Nikon Z6, Z7 and Leica SL ..... (merged)

[lldd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm actually considering the Nikon.  I'm tired to waiting for lenses for the SL.  I'm tired to waiting months to actually get a new Leica camera once it's released.  I'm tired of waiting months when I send a camera in for a relatively simple service.  And I'm tired of the Leica prices that continue to rise at a pace that exceeds the increases of any other brand.

I agree that the SL is an astonishingly good camera.  But the overhead one pays for the experience is becoming harder and  harder to justify.

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb lldd:

And I'm tired of the Leica prices that continue to rise at a pace that exceeds the increases of any other brand.

I agree that the SL is an astonishingly good camera.  But the overhead one pays for the experience is becoming harder and  harder to justify.

Can’t blame you but the performance of the SL lenses is so good.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb lldd:

I'm actually considering the Nikon.

Consider that there is no place to rest your pinkie on the Nikon.

[Advertisement]

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

[bags27]

Drat! I can't find a recent discussion (on DPR maybe?) of M lenses on the Z7 (which has a pretty thin stack). Folks seem to really like it (though maybe a bit of aberration at the wider angle M lenses was the speculation).

The Z7 is high on my own list, too, but, as a Nikon film user, I just can't convince myself that photos from Nikon glass get close to those from Leica glass when both are at their best. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2019 by bags27

[mmradman]

23 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Drat! I can't find a recent discussion (on DPR maybe?) of M lenses on the Z7 (which has a pretty thin stack). Folks seem to really like it (though maybe a bit of aberration at the wider angle M lenses was the speculation).

The Z7 is high on my own list, too, but, as a Nikon film user, I just can't convince myself that photos from Nikon glass get close to those from Leica glass when both are at their best. 

 

 

There is discussion on M lens thread with link to FredMiranda.

Long before CMOS Leica M and SL Leica R lenses were converted for use on Nikon F and Canon EOS DSLR and even film cameras, with new Z even some M lenses are usable.  Real advantage of CaNikon over Leica is complete system with wide range of general and specialist lenses covering all focal lengths, where FL is overlapping with Leica CaNikon is more competitive, starting the obvious really.

[tom0511]

My take - it depends if the lenses one needs are offered by Leica. For me: yes (mostly). I find the 24-90 exceptional flexible, the 50/1.4 SL lens has a very subtile rendering, the 16-35 is very goos as well. Now for pro sports shooters it looks less positive. Just the 90-280 and thats all.

I really do like the SL system, but I believe it would be intersting for more people if Leica released more lenses faster.

[caissa]

That’s what the L-mount alliance is for ...🤓

I have the SL now three years, the number of native lenses was most of the time minimal. I would be foolish to switch now to another system just a very short time before there will be an abundance of lenses and maybe even several cameras to choose from ...

During all that time it was possible to switch to Canon or Nikon, so why should it be now ? I find the Canon R or Nikon Z not so extraordinary compared to their classic systems. (Actually much less complete than their classic systems)

And of course if long fast zooms were important then users kept their DSLRs for that special use, that has been the case during all the time, and a Z is currently no help for sports or birding.

Edited January 26, 2019 by caissa

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using both Leica (SL+S) and Nikon, I would gladly sell the Nikon gear when longer lenses in L-mount become available. I realise that this means that I most likely will loose the very quick and accurate af and speed/buffer of e.g. Nikon D5+400mm f2.8E, but this is ok with me. For shooters mainly in sports and wildlife, the L-system - as the mirrorless CaNikon-systems - may not be optimal. But for my shooting, and being a hobby-shooter, the Leica L-system, and particular the outstanding L-primes, is both attractive and addictive... And I also appreciate the use of the S-lenses on the SL. And importantly, with both Leica, Panasonic and Sigma FF L-mount bodies out in 2019 (surely for Pana, very likely for Leica and possibly for Sigma), the future for the L-system is bright, at least seen through my glasses. For landscape work, I am  v e r y  curious about the Sigma Foveon body...

