My Take on the APO-Summicron SL 35mm Asph

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Perhaps I'm unique (I don't think so), but for many purposes I really don't want more than 24mp (I don't mean "not need"!). 

+1.  Hence my feeling that Leica could well push the SL line in two directions, one for excellent video* (the SL2-) and enough still pixels for any of us, and the other (the SL2+)  to exploit 47 MPx and leading edge lens quality for those who have enough free wall space (or customers) to demand 1 meter prints.  They could try to do it all in one next camera model, but I hope they won't.  I haven't seen Leica field enough hardware compute power or demonstrate sufficiently subtle software/firmware skills to pull that off with good power management and battery life.

*why can't we have 10 bit inside the camera datastreams to get rid of five or six pieces of gear lashed onto a carrying frame, and codecs that support high frame rates or nicely compressing the still frame dynamic range that the sensor is capable of?  The L-Log was only a small first step.  Panasonic probably understands this best.  And Leica has a cinema lens affiliate with nosebleed, rental-only prices that ought to bring a warm glow to the folks in Solms sitting around a table making marketing and planning decisions.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[Advertisement]

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

[scott kirkpatrick]

9 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Hi There - the IBIS is nice (not that I had much problem with camera shake), ...

IBIS reached some sort of a plateau with the Olympus M-1.2 (and there's now an M-1X with extra batteries in a big handgrip), coupled with the 12-100 (remember the effective focal lengths are doubled) OIS lens.  I've had that for some years and it's great for effortless video, a little lacking for still image depth, but still a keeper. I'd be surprised if the full frame IBIS solutions or Fuji's X-1H can top it.

Edited May 20, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[LocalHero1953]

I'm another who neither wants nor needs more pixels.
My main aspirations for better photographs go in the direction of better composition/content/stories rather than detail that can't be seen by most people.
I can be tempted by better colour, wider dynamic range, low light performance and usability, but not by features that make no difference to how I get the end result or how it is seen. And I would rather avoid features that make my life difficult, like larger file sizes.

[Chaemono]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb scott kirkpatrick:

+1.  Hence my feeling that Leica could well push the SL line in two directions, one for excellent video* (the SL2-) and enough still pixels for any of us, and the other (the SL2+)  to exploit 47 MPx and leading edge lens quality for those who have enough free wall space (or customers) to demand 1 meter prints. 

 

Jono dismissed the idea that there will be two SL2 versions, at least initially.

vor 6 Stunden schrieb scott kirkpatrick:

 They could try to do it all in one next camera model, but I hope they won't. 

You know better because you're an engineer, but I hope they do. Multiple resolutions in one body through pixel binning would be awesome.

vor 6 Stunden schrieb scott kirkpatrick:

I haven't seen Leica field enough hardware compute power or demonstrate sufficiently subtle software/firmware skills to pull that off with good power management and battery life.

But then you shatter these hopes with some valid skepticism here.

vor 6 Stunden schrieb scott kirkpatrick:

..., and the other (the SL2+)  to exploit 47 MPx

I don't think 47 MPx is the right number for the SL2 BTW.

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

Jono dismissed the idea that there will be two SL2 versions, at least initially.

You know better because you're an engineer, but I hope they do. Multiple resolutions in one body through pixel binning would be awesome.

But then you shatter these hopes with some valid skepticism here.

I don't think 47 MPx is the right number for the SL2 BTW.

HI There

Why don’t you think 47mpx for the SL2? I would have expected it to have the same sensor as the Q2 (like the SL / Q sensor). 

[scott kirkpatrick]

SL-P is a better designation for the model that gets things righter and doesn't take hours to upload a dng over Fotos.

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb jonoslack:

HI There

Why don’t you think 47mpx for the SL2? I would have expected it to have the same sensor as the Q2 (like the SL / Q sensor). 

Now, I’m often being misled intentionally when I ask, but I tried to gauge by the reaction whether the Q2/S1R sensor for the SL2 was confirmed or not. I was told that because of the corner smearing with wide angle M lenses it won’t be the same sensor as in the S1R. It seems to be a serious issue and ray angle apparently isn’t the sole determinant but pixel size seems to matter, too, as I understand it. I asked if the SL2 would then have 24 MPx to reduce corner smearing. And I was given a different number than 47 MPx. It was actually higher. It could have been total baloney, though. On the corner smearing, they are working to resolve it. I would think you know more about the SL2 sensor at this point than I do. So, if you think 47 MPx, it might well be. I would still bet against it. 😀

[jonoslack]

22 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Now, I’m often being misled intentionally when I ask, but I tried to gauge by the reaction whether the Q2/S1R sensor for the SL2 was confirmed or not. I was told that because of the corner smearing with wide angle M lenses it won’t be the same sensor as in the S1R. It seems to be a serious issue and ray angle apparently isn’t the sole determinant but pixel size seems to matter, too, as I understand it. I asked if the SL2 would then have 24 MPx to reduce corner smearing. And I was given a different number than 47 MPx. It was actually higher. It could have been total baloney, though. On the corner smearing, they are working to resolve it. I would think you know more about the SL2 sensor at this point than I do. So, if you think 47 MPx, it might well be. I would still bet against it. 😀

Interesting. 

A question: Does the Kolari modification work better with the Sony A7iii than with the A7riii?

 For perfection with M lenses then the modified micro lenses of the M10 is clearly the best solution. Does the SL have modified microlenses? I don’t know for sure but I wouldn’t assume so  

But WRT smearing I’ve come increasingly to the conclusion that the thickness of the coverglass is the only really significant factor. Not resolution. (Hence the Kolari modification question )

If I’m right then Leica could easily use the same sensor with a different coverglass. But of course you might argue that was then a different sensor!

If the resolution itself was the problem then surely changing to a higher resolution sensor wouldn’t help!

Of course, I can speculate about this because I don’t know what the answer is

[Chaemono]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb jonoslack:

A question: Does the Kolari modification work better with the Sony A7iii than with the A7riii?

But WRT smearing I’ve come increasingly to the conclusion that the thickness of the coverglass is the only really significant factor. Not resolution. (Hence the Kolari modification question )

If I’m right then Leica could easily use the same sensor with a different coverglass.

Good question and good points. I asked if the cover glass on the S1R was too thick. It was dismissed as the main issue. I got the sense they want high resolution, support for legacy R and M lenses, and wide angle M lenses. It sounded like a challenge but not insurmountable. 

[jonoslack]

18 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Good question and good points. I asked if the cover glass on the S1R was too thick. It was dismissed as the main issue. I got the sense they want high resolution, support for legacy R and M lenses, and wide angle M lenses. It sounded like a challenge but not insurmountable. 

Well. Sean Reid certainly feels like cover glass is the main factor, and if it wasn’t, then why does the Kolari mod work so well?

.....and as it does work so well why look for a more challenging solution?

...... I sometimes wonder if they intentionally spread different stories just to confuse?

 

[BernardC]

52 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

then why does the Kolari mod work so well?

Does it? Honest question, BTW.

The reviews I've read typically conclude that it's better than non-modified Sony cameras, but not as good as an M or SL. The final conclusion is the usual "restrict yourself to Leica lenses 50mm and above," with a few exceptions like the Tri-Elmar.

I don't subscribe to the pay sites, so I don't know what they think.

The Kolari site itself was very shy about the M mod, last time I checked. They are much more vocal about their wide-spectrum mods.

[Chaemono]

For what it’s worth, Kolari mod is better but not optimal in this test: https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/kolari-vision-thin-stack-mod-on-a7ii-28mm-elmarit-m/

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Of course, I can speculate about this because I don’t know what the answer is

And given that, perhaps what Chaemono was told has some truth to it.  I would have expected, given the S1R has been announced and shipping for some time, that the die would have been cast by now and you'd be under NDA and testing. 

Regardless, I would like one message to be communicated to Leica. Please, please, please articulate a direction for FF.  No details, no product specifics, just a basic direction. What does the future hold for the current product lines? What is the positioning of the M vs. SL?  Yes, yes, we know the M will always be an RF, the SL an EVF, but we've not the slightest clue as to what that means for their future innards.  What are the avenues seen as important for future improvement.  Is the M first and foremost a street reportage camera, where gobs of extra pixels are easily traded for more dynamic range and low light performance? Is the SL truly a pro system with additional effort coming around strengthening its use as studio camera?  Or are both to be state or at least close to state of the art platforms with the only substantive difference being the VF and method of focus?

These systems represent a substantial investment, switching more so.  The alliance offers an avenue, particularly for someone like myself who holds Leica optics in the highest regard, but yet to invest in the SL system, to contemplate alternatives. Particularly so, when there are bodies and lenses available today that are a mere click and credit card away.  The primary thing holding me back at this moment, is I havent a clue as to the future direction of the M, a system I am heavily invested in, nor if the SL can act as a bridge to the future given my eyes and reflexes aren't getting any better with age.  I do believe that Leica will produce a more focussed product than either of the other two L-A members, but this is pure faith a this point. I'd prefer to have some hard direction on the nature of these cameras, so that I can chart my own future while they are developing theirs.

[IkarusJohn]

Good luck with that.

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

And given that, perhaps what Chaemono was told has some truth to it.  I would have expected, given the S1R has been announced and shipping for some time, that the die would have been cast by now and you'd be under NDA and testing. 

Regardless, I would like one message to be communicated to Leica. Please, please, please articulate a direction for FF.  No details, no product specifics, just a basic direction. What does the future hold for the current product lines? What is the positioning of the M vs. SL?  Yes, yes, we know the M will always be an RF, the SL an EVF, but we've not the slightest clue as to what that means for their future innards.  What are the avenues seen as important for future improvement.  Is the M first and foremost a street reportage camera, where gobs of extra pixels are easily traded for more dynamic range and low light performance? Is the SL truly a pro system with additional effort coming around strengthening its use as studio camera?  Or are both to be state or at least close to state of the art platforms with the only substantive difference being the VF and method of focus?

These systems represent a substantial investment, switching more so.  The alliance offers an avenue, particularly for someone like myself who holds Leica optics in the highest regard, but yet to invest in the SL system, to contemplate alternatives. Particularly so, when there are bodies and lenses available today that are a mere click and credit card away.  The primary thing holding me back at this moment, is I havent a clue as to the future direction of the M, a system I am heavily invested in, nor if the SL can act as a bridge to the future given my eyes and reflexes aren't getting any better with age.  I do believe that Leica will produce a more focussed product than either of the other two L-A members, but this is pure faith a this point. I'd prefer to have some hard direction on the nature of these cameras, so that I can chart my own future while they are developing theirs.

Oh Dear!

The problem with articulating a direction for FF is that if you project what you’re going to do in the next (say) 5 years, then you either have to stick with it . . . Or else you have to change it - sticking with it will have alienated the people who wanted something different and changing it will alienate the other half. . . . At least by keeping your mouth shut you keep everyone hoping for the best! Added to which that it’s probably not great business sense to tell your competitors your business strategy a few years in advance!

I think the L mount alliance offers a future with lots of alternatives, both in terms of cameras and lenses . . . But even that is complicated by anti trust laws which means that the members of the alliance can’t talk to each other about what they’re developing!

[jonoslack]

5 hours ago, BernardC said:

Does it? Honest question, BTW.

The reviews I've read typically conclude that it's better than non-modified Sony cameras, but not as good as an M or SL. The final conclusion is the usual "restrict yourself to Leica lenses 50mm and above," with a few exceptions like the Tri-Elmar.

I don't subscribe to the pay sites, so I don't know what they think.

The Kolari site itself was very shy about the M mod, last time I checked. They are much more vocal about their wide-spectrum mods.

Hi Bernard

I’ve not tried one (I’m really not convinced by using lenses on cameras not designed for them - in any direction) but I’d understood that it worked really well.

What my testing with some cameras (without mods) is that 50mm is no sort of ‘safe zone’ and (for instance) the 50 APO produces nasty smearing on at least one camera even up to f5.6 and 1/4 in from the edge of the frame . . . . But hey - maybe this is off topic here . . And maybe there isn’t really a proper answer!

[IkarusJohn]

More simplistically, this issue tends to arise with brands that have a strong following.

The sport of paragliding tends to arouse strong feelings in its adherents, and those strong feelings translate into pilots' preferred equipment brands.  These things arouse passions, and people want to know what is coming next.  I'm sure I have told this story before, but one designer with a particularly avid following is also a perfectionist - his gliders have a particular feel and behaviour, and they are consistently the highest performing gliders in competition - they are also not the cheapest.

Pilots always want to know what is coming next.  To give you an idea of how nutty the sport is, the average glider only lasts for 300 or so flying hours, meaning that many pilots will change their gliders every three years (they cost about $4,000 a pop).  During the development years, I was changing my glider every year.  So, the pressure is on the designers to announce their new models.

This particular company is slow, and the designer fastidious.  One year, we had been trying to keep people patient over the next glider - we thought it was in safety testing.  It was, and it had passed, which meant that it could go to production, but the designer suddenly had a better idea, ditched the glider and started the whole process from scratch.  Frustrating, but it was worth it.

My point is, buy what you see now.  Sure, wait for the next model if you like, but what you see now will still be as good as it is now.  The next model will be "better" in some ways, but like the M5, the M(240) or the M10, it might not actually be what you want.  The SL remains the best camera of its class (in my view) and the SL lenses truly are as good as everyone says they are.  If size and weight are an issue, then start with the SL and the 35 Summicron-SL, and an M-L adapter.  You won't regret it.

But you will regret gazing at the tealeaves wondering what is coming next.  What you see now is what you get.  Leica is unlikely to announce anything before it is announced.

PS - I should add that Leica is already being beaten up over the SL lens roadmap, the S3 and the S lens roadmap.  I can't imagine them compounding the problem by digging themselves a hole with the LS and future M cameras ...

Edited May 20, 2019 by IkarusJohn

[jonoslack]

Beautifully put John

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Tailwagger]

 

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Oh Dear!

The problem with articulating a direction for FF is that if you project what you’re going to do in the next (say) 5 years, then you either have to stick with it . . . Or else you have to change it - sticking with it will have alienated the people who wanted something different and changing it will alienate the other half. . . .

And yet thats exactly what they've done... almost... two years with the L optics roadmap. Nothing new in that. Every ILC manufacturer introducing a new platform, even a mature one seems utterly comfortable with expressing this set of plans as without them, few would ever buy in.  Likewise, the question on my table is what in general terms, other than the name, will an SL2 offer me that the Panos do not (and vice versa).  Panasonic gave the general outline of what they were up to, showed prototypes, etc, months before the official announcement. Why is it Leica can not do the same? Perhaps the M is a different fish, but at least in the SL case, it seems pretty clear that a new version is imminent. In this case, we're not talking about projecting even a year out, we're speaking about getting enough info to anticipate staying in the fold or bolting into the arms of another alliance member for lack of any information whatsoever.

Perhaps I'm unique in this, but I find the L-Alliance move has created a bit of a crisis for me. I do not buy bodies, I buy into optical families, hence for the past half decade or so, far shorter than many here, I've shots Ms. That, as we all know, has its significant positives, but substantial limitations as well. It's a compromise in flexibility in the favor of a broader palette that, to date, I have been willing to make. The changing landscape, both personally as well as with the industry, has forced me reevaluate those limitations to a point where although I love my Ms, I am considering once again changing systems.  As I've said many times, an EVF M-mount camera could halt that, but despite recent rumors, I've given up on entirely on that notion ever becoming reality. 

This puts me, at least psychologically, at a difficult cross road. Give up, accept a clean break, close the M chapter, buying full into the L-A via a Pano with an entirely new, albeit smaller, constellation of optics. Or await the introduction of the SL2 as the best path to bridging my current M glass, with a few additions on the long and wide end, to the inevitable time a few years down the road when AF becomes a necessity and the M glass a memory.  If, OTOH, M lens support is not a serious priority for the next SL, that, much like an EVF M, becomes no more than an imaginary path forward.  So again, I wasn't asking for precision or specs, simply a statement, or a restatement perhaps, of intent and philosophy going forward. 

[cpclee]

17 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm another who neither wants nor needs more pixels.
My main aspirations for better photographs go in the direction of better composition/content/stories rather than detail that can't be seen by most people.
I can be tempted by better colour, wider dynamic range, low light performance and usability, but not by features that make no difference to how I get the end result or how it is seen. And I would rather avoid features that make my life difficult, like larger file sizes.

I too feel no need to have more than 24mp.  The only new feature that I can think of that could compel me to go out and buy a new SLx is when it gets the color fidelity of the S cameras.