GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

ok, so you saying GFX100s is the right choice for people who are fine with IQ and resolution but do want more speed than the Leica SL(2)? It is a good system for sports, running dogs etc for people who want super fast and reliable AF? The system also offers the right lenses for this.

It just sounds too perfect to be true.

 

 

nope im not saying that..what im saying is people should try out the cameras themselves and then decide, instead of repeating the same MF is slow line forever..

[Advertisement]

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

[Succisa75]

26 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

ok, so you saying GFX100s is the right choice for people who are fine with IQ and resolution but do want more speed than the Leica SL(2)? It is a good system for sports, running dogs etc for people who want super fast and reliable AF? The system also offers the right lenses for this.

It just sounds too perfect to be true.

 

 

Let me chime in as I have some experience with the 100S. Can it do sports? Yes..but you really need to dial the camera settings in. Is it as good as full frame like Sony, Canon, Nikon? No. 
It only does 5 fps, but for medium format at 5 fps AF-C that’s impressive  

Is it more reliable than the SL2? For AF yes, for tracking it’s slightly better. Problem with the SL2 is AF-C is limited in burst mode. If you want 10fps and above you only have AF-S which defeats the purpose. 
 

if you want to capture fast action with high resolution without worry get the A1. The camera is the best hybrid on the market currently. I say this after using it also quite extensively. I’m not a Sony fan but calling it as I see it. 
 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Succisa75

[Succisa75]

To be fair to the SL2 I feel this camera shines in good light, low ISO and still or slow moving subjects. 
At its base ISO it’s a phenomenal camera for IQ and the combo of the lens and sensor come alive. 
Higher ISO situations are a different story, but if one uses the SL2 where it’s strongest, it’s a fantastic camera. 

 

[Flou]

vor einer Stunde schrieb LocalHero1953:

 

Are you guys using AFc or AFs?

AFs all the time. AFc with the SL1 is really kind of useless and no joy to use.

[tom0511]

vor einer Stunde schrieb frame-it:

nope im not saying that..what im saying is people should try out the cameras themselves and then decide, instead of repeating the same MF is slow line forever..

I agree about trying out, I allways do this before deciding for a camera. People write a lot, but what counts is how it works for the specific person.

 

[ZHNL]

9 hours ago, Flou said:

I think everyone has to try the GFX 100s for a few days to find out, if the camera fulfill all our needs like handling, IQ, AF-speed and -accuracy and so on. What I heard was, that the AF is better than the AF of the SL-cameras. But that's something which should be confirmed by more users

 

But I can't agree with your last statement. I can't even take pictures with spot on focus of my 1 year old daughter, when she is stumbling towards me with my SL1...about more than half of the pictures didn't had the focus on the right place (eyes). What does your statement mean? That a Leica SL is only a camera for taking pictures of landscapes and non-moving subjects? I don't expect an autofocus system as fast and reliable as the AF of the new Sony Alpha 1...but an AF-system which works so fast and accurate like most AF-systems in 4-5 years old DSLR-Cameras or way cheaper Sony Alpha-models. That should be possible for a professional SL-system. 

 

And a crappy or mediocre AF-system is like having a rangefinder-system which is wobbly and works very inaccurate. All the IQ of the sensor and lenses, the handling and wonderful feel of the body and so on are helpless, if your pictures don't have the focus on the right place in many(!) cases. I never tried the SL2-s and I don't know how accurate the AF works in this new camera. But for the SL1 I can say: It's really the badest AF-system I ever had...even my old DSLR I bought like 12 years ago hat a better AF. And this should not be  the claim for Leica. Especially not for such an expensive camera which had the best EVF and IQ of FullFormat-Cameras at that time. It's like having an expensive super-sportscar and everything is mindblowingly wonderful...but the wheel axle gets crooked when moving faster than 80 miles/hour. 

First of all, do we have any video show that 100S has better AFc than SL2 or SL2-S? I just don't think it make sense to buy 100S for AFc. From initial youtube video, 100S with 80mm AFC performance is pretty miserable. I have 100s and 80 on order but I align my expectation with my decision that I will mostly take advantage of IBIS, 3 way LCD and great IQ and have low expectation for AF. I will complain if it fail on IBIS or IQ but not AF. If you choose original SL from beginning, you should feel great if you value craftsmanship, ergo, shooting experience, optical performance and leica system integration highly.(for M and S glasses use) If fancy AFc is must for you, then you have to pick different system and sacrifice some fields Leica did great in above.     

Maybe it because I have lots of experience with most modern systems, I would never expect Leica has competitive AF performance to begin with, without Panasonic's help (which is unfortunate itself in this case because Panasonic is dead last in this), it will be even more miserable.   

Having said that, the AF is enough for me. It is accurate and fast and is capable to most tasks of my photography need.  When my dog running toward me, I wish I have other systems on hand but I am the only one to blame in this case if I care so much about getting image like these as I know SL2 wouldn't deliver in this case from the beginning. (for slow moving subject, SL2 is more than enough with decent developed skill) You just can't have all. 

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

It's ridiculous to blame the photographer for shitty AF...

Likewise, I'm great at driving cars (involved in motorsport for 40+ years) and I love driving with a good manual gearbox.  

Having raced a little at the amateur level myself, I'm forced to mention that while it's a partnership, no doubt, if at the end of the day you're not standing on the podium... when the data shows that you didn't drag every last bit out of the car, improving the driver's performance is the more productive path going forward.

Given some of the frustrations I've experience with contrast detect systems over the years dating back to the XE-1, I've little reason to doubt that the PDAF remains superior to CDAF, nor that the annoyances it can impose are quite real. Having shot things like concerts and theater in modest light, I find the performance of the SL2 overall to be fine, but it is nowhere near close to fire and forget.  Perhaps some of my acceptance/success is down to having recognized a need to refine my CDAF technique with those very early Fuji systems.  Regardless, I don't find it surprising that the implementation isn't perfect nor that its comes under significant fire by some.

What I do find a little surprising however, particularly with experienced photographers chatting here in the shadow of HCB, is the expectation that chasing a subject around, rather than choosing a context and anticipating its motions therein, is the path to nirvana. I'm reminded of a personal breakthrough moment back in my early days of shooting with the M.  One day, I happened into a major cyclocross event armed only with the 240, a pre asph lux 35 and the CV Heliar 75mm 1.8.  I took it as a challenge to shoot the moving participants wide open and spent the next hour or two channeling, learning and developing a set of techniques to do so. I can't recall my hit rate, I'm sure it couldn't begin to approach what it might have been with an SL, let alone an A1, but I did come away with more than a few memorable, if somewhat charmingly imperfect, captures... my favorite of which is below.  Of greater importance is that by taking the time to work at it, I came away set of tools around how to deal with similar scenarios which remain with me today, MF or otherwise. Knowledge, which had I been shooting with a 1D or other AF monster, I never would have uncovered.  

Necessity (nee aggravation) might be the mother of invention, but equally it is a catalyst for personal growth and hopefully eventual success. Often times working with less is the best path to more. As Leica shooters, surely we understand this. Frustration certainly is an integral part of photography, be it with self, subject, circumstance or equipment. And indeed, if you don't eventually bind with your gear, you don't; move on. But oft times, exercising patience, question one's own abilities, accepting the challenge by finding ways to partner with your gear's strengths while overcoming its weaknesses yields the most satisfying, if not technically perfect, results.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M240 75mm CV Heliar  ~2M @ IIRC f2.4

[Flou]

vor 48 Minuten schrieb ZHNL:

First of all, do we have any video show that 100S has better AFc than SL2 or SL2-S? I just don't think it make sense to buy 100S for AFc. From initial youtube video, 100S with 80mm AFC performance is pretty miserable. I have 100s and 80 on order but I align my expectation with my decision that I will mostly take advantage of IBIS, 3 way LCD and great IQ and have low expectation for AF. I will complain if it fail on IBIS or IQ but not AF. If you choose original SL from beginning, you should feel great if you value craftsmanship, ergo, shooting experience, optical performance and leica system integration highly.(for M and S glasses use) If fancy AFc is must for you, then you have to pick different system and sacrifice some fields Leica did great in above.     

