to be 1 stop faster and get vloser to FF lenses.

look at the m43 Oly pro lenses for example.

[lx1713]

At the quality level Leica is after the lens designers would not save much on lens size by going APSC if the design includes larger max aperture for DOF equivalence.

 

Those f/2.8 zooms proposed would be very similar in size to the existing SL zooms.

 

If I compare a Nikon fx lens with a Nikon dx lens, I would agree with you.

 

But wouldn't you say a TL 11-23 f3.5 - 4.5 compared with a SL 16-35 f3.5-4.5 or a TL  35mm f1.4 with a SL 50mm f1.5, a somewhat apples to apples comparison. Aren't the size and weight difference noticeable?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, you may well be right. I'm willing to have minor compromises for smaller lenses. For example I've noticed that Leica M lenses tend to vignette more than Zeiss ZM lenses. They are also somewhat smaller, because of the need to have a much an unblocked view for the rangefinder. Not a complain but rather consistently the larger ZM lens literature when compared with Leica M, the vignetting is more with Leica.

 

So if TL 2.8 zooms vignette more but are slimmer and lighter. Is that a reasonable compromise? I'm only using vignetting as an example of what I'm willing to give up. I'm not telling Leica what to do 

 

The biggest benefit of a slimmer lens is changing lenses quickly. That's a distinct professional advantage. A Leica lens is also a distinct professional advantage to me but I like to stack my odds with a little more. 

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

If I compare a Nikon fx lens with a Nikon dx lens, I would agree with you.

 

But wouldn't you say a TL 11-23 f3.5 - 4.5 compared with a SL 16-35 f3.5-4.5 or a TL 35mm f1.4 with a SL 50mm f1.5, a somewhat apples to apples comparison. Aren't the size and weight difference noticeable?

 

My point was that if you want equivalent DOF you lose the advantage of going to a smaller sensor. This was in response to the request for something like a 16-60 f/2.8-zoom to match up with the 24-90.

 

A TL 35 f/1.4 doesn’t match up to the SL 50 f/1.4 in DOF or in image quality. A larger max aperture would be needed to match the DOF for a given field of view.

 

The TL zoom would again need a larger max aperture to match the DOF offered by the SL zoom. I can’t compare quality as I’ve seen little from the 16-35 and mine has not arrived yet.

 

If Leica wanted to produce smaller SL lenses they could do so with smaller max aperture and lesser quality. An APSC sensor isn’t needed.

[lx1713]

My point was that if you want equivalent DOF you lose the advantage of going to a smaller sensor. This was in response to the request for something like a 16-60 f/2.8-zoom to match up with the 24-90.

 

A TL 35 f/1.4 doesn’t match up to the SL 50 f/1.4 in DOF or in image quality. A larger max aperture would be needed to match the DOF for a given field of view.

 

The TL zoom would again need a larger max aperture to match the DOF offered by the SL zoom. I can’t compare quality as I’ve seen little from the 16-35 and mine has not arrived yet.

 

If Leica wanted to produce smaller SL lenses they could do so with smaller max aperture and lesser quality. An APSC sensor isn’t needed.

 

Ah I understand your points now.

In going APSC on the SL, my priority is capturing the moment with a sufficiently high shutter speed and fast enough AF that a faster aperture would give me. A shallow DOF or higher image quality rarely gives me any advantage in capturing the moment.

Leica's TL lenses may not be the match of its SL lenses but they are excellent from my point of view and experience.

The small apertures of these zooms result in slower AF or out of focus shots too often, hence I ask for 2.8 versions.

 

It's relevant ultimately with regards to an ecosystem point of view. That if the L mount is meant for SL and TL lenses to co-exist interchangeably on their respective cameras, it can only be an effective system if certain advantages for each format can be emphasised and yet remain different for valid reasons. The Leica SL can deal with both hands but I would like Leica to enable us to deal expertly with either.

 

There are times when an event turns on the capture of a moment and times when image quality takes precedence. The question then is what should our Leica experience be?

[Guest VVJ]

One problem with APS-C there is no system available which I really see as a full replacement in regards of handling, lenses and built.

For my taste the CL is fine but too small and not weatherproof and long lenses lack IS. So I wouldnt want it as my only system. Also while the lenses are fine they are not fully up to the SL lenses in IQ (at least some of them).

 

I have been fairly disappointed by the lack of announcements after the TL2/CL.

 

What is out there is good to very good but IMO not sufficient after 4 years into the system.

 

There should be more lenses like the 35mm and 60mm and the zooms desperately need OIS.  

 

Leica needs to make up its mind about whether it is serious about the APS-C mount or not.

[tom0511]

Even if we are drifting to dx vs FF (vs medium format).

My wish for dx would be a camera not that much smaller than the SL and with the same user interface, but the CL is close to that.

I also would really want weather protection so I can bring the camera to the sea without having fear the salt craps inside camera and lenses.

Same for the lenses. And please AF for longer lenses and the standard zoom so I can take small movies without using a tripod.

And I agree with a former post. The TL lenses are excellent but the SL lenses are even better and one can see it.

In regards of capturing the moment - the bigger viewfinder of the SL and the even faster AF doesnt hurt.

The CL shines for its compact size and I really do like it for travel.

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been fairly disappointed by the lack of announcements after the TL2/CL.

 

What is out there is good to very good but IMO not sufficient after 4 years into the system.

 

There should be more lenses like the 35mm and 60mm and the zooms desperately need OIS.  

 

Leica needs to make up its mind about whether it is serious about the APS-C mount or not.

 

 

I think they made their mind up long ago. I believe Leica were the first to put APS into a premium compact camera, the X1. They have brought the T/TL and now the CL into fruition.

 

It's just that Leica moves at a pace much slower than what companies such as Sony can, and slower than our own expectations.