Edited January 26, 2019 by helged

[Photon42]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:21 PM, bags27 said:

Drat! I can't find a recent discussion (on DPR maybe?) of M lenses on the Z7 (which has a pretty thin stack). Folks seem to really like it (though maybe a bit of aberration at the wider angle M lenses was the speculation).

The Z7 is high on my own list, too, but, as a Nikon film user, I just can't convince myself that photos from Nikon glass get close to those from Leica glass when both are at their best. 

 

 

You do not need to convince yourself, but you can either rent one with native S lenses or try one out in a shop. I would recommend to test out the Z7 with a 35 S and/or 50 S. Of course there is no guarantee that future Z models continue to work well with M lenses, but I would suspect much of that is part of the optical path specs for the overall system. I tried M lenses > 28mm and find the results very pleasing. 

In case you do occasional flash work: The Z gives you access to all current flash systems supporting HSS (and TTL, if that matters). Maybe the L mount alliance changes that at some point.

[Wojtek]

I bought Z6 about 1 month ago.

Quick comparison to SL, since I used both (owned only the Z6)

Two things worth remembering

1. We're comparing old camera (but still newest Leica model in it's class, so it's not really Nikon's fault Leica is slow at this) to the shiny brand new one

2. Any comparison where Leica looses will be seen as a personal attack by many Leica users / fans. Saying it probably won't help, but here it is - it's not an attack. 

 

SL is better if

• you prefer bigger camera (I don't)
• you prefer bigger lenses (I don't)
• you prefer minimalistic approach to design (I do!)
• you want a solid block of metal / aluminium / whatever (I don't)
• you prefer to support innovation (I do!)
• you prefer to own Leica (I do!)
• you want (confirmed) native Sigma Art experience in the future (I do!)
• you want better lens pouches (I don't know what pouches are added to SL lenses, but Nikon made the worst ones possible)

Z6 is better if

• you want better AF (I do!)
• you want in-body image stabilisation (I do!)
• you want better high ISO performance (I do!)
• you want better / the best video (I do!)
• you want better IQ* (I don't care)
• you want a faster camera (I don't care)
• you want native Profoto experience (I do!)
• you want eye AF soon (I do!)
• you want a tilting LCD (I do a little)
• price matters for you (for me it does)
• size matters (for me it does a little)
• weight matters (for me it doesn't)
• you prefer bigger mount (I don't care)

What I don't know:

• which lenses have better IQ (I'd take Nikon Z lenses very seriously here)
• which one works better with M lenses
• which battery lasts longer (easy to check, but don't trust official numbers)
• which EVF is better (I think Nikon, but I'd have to use them side by side)
• which camera looks better in your opinion (I prefer SL a little)
• which camera has better handling for you (I prefer Z6 pretty noticeably, but most of the time I don't care, because I almost never hold my camera for long periods of time) 
• which camera is better with focus magnification and focus peaking (I'm almost sure Z wins here)

* - this will be the most controversial point I made. But hey, show me any proof that SL glass is better without using "because I think so!" and "(...) Leica pop!" phrases. Sadly, I found none. Especially considering sensor which captures those lenses data. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Wojtek

[helged]

18 minutes ago, Wojtek said:

I bought Z6 about 1 month ago.

Quick comparison to SL, since I used both (owned only the Z6)

SL is better if

• you prefer bigger camera (I don't)
• you prefer bigger lenses (I don't)
• you prefer minimalistic approach to design (I do!)
• you want a solid block of metal / aluminium / whatever (I don't)
• you prefer to support innovation (I do!)
• you prefer to own Leica (I do!)