Maybe it because I have lots of experience with most modern systems, I would never expect Leica has competitive AF performance to begin with, without Panasonic's help (which is unfortunate itself in this case because Panasonic is dead last in this), it will be even more miserable.   

Having said that, the AF is enough for me. It is accurate and fast and is capable to most tasks of my photography need.  When my dog running toward me, I wish I have other systems on hand but I am the only one to blame in this case if I care so much about getting image like these as I know SL2 wouldn't deliver in this case from the beginning. (for slow moving subject, SL2 is more than enough with decent developed skill) You just can't have all. 

It‘s not about AFc, a fast and reliable AFs would be enough for me. My AF of my SL1 is not as good as in the SL2-s or SL2...so perhaps I will find out that the AF of the newer SL-modells will be good enough for me. That would be my biggest wish, because I would love to stay in the world of the SL-System.

At the moment I have to decide which way to go. And I can only answer that question when I try the SL2-s for a few days  and that is what I will do. I don‘t need an superb AF like in the Sony A1, so I won‘t even put the A1 in the List of my possible purchase. At the Moment the GFX 100s and the Leica SL2-s are on my list and again: I don‘t need an AF which is able to nail focus on fast moving subjects. But with the old SL1, even very slow moving kids are making a spot on-focus nearly impossible. 
 

The AF on the SL1 gives me concerns, that AF-systems are still Leicas weakness and I am afraid that even with the new SL2-s I would not be as happy as with the GFX100s. But I have to try both cameras to find out  in the end it‘s not only about the AF...but it’s the BIG downside of my SL1. Everything else is fine to me and I would not consider a new camera if the AF would be better. I am not someone who always wants to have the newest Model with the best specs.

[LocalHero1953]

I'm baffled by these problems of shooting children with the SL and AFs. I had both CL and SL since launch, and while I rarely used the SL for kids (too large, too intimidating) I didn't have problems getting focus. Most of the time I used the CL, which I am sure has lower AF specs, and found it fine - my problems shooting kids are of an entirely different nature: lighting, expression, composition....

I don't doubt your experience, but it just doesn't match mine. 

[tom0511]

Same experience like Paul from my side.

[Mr.Q]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Are you guys using AFc or AFs?

Both. Although with a really good AF-C system (Sony, Canon) there's no need to switch back to AF-S.  The Fuji is not quite there.

[Mr.Q]

6 hours ago, ZHNL said:

First of all, do we have any video show that 100S has better AFc than SL2 or SL2-S? I just don't think it make sense to buy 100S for AFc. From initial youtube video, 100S with 80mm AFC performance is pretty miserable. I have 100s and 80 on order but I align my expectation with my decision that I will mostly take advantage of IBIS, 3 way LCD and great IQ and have low expectation for AF. 

As with most large aperture lenses, the 80 is a slow lens in terms of AF.  It's focus motor is quite loud too.  Still more reliable than a SL2 + Summilux though. With the 32-64 or 45-100 the AF is blazing fast.

[Mr.Q]

6 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Having raced a little at the amateur level myself, I'm forced to mention that while it's a partnership, no doubt, if at the end of the day you're not standing on the podium... when the data shows that you didn't drag every last bit out of the car, improving the driver's performance is the more productive path going forward.

Given some of the frustrations I've experience with contrast detect systems over the years dating back to the XE-1, I've little reason to doubt that the PDAF remains superior to CDAF, nor that the annoyances it can impose are quite real. Having shot things like concerts and theater in modest light, I find the performance of the SL2 overall to be fine, but it is nowhere near close to fire and forget.  Perhaps some of my acceptance/success is down to having recognized a need to refine my CDAF technique with those very early Fuji systems.  Regardless, I don't find it surprising that the implementation isn't perfect nor that its comes under significant fire by some.

What I do find a little surprising however, particularly with experienced photographers chatting here in the shadow of HCB, is the expectation that chasing a subject around, rather than choosing a context and anticipating its motions therein, is the path to nirvana. I'm reminded of a personal breakthrough moment back in my early days of shooting with the M.  One day, I happened into a major cyclocross event armed only with the 240, a pre asph lux 35 and the CV Heliar 75mm 1.8.  I took it as a challenge to shoot the moving participants wide open and spent the next hour or two channeling, learning and developing a set of techniques to do so. I can't recall my hit rate, I'm sure it couldn't begin to approach what it might have been with an SL, let alone an A1, but I did come away with more than a few memorable, if somewhat charmingly imperfect, captures... my favorite of which is below.  Of greater importance is that by taking the time to work at it, I came away set of tools around how to deal with similar scenarios which remain with me today, MF or otherwise. Knowledge, which had I been shooting with a 1D or other AF monster, I never would have uncovered.  

Necessity (nee aggravation) might be the mother of invention, but equally it is a catalyst for personal growth and hopefully eventual success. Often times working with less is the best path to more. As Leica shooters, surely we understand this. Frustration certainly is an integral part of photography, be it with self, subject, circumstance or equipment. And indeed, if you don't eventually bind with your gear, you don't; move on. But oft times, exercising patience, question one's own abilities, accepting the challenge by finding ways to partner with your gear's strengths while overcoming its weaknesses yields the most satisfying, if not technically perfect, results.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M240 75mm CV Heliar  ~2M @ IIRC f2.4

Great capture.

While I agree that there is technique involved in a rangefinder, there is no craft involved in catering to dumb AF algorithms. Nor is there any satisfaction. The settings can be tweaked but a computer is still making 80% of the focus decisions.  It baffles me why anyone would enjoy 'partnering' with an inherently slow and unreliable computer.  I don't enjoy slow and unreliable internet connections either btw, do you? And yes, less is more, and I've stated multiple times in this thread that I rather have no AF over poor AF.  You make some great points but there is no correlation between manual focusing with a rangefinder and shitty AF.  I wish folks would stop making those comparisons.

[Mr.Q]

6 hours ago, Flou said:

It‘s not about AFc, a fast and reliable AFs would be enough for me. My AF of my SL1 is not as good as in the SL2-s or SL2...so perhaps I will find out that the AF of the newer SL-modells will be good enough for me. That would be my biggest wish, because I would love to stay in the world of the SL-System.

At the moment I have to decide which way to go. And I can only answer that question when I try the SL2-s for a few days  and that is what I will do. I don‘t need an superb AF like in the Sony A1, so I won‘t even put the A1 in the List of my possible purchase. At the Moment the GFX 100s and the Leica SL2-s are on my list and again: I don‘t need an AF which is able to nail focus on fast moving subjects. But with the old SL1, even very slow moving kids are making a spot on-focus nearly impossible. 
 

The AF on the SL1 gives me concerns, that AF-systems are still Leicas weakness and I am afraid that even with the new SL2-s I would not be as happy as with the GFX100s. But I have to try both cameras to find out  in the end it‘s not only about the AF...but it’s the BIG downside of my SL1. Everything else is fine to me and I would not consider a new camera if the AF would be better. I am not someone who always wants to have the newest Model with the best specs.

Have you considered Canon?  I would probably buy the R5 if I had small kids. Eye-AF is incredible and both the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 render gorgeously.

[LD_50]

20 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Great capture.

While I agree that there is technique involved in a rangefinder, there is no craft involved in catering to dumb AF algorithms. Nor is there any satisfaction. The settings can be tweaked but a computer is still making 80% of the focus decisions.  It baffles me why anyone would enjoy 'partnering' with an inherently slow and unreliable computer.  I don't enjoy slow and unreliable internet connections either btw, do you? And yes, less is more, and I've stated multiple times in this thread that I rather have no AF over poor AF.  You make some great points but there is no correlation between manual focusing with a rangefinder and shitty AF.  I wish folks would stop making those comparisons.

I really haven’t seen anyone attempting to compare racking focus with manual focus on a moving subject with using continuous focus on a CDAF system (the shitty AF you mentioned). 

What does get compared is using anticipation of the shot, depth of field, prefocus, and minor focus adjustments to get a shot of a moving subject with manual focus or a rangefinder and doing the same with AFs on a CDAF camera. This makes sense to compare. In this example the AFs on a camera like the SL is faster and more reliable for me than trying to accomplish the same with manual focus. In fact I found using a similar technique with my D4s (one of the better PDAF systems available) was more effective for certain sports (soccer, basketball) than using its tracking ability because I maintained more control.

On a high end PDAF system you can more often get away with point and shoot and rely on the AF tracking the subject or locking on very quickly to get the shot. You can’t do that with  the SL and I’m not sure yet with the SL2-S (though I doubt it with my limited experience thus far). I’ve seen examples of some cameras being extremely reliable at tracking (R5 and A1 recently) and that’s definitely not comparable to learning the limitations of a rangefinder to still get the shot, to your point. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by LD_50

[aksclix]

6 hours ago, Flou said:

It‘s not about AFc, a fast and reliable AFs would be enough for me. My AF of my SL1 is not as good as in the SL2-s or SL2...so perhaps I will find out that the AF of the newer SL-modells will be good enough for me. That would be my biggest wish, because I would love to stay in the world of the SL-System.

At the moment I have to decide which way to go. And I can only answer that question when I try the SL2-s for a few days  and that is what I will do. I don‘t need an superb AF like in the Sony A1, so I won‘t even put the A1 in the List of my possible purchase. At the Moment the GFX 100s and the Leica SL2-s are on my list and again: I don‘t need an AF which is able to nail focus on fast moving subjects. But with the old SL1, even very slow moving kids are making a spot on-focus nearly impossible. 
 

The AF on the SL1 gives me concerns, that AF-systems are still Leicas weakness and I am afraid that even with the new SL2-s I would not be as happy as with the GFX100s. But I have to try both cameras to find out  in the end it‘s not only about the AF...but it’s the BIG downside of my SL1. Everything else is fine to me and I would not consider a new camera if the AF would be better. I am not someone who always wants to have the newest Model with the best specs.

The SL2 is still going to struggle under some lighting conditions and mixed backgrounds.. I have owned the SL2 for about 5 months now and unfortunately I haven’t shot a lot with it.. but, with whatever I have tried to shoot with different AF settings, I do find it a bit lacking.. so, when you try the SL2, make sure you try it in different conditions, different AF settings and so on.. there are a few different AF settings you can play with.. make sure you try all of that in the best lighting condition and in the most common conditions and in the worst conditions! 😄 

[Mr.Q]

4 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I really haven’t seen anyone attempting to compare racking focus with manual focus on a moving subject with using continuous focus on a CDAF system (the shitty AF you mentioned). 

What does get compared is using anticipation of the shot, depth of field, prefocus, and minor focus adjustments to get a shot of a moving subject with manual focus or a rangefinder and doing the same with AFs on a CDAF camera. This makes sense to compare. In this example the AFs on a camera like the SL is faster and more reliable for me than trying to accomplish the same with manual focus. In fact I found using a similar technique with my D4s was more effective for certain sports (soccer, basketball) than using its tracking ability because I maintained more control.

On a high end PDAF system you can more often get away with point and shoot and rely on the AF tracking the subject or locking on very quickly to get the shot. You can’t do that with  the SL and I’m not sure yet with the SL2-S (though I doubt it with my limited experience thus far). I’ve seen examples of some cameras being extremely reliable at tracking (R5 and A1 recently) and that’s definitely not comparable to learning the limitations of a rangefinder to still get the shot, to your point. 

Regarding your second paragraph, it depends on each situation of course, but in general I would be much more confident with pre-focusing and zone-focusing with a rangefinder. At the very least, I would be able to get a shot off.  In some situations (dim or backlit with little contrast) AF-S on CDAF would not even find focus.

For me, autofocus is always a compromise because I enjoy shooting with my M cameras much more.  If I am forced to make that compromise, I expect it to be amazing at what it does. It better not get in my way.  That is my prerequisite for an AF system.

[Flou]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Mr.Q:

Have you considered Canon?  I would probably buy the R5 if I had small kids. Eye-AF is incredible and both the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 render gorgeously.

My problem is: Leica M- and SL-cameras got that magical Leica-feel and Leica-look. If money would not be a factor, I would switch back to the M-System and get the new Apo Summicron 35mm and a 75mm for portraits. But that is not possible financially. 
 

The Leica SL-System doesn‘t have that special M-shootingexperience, which every M-User loves so much. But it still has a bit of that Leica-feeling...simplicity, quality build, the Amazing Leica-IQ...no other affordable camera can give me that. The only camera I could imagine to be happy using, could be the GFX100s in terms of IQ and tonality. But I could never be happy with a camera like a Canon or Sony...for me, they are like high tech Instruments without soul. I thank you very much for the recommendation  but for me, only a Leica is a possible purchase. And the GFX100s because of that Amazing IQ. 
 

In my dreams, I would switch back to the M-System. Focussing manually is totally fine with a rangefinder-System. It is the skill of the photographer, if Focus is spot on or not. But with the SL1, you have to rely on an totally outdated AF-system. Manual Focus on the SL is not much fun for me.

Perhaps I should switch back to the M-System in the next years...then I don‘t have to rely on an AF-System and get that magical M-shooting experience back. But the price tag...😰

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Alistairm]

Completely understandable if that’s how you feel. 

For me I appreciate the AF on the SL/SL2 for when I need AF. But I must admit that I almost never manually focus the SL lenses and am yet to reconcile myself to the fly by wire. I find the M lenses with mechanical focussing wonderful (and wonderfully small) on both the M and the SL/SL2. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

12 hours ago, Flou said:

It‘s not about AFc, a fast and reliable AFs would be enough for me. My AF of my SL1 is not as good as in the SL2-s or SL2...so perhaps I will find out that the AF of the newer SL-modells will be good enough for me. That would be my biggest wish, because I would love to stay in the world of the SL-System.

At the moment I have to decide which way to go. And I can only answer that question when I try the SL2-s for a few days  and that is what I will do. I don‘t need an superb AF like in the Sony A1, so I won‘t even put the A1 in the List of my possible purchase. At the Moment the GFX 100s and the Leica SL2-s are on my list and again: I don‘t need an AF which is able to nail focus on fast moving subjects. But with the old SL1, even very slow moving kids are making a spot on-focus nearly impossible. 
 

The AF on the SL1 gives me concerns, that AF-systems are still Leicas weakness and I am afraid that even with the new SL2-s I would not be as happy as with the GFX100s. But I have to try both cameras to find out  in the end it‘s not only about the AF...but it’s the BIG downside of my SL1. Everything else is fine to me and I would not consider a new camera if the AF would be better. I am not someone who always wants to have the newest Model with the best specs.

The AF on the SL2/S is vastly improved over the 601. Mind you I used the 601 as my primary camera for 4 years and shot several hundred weddings and commercial shoots with no issues. Sometimes I had to get creative but I always got the shot. But you'll immediately notice the Sl2 is better. SAF on the SL2 is especially good with AF to -6EV.

However..... A few things. First, it's very lens dependant. The 24-90 and 16-35 are lightning fast and it gets slower until the 50mm 1.4. Still better than the 601 but the primes are generally slower than the zooms. Summicrons are good enough for me but they don't grab as quick as the 24-90. They're about the same as the 90-280. Same for AFC. The 24-90 actually holds a moving target quite well. It's not a fun shooting experience with the VF stuttering like teenagers on a first date and the zoom does help with small AF errors with more DoF.

Then there's technique. The SL2 focuses in very low light but it's still CDAF. You can't expect it to focus well on a blank wall. Find an edge and it does great. The focus assist pattern helps as well.

For stationary and walking paced subjects you'll have success with SAF, subject recognition and mashing the shutter a bit. That's my go to when shooting moving subjects and the hit rate is very good.

No doubt the GFX100 cameras are better with moving subjects. The difference with SAF is slight. GFX is also somewhat lens dependant for AF speed.

Gordon