[Guest VVJ]

I think they made their mind up long ago. I believe Leica were the first to put APS into a premium compact camera, the X1. They have brought the T/TL and now the CL into fruition.

 

It's just that Leica moves at a pace much slower than what companies such as Sony can, and slower than our own expectations.

 

Even to Leica standards the progress is too slow... You can't build momentum if you only release one lens per year...  7 lenses in 4 years, none of them having stabilization, no IBIS, it is just not enough compared to the competition.

 

And the competition doesn't stand still either.  You can now buy a full frame Sony A7III with the 55mm/f1.8 lens for about the same price as an APS-C Leica CL body...

[meerec]

Even to Leica standards the progress is too slow... You can't build momentum if you only release one lens per year... 7 lenses in 4 years, none of them having stabilization, no IBIS, it is just not enough compared to the competition.

 

And the competition doesn't stand still either. You can now buy a full frame Sony A7III with the 55mm/f1.8 lens for about the same price as an APS-C Leica CL body...

Do you really need all that? OK ...

 

I don’t.

 

Made a conscious decision to sell all Canon pro gear, all Sony gear, when SL came out and never looked back, never missed old gear and their ‘fearures’ like IBIS. I’m getting results I couldn’t be happier about without them. I had X1D for a week to shoot with, and compared results side by side with my SL shooting same scenes. Results were very close for my all intended purposes.

Edited May 12, 2018 by meerec

[Guest VVJ]

Do you really need all that? OK ...

 

I don’t.

 

Made a conscious decision to sell all Canon pro gear, all Sony gear, when SL came out and never looked back, never missed old gear and their ‘fearures’ like IBIS. I’m getting results I couldn’t be happier about without them. I had X1D for a week to shoot with, and compared results side by side with my SL shooting same scenes. Results were very close for my all intended purposes.

 

Sounds like you found your system!  I am really happy for you dude!

[sillbeers15]

Do you really need all that? OK ...

 

I don’t.

 

Made a conscious decision to sell all Canon pro gear, all Sony gear, when SL came out and never looked back, never missed old gear and their ‘fearures’ like IBIS. I’m getting results I couldn’t be happier about without them. I had X1D for a week to shoot with, and compared results side by side with my SL shooting same scenes. Results were very close for my all intended purposes.

 

Would be great if you could share the SL & X1D pics.

[meerec]

Would be great if you could share the SL & X1D pics.

 

Sure, here are two shots to get started. Can you tell which one is which? Which is more pleasing?

SL had the summarit 2.4/35 lens attached, X1D was shot with the XCD 45mm lens, so equivalent POV.

 

 

 

[cpclee]

First image looks to have slightly smoother tones to me and possibly has a wider dynamic range, too.  So I'd think that's the X1D

[sillbeers15]

To my eyes, the 2nd image seems to get a half stop higher on 'highlights'. Apart, I could not see a distinct difference.

 

Thanks for posting these comparable images. 

 

Image comparision means all. Comparing spec & pixel count are really for kids.

[meerec]

You can click on each image to go to the source, ie. Flickr and check shooting parameters in the EXIF. The first image is X1D, the second is SL. I could probably process the SL image a bit differently to change its white balance a notch to match the X1D. Just like silbeers15 notes, I don’t see much difference in them. Mind you, I used a rather ‘basic’ and relatively inexpensive summarit lens on the SL. Since then, I’ve added other lenses to my kitbag, like the M-35 FLE which would render even nicer. To me, I don’t need the X1D for my shooting style, in many situations the SL is a winner for me over the X1D. Long time exposures for shooting landscapes is one area where X1D had a practical and convenient advantage however as far as results are concerned, again, SL doesn’t lose at all for my shooting, and my results.

Edited May 13, 2018 by meerec

[helged]

Sure, here are two shots to get started. Can you tell which one is which? Which is more pleasing?

SL had the summarit 2.4/35 lens attached, X1D was shot with the XCD 45mm lens, so equivalent POV.

 

 

 

Thanks! If you lift the exposure with, say, 3 full stops, I imagine that the X1D-file remains better/cleaner than the SL-file. If so, in difficult shooting situations, X1D has an advantage. Plus when printing large, obviously. But the SL is a fine machine, 'despite' its 24mp, no doubt about that...

[meerec]

Thanks! If you lift the exposure with, say, 3 full stops, I imagine that the X1D-file remains better/cleaner than the SL-file. If so, in difficult shooting situations, X1D has an advantage. Plus when printing large, obviously. But the SL is a fine machine, 'despite' its 24mp, no doubt about that...

 

I’ve lifted exposure by 5 stops to a very USABLE file on my SL, just this week.

Printing large, X1D files will give an edge. But I imagine you must print very large to really experience it.

Edited May 13, 2018 by meerec

[Jeff S]

I’ve lifted exposure by 5 stops to a very USABLE file on my SL, just this week.

Printing large, X1D files will give an edge. But I imagine you must print very large to really experience it.

Did you make prints for your comparisons or just compare screen shots?

 

Jeff

[meerec]

Did you make prints for your comparisons or just compare screen shots?

Jeff

 

I print some images not all, of course. So if you are asking about that particular image I lifted exposure by five stops, I did not print it. This is one of the images of a series I took that night, heavily underexposed with my Profoto A1 flash. Here is one of the series, to illustrate the type of image it was.

 

 

 

As for printing in general, I print A2 not larger, and for this size SL files are very adequate.

Edited May 13, 2018 by meerec

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

I was asking about your overall comparisons, not any one image.

 

If I didn’t make prints for all my worthy images, I wouldn’t even think about the X1D or equivalent, and probably not Leica or any other expensive gear. But that’s me.

 

Jeff