Z6 is better if

• you want better AF (I do!)
• you want image stabilisation (I do!)
• you want better high ISO performance (I do!)
• you want better / the best video (I do!)
• you want better IQ* (I don't care)
• you want a faster camera (I don't care)
• you want native Profoto experience (I do!)
• you want eye AF soon (I do!)
• you want faster camera (I don't)
• price matters for you (for me it does)
• size matters (for me it does a little)
• weight matters (for me it doesn't)
• you prefer bigger mount (I don't care)

What I don't know:

• which lenses have better IQ (I'd take Nikon Z lenses very seriously here)
• which battery lasts longer (easy to check, but don't trust official numbers)
• which EVF is better (I think Nikon, but I'd have to use them side by side)
• which camera looks better in your opinion (I prefer SL a little)
• which camera has better handling for you (I prefer Z6 pretty noticeably, but most of the time I don't care, because I almost never hold my camera for long periods of time) 

* - this will be the most controversial point I made. But hey, show me any proof that SL glass is better without using "because I think so!" and "(...) Leica pop!" phrases. Sadly, I found none. Especially considering sensor which captures those lenses data. 

Interesting - and honest - list of points, much appreciated!

Regarding lenses: All I can say is congratulation to Nikon if the new S-lenses is optically near/can match the Leica SL primes. The three SL zooms are also great, but the primes are just ... different. And as stated above, my Nikon gear will go the day long lenses are available in L-mount. 

Another factor to the mix: The SL is now 3+ years (I got mine in Nov 2015), whereas the mirrorless CanNikons are brand new. We know more about generation #2 of the FF, L-mount sensors on Friday with the definite release of the Panasonic S1R. And sometime later in 2019, Leica will come with their SL2 - both with 50-ish mp sensors (true for S1R, to be expected for SL2). In addition, Sigma will release their Foveon FF body, also likely/possibly in 2019. For me, this gives confidence in the L-mount system. And clearly, there will be quite some L-lenses on the market in the relatively near future. That being said, I strongly believe that the mirrorless CanNikon-systems are great.

Edited January 30, 2019 by helged

[caissa]

If you have no camera and make a new start, then Z6 or Z7 are of course valid options and the old SL is not ranking in the first three places.

But most photogs here already have their equipment. E.g. I have the SL and the Canon 5Ds (And a D800 that probably does not count anymore 😉). So I am prepared for all occasions and the Z cameras do not really give me new possibilities or the Canon R as well.

I rather wait for other landmarks, mainly the additional lenses from Panasonic and Sigma, or maybe a S1R to finally replace the DSLR, but I have a lot of time, to make the best choice and make a great deal, if possible.

The new Mirrorless from CaNikon are not good enough, yet, to make a real difference for me. Or maybe better expressed, their system (native lenses) is still not too exciting for me. (The Nikon lenses look like second place to the Canon, at least regarding specs on paper. And the Canon have great specs but I do not trust their quality - the images I’ve seen were mainly quite terrible, certainly no match to the results with SL lenses. But this is maybe personal taste. ) The 5Ds (with the classical lenses) is currently more valuable to me than the Mirrorless R (But generally I find Mirrorless more useful).  👍

Edited January 30, 2019 by caissa

[IkarusJohn]

“... the old SL is not ranking in the first three places.”

I stopped reading at this point.  Ranked by whom, and on what basis?  Because it’s not new and shiny?  Features?  What?

Ranked on what it was supposed to do when I bought it, and against similar offerings I have (none), my SL comes top!  I’m not being a Leica fanboy or sensitive about my equipment - simply assessing it for what it does and what I need.  Would a new mirrorless from another manufacturer make my camera less effective or spur me to change?  No.  

Am I considering yet another M lens I promised myself I would not buy to go with my archaic M-A, ancient (in digital terms) version 1 Monochrom and anachronistic, crippled, pointless M10-D?  Sadly, yes.  The SL has features and functions I have not even begun to explore, and boy, those lenses ... even if the other offerings made me coffee, I would not be interested ...

[thighslapper]

12 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

“... the old SL is not ranking in the first three places.”

I stopped reading at this point.  Ranked by whom, and on what basis?  Because it’s not new and shiny?  Features?  What?

Ranked on what it was supposed to do when I bought it, and against similar offerings I have (none), my SL comes top!  I’m not being a Leica fanboy or sensitive about my equipment - simply assessing it for what it does and what I need.  Would a new mirrorless from another manufacturer make my camera less effective or spur me to change?  No.  

Am I considering yet another M lens I promised myself I would not buy to go with my archaic M-A, ancient (in digital terms) version 1 Monochrom and anachronistic, crippled, pointless M10-D?  Sadly, yes.  The SL has features and functions I have not even begun to explore, and boy, those lenses ... even if the other offerings made me coffee, I would not be interested ...

I think we all tend to overlook the part lenses play in the equation and get seduced by shiny new buttons and features that although theoretically useful may never actually be used ......

High megapixel sensors are going to show up the inadequacies of most lenses out there .... and it is no coincidence that Nikon, Canon and now Panasonic have shown signs they are upping their game with new lenses where size and weight are being sacrificed for quality. Every time I use the SL 75/2 I am immediately struck by the image quality and available detail ..... which in LR can be sharpened to almost any degree and remain artefact free. The SL (and CL) lenses are the main reason I have not migrated to MF or another system, even though there are temptations .....

[caissa]

I am not interested in switching, but would like to know if the WATE (16-18-21) has been tested on the Z7. It was usually the least critical of the wide-angle M lenses. So it “should” work ok.

Of course I also have the same question regarding the S1/S1R .

Edited February 11, 2019 by caissa

[tom0511]

I am an SL user and happy with the lenses I own (The 3 Zooms + 50 + 75) BUT: availability of primes and prices are not funny.

I could buy a Nikon Z7+2 primes for the price of just the 35/2.0 Leica SL lens. (actually one can not buy the 35/2.0 lens yet).

If I imagine whta the SLII-body will cost, I do wonder what it will offer over the Z7?

I also wonder hoe much better are the Leica lenses over the Nikon Z lenses.

Strong reasons for me to stay with the SL are the 16-35 and 24-90. But the prices of the Leica primes are really hard to accept (for me).

Edited March 1, 2019 by tom0511

[Guest]

I wish they were cheaper too! But for me, I consider the price worth paying, so I do. If I didn't (and they wouldn't have to increase much for that to be the case), I wouldn't.

(Part of the reason I consider it worth paying isn't just the image quality - it's the design and build and design of the SL body and lenses. They make photography significantly more enyable, for me, and there is no other system that is close - Hasselblad X1D is closest, but it has other significant drawbacks, again, for my personal shooting style and requirements, that make it a no go.)

[tom0511]

I also do like the SL and its lenses build and feel.

However I would also not mind to have some smaller and lighter lenses available.

 

[Guest]

Small and lighter than the 75 and 90 primes? Personally I think these are just right, and any smaller would see them look and feel unbalanced on the SL body. The zooms are big and heavy, but they do a lot, and the laws of physics can't get be bent!

[tom0511]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb AndyGarton:

Small and lighter than the 75 and 90 primes? Personally I think these are just right, and any smaller would see them look and feel unbalanced on the SL body. The zooms are big and heavy, but they do a lot, and the laws of physics can't get be bent!

The 50/1.4 isnt really compact either. The 75,90 and 35 handle very nice.

Anyways, the Sl is a great system, there is some price for it: weight and money.

3 years ago the SL was unique, today there is quite some competition.   

Interesting times. I really like the SL system, but I wouldnt mind some smaller lenses and faster time to market of new lenses.

Edited March 1, 2019 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Agent M10]

20 hours ago, tom0511 said:

  Interesting times. I really like the SL system, but I wouldnt mind some smaller lenses and faster time to market of new lenses.

The primes are small and light, considering the AF motors, glass, and aluminum. If you want smaller you could opt for M lenses. I think that is part of the brilliance of the SL. You can choose to have state-of-the-art primes or, if you want smaller, you can go with manual M lenses. There really isn't anything in between unless you want to give up a number of f-stops, like an AF Summaron or something. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Agent M10