GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

deleted

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

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

[Flou]

vor 53 Minuten schrieb FlashGordonPhotography:

There's an enormous gulf between the CAF speed of the SL2 and a true *sports* camera. plenty of room to have something much much better than any Leica. The GFX 100 sensor has about the same capabilities as the Fuji APSC line. Maybe 80% of the way to sports camera from a Leica SL2.

Fuji make a 250mm with a dedicated teleconverter. HB make a 210 that can be adapted to the X1D with a 1.7x and maintain AF (I have this combo). So there are lenses which are as long as Leica longest offering. The 210 with adaptor and TC is about the same size as the 90-280 but lighter. No IS though.

Fast on sensor AF isn't there for action shooters. It's there because apparently we're all going to need cinema quality video and don't want to learn how to focus when shooting video. So sensors are getting faster AF regardless. Probably due more to the bleeting and whinging of Youtubers, who are all video people really. Same reason we get stupid fully articulating rear screens on some cameras instead of the panasonic Tri-flip system. Real videographers already use an external recorder and know the cables block those screens anyway. But we're stuck with Jordan having more infuence on a camera than a real photographer.

I have no idea how people end up with an SL2 and not know it's CAF is lousy. Do people just not research before  they spend 10K on a camera/lens? The same people then stick it on CAF like a Sony and expect miracles. Next thing they're on here complaining up a storm. Bizarre.... