Leica is blowing my mind!

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 hours ago, celticursa said:

My comparisons were all @50-58mm: Nikkor 58/1.2 Noct, Nikon 50/1.8 S, Summicron-M 50/2 ASPH, Summilux-M 50/1.4 ASPH, Noctilux 50/0.95 and Summilux-SL 50/1.4. I used Leica M-F + Nikon FTZ adapters to mount the M-lenses to the Z7, Leica M-SL adapter to mount the M-lenses to the SL, and the Nikon FTZ adapter to mount the Noct to the Z7...lots of mixing and matching

The M-lenses on the SL were IMO just OK in sharpness but clearly not up to what those lenses can produce on my M240, especially off-center and edge crispness. The M-lenses on the Z7 were only acceptable at best even in the center, again in comparison to those same lenses on my M240.

in the special case of the Nocf on the Z7+FT Z/Nocf on my D850 vs. the Noctilux on the M240, I much preferred the Nocf to the Noctilux from F1.2 and above. It became obvious the Noctilux was not worth keeping to cover the 0.95-1.2 aperture range where my ability to focus my M240 is virtually non-existent now. Your MMV depending on your eyesight.

The preceding is entirely regarding sharpness. Where the rubber meets the road is the Z7+50/1.8 S vs. SL+Summilux SL 50/1.4...that is, native AF lens vs. native AF lens. The Z7 has twice the MPXs of the SL and it shows up consistently with significantly sharper images from the Z7. In addition, the AF speed and dynamic range of Z7 is vastly superior...in my subjective view, at least 3 stops higher.

Lastly, color is a very personal subjective issue...everyone has their preferences. While Leica SL color leaves nothing on the table, I prefer Nikon color. I have been a Nikon shooter for a very long time and during those years I have owned Leica film RFs and Leicaflex SLRs and have always preferred Nikon color.

Pretty lengthy post so I’ll stop now and hope the above is useful.

I do not own an M, but most SL users who do claim that they can see little if any difference when using M lenses on either camera. There have been a number of such posts on this forum, though I am not about to search for them. I use M and R lenses on my SL, and both mounts perform exceedingly well. I have no experience with either of the Nikon Z cameras. If you prefer the Nikon, that is your privilege.

[thighslapper]

On 1/25/2019 at 8:45 PM, celticursa said:

The preceding is entirely regarding sharpness. Where the rubber meets the road is the Z7+50/1.8 S vs. SL+Summilux SL 50/1.4...that is, native AF lens vs. native AF lens. The Z7 has twice the MPXs of the SL and it shows up consistently with significantly sharper images from the Z7. In addition, the AF speed and dynamic range of Z7 is vastly superior...in my subjective view, at least 3 stops higher.

........ I think you mean higher resolution ...... you would need to to do a lens comparison with similar sensors to assess 'sharpness' ...... and from my experience you can sharpen images in LR from the SL to a much greater degree than most other RAW's before you get any artefacts. 

I'm also a bit bemused about your statement regarding  Dynamic Range ...... from what I can find the difference is about 1 stop ..... and that's from a camera that is over 3 years old .... 

[helged]

9 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

I'm also a bit bemused about your statement regarding  Dynamic Range ...... from what I can find the difference is about 1 stop ..... and that's from a camera that is over 3 years old .... 

+1.

[Flyer]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:32 AM, pgk said:

If you buy a used digital M and decide that you don't like RF cameras then you will lose a great deal less than if you buy a new M10 and sell it. If you are seriously interested in trying a dRF then talk to a dealer - you might well be able to swing a deal whereby you buy an older camera and have a known trade in (as long as its in the same condition as when you bought it) within a specified time, against an M10. I've used RF cameras for 40 years so know their and my limitations with them, but they can be an acquired taste and blowing £7k without knowing whether you will like using them or will get on with them, seems a bit enthusiastic to be honest.

Sound advise about asking a retailer for a "deal" on return/upgraded. Thanks again

 

Flyer

[Flyer]

On 1/25/2019 at 11:29 AM, tom0511 said:

Ever thought about a CL instead? The size is more like the M10 but with (nearly) the flexibility of the SL. It also would allow you to stay in the budget and still get another lens later if you want.

If I was shooting just manually and only 35mm it would be the M10 over the SL hands down for me.

Hi  Thanks for the advise, CL could be an option I have never explored and excluded it because of an APS sensor, but I will look into it. Looks like your advise is if manual go M10, which I guess is the whole purpose of the M system.

 

Cheers

[Flyer]

On 1/25/2019 at 11:32 AM, earleygallery said:

If I was to design the perfect camera for "me" it would be a QP with changeable lenses, so I need to think what is nearest to that?

I think you're confusing yourself (and me, I thought you'd already swapped the M for an SL).

Nearest to a 'QP with changeable lenses' is probably the CL. You could buy that with the standard and tele zooms.

Otherwise maybe it's simply that Leica doesn't offer you the best solution for your needs and you should look elsewhere?

No I haven't yet received an SL but luckily the M that I received was damaged. I haven't totally excluded either. BUT I need to convince myself that if I go manual focus, then its got to be the M. If I want to go AF then I guess I only have the CL, or maybe the SL with adapted lenses. However I am unsure if these work with any consistency?

Whats for sure is that I have had a lot of advise and now I need to weigh up the pros and cons and bite the bullet.

 

Flyer

[Flyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/25/2019 at 2:54 PM, EddieCheddar said:

Hey now. 

Here’s my story:  I started with a Leica Q, and used that for a couple of years — great camera.  I then sold it and upgraded to the M10 with a .35 lens — that system made me a way better photographer.  I used the M10 for a year and loved it.  However, I noticed that I spent more time concentrating on “focusing’ via the range finder and VisoFlex (I’m 54, and wear contacts) instead of concentrating on exposure, composure, et cetera. So, I sold the M10, and got the SL which I use with my .35 lens, and the SL 24-90. 

The M10 is way ‘cooler’ and may be a tad more fun to use.  The SL is awesome in every way, and there are zero issues with focusing via the EVF.  Manual lenses on the SL are great, and fun to use.   Manual focusing via the range finder became more of a burden for me.  Maybe you can “try’” and SL out via a Leica store for 24 hours?   Hope that helps some. 

Thanks for your advise and experiences. I want to try and avoid making a number of mistakes and finish up losing a ton of cash. I bought the Nikon Z7 package in November and sold it 3 weeks ago with a lose of £1,400. This hast to be my last camera for at least 2 years. When I had the M10 for a few hours (which is no time to make any real assessment) I found the OVF bright and nice to use BUT the Visoflex gave me so much more info and focus peaking . Now thats something I may get used to with the OVF, and maybe I shouldn't have got the EVF until I had mastered the patch focus? My perfect camera would be the Q with interchangeable lenses, but no point in looking at whats not available, the nearest to that I guess is the CL.

So at the moment its the SL with a 35mm and buy the EOS adaptor and play with some L glass to see if any focus well?

 

Cheers

[earleygallery]

28 minutes ago, Flyer said:

No I haven't yet received an SL but luckily the M that I received was damaged. I haven't totally excluded either. BUT I need to convince myself that if I go manual focus, then its got to be the M. If I want to go AF then I guess I only have the CL, or maybe the SL with adapted lenses. However I am unsure if these work with any consistency?

Whats for sure is that I have had a lot of advise and now I need to weigh up the pros and cons and bite the bullet.

 

Flyer

I can't give any advice on the specifics but I think you should visit a dealer or several and have a play with the various options first.

Another suggestion if you're not sure about using a rangefinder camera and don't want to spend the money for a Leica to find out, is to buy one of the many cheap film rangefinders out there and shoot a few rolls of film. OK it won't be quite the same but you will find out if you take to the rangefinder approach. Cameras like a Zorki, Olympus XA, Canonet etc.

[mmradman]

34 minutes ago, Flyer said:

Thanks for your advise and experiences. I want to try and avoid making a number of mistakes and finish up losing a ton of cash. I bought the Nikon Z7 package in November and sold it 3 weeks ago with a lose of £1,400. This hast to be my last camera for at least 2 years. When I had the M10 for a few hours (which is no time to make any real assessment) I found the OVF bright and nice to use BUT the Visoflex gave me so much more info and focus peaking . Now thats something I may get used to with the OVF, and maybe I shouldn't have got the EVF until I had mastered the patch focus? My perfect camera would be the Q with interchangeable lenses, but no point in looking at whats not available, the nearest to that I guess is the CL.

So at the moment its the SL with a 35mm and buy the EOS adaptor and play with some L glass to see if any focus well?

 

Cheers

Well, your Z7 camera was closest you will get to Leica Q with interchangeable optics.  Leica SL601 is also such camera but slightly bigger and less MP than Z7, both SL and Z have advantages and drawbacks in relation to each other. 

I am surprised to read that you sold Z7 at loss after 3 weeks of ownership, have you considered returning, i think you are allowed one month cooling off after the purchase as new.

[Flyer]

1 hour ago, mmradman said:

Well, your Z7 camera was closest you will get to Leica Q with interchangeable optics.  Leica SL601 is also such camera but slightly bigger and less MP than Z7, both SL and Z have advantages and drawbacks in relation to each other. 

I am surprised to read that you sold Z7 at loss after 3 weeks of ownership, have you considered returning, i think you are allowed one month cooling off after the purchase as new.

I liked the Z7 but there was limitations with the lenses available without using an adaptor, and when using the adaptor you are back up to full size lenses again. Really its the compact form factor I want as I still have the Nikon D5 for my Wildlife/BIF. There was no grip available for the z7 and when you attach the 200-500 its very unbalanced, I guess thats why we have a "cordless drill" and a "corded powerful drill". The M10 gives me the versatility but not the bells and whistles and he Q gives me the bells and whistles but not the versatility, and thats where the SL may just be the right camera for me?

[mmradman]

1 hour ago, Flyer said:

I liked the Z7 but there was limitations with the lenses available without using an adaptor, and when using the adaptor you are back up to full size lenses again. Really its the compact form factor I want as I still have the Nikon D5 for my Wildlife/BIF. There was no grip available for the z7 and when you attach the 200-500 its very unbalanced, I guess thats why we have a "cordless drill" and a "corded powerful drill". The M10 gives me the versatility but not the bells and whistles and he Q gives me the bells and whistles but not the versatility, and thats where the SL may just be the right camera for me?

It's going to be couple of years before Z system has native lens system in place, ignoring your ergonomics concerns for a moment at least current "Electronic Aperture" AF F mount lenses are fully usable. 

Same thing happened with SL at launch in 2015 (i think), one zoom 24-90 followed by 90-280 and one prime, 50 f1.4. Two extra primes, 75 and 90 were released recently, and two more expected later this year, 35 & 50 f2.  From the outset SL was advertised as being compatible with M, R and Leica cine lenses to offset shortage of native lenses, all via adaptors.

Next time, providing you are prepared to take similar financial hit again, please let me know and i'll buy it off you, or you could just donate it to a charity.

[Flyer]

2 hours ago, mmradman said:

It's going to be couple of years before Z system has native lens system in place, ignoring your ergonomics concerns for a moment at least current "Electronic Aperture" AF F mount lenses are fully usable. 

Same thing happened with SL at launch in 2015 (i think), one zoom 24-90 followed by 90-280 and one prime, 50 f1.4. Two extra primes, 75 and 90 were released recently, and two more expected later this year, 35 & 50 f2.  From the outset SL was advertised as being compatible with M, R and Leica cine lenses to offset shortage of native lenses, all via adaptors.

Next time, providing you are prepared to take similar financial hit again, please let me know and i'll buy it off you, or you could just donate it to a charity.

👏👍

[MarkinVan]

8 hours ago, mmradman said:

It's going to be couple of years before Z system has native lens system in place, ignoring your ergonomics concerns for a moment at least current "Electronic Aperture" AF F mount lenses are fully usable. 

Same thing happened with SL at launch in 2015 (i think), one zoom 24-90 followed by 90-280 and one prime, 50 f1.4. Two extra primes, 75 and 90 were released recently, and two more expected later this year, 35 & 50 f2.  From the outset SL was advertised as being compatible with M, R and Leica cine lenses to offset shortage of native lenses, all via adaptors.

Next time, providing you are prepared to take similar financial hit again, please let me know and i'll buy it off you, or you could just donate it to a charity.

... and the wonderful SL 16-35 zoom in 2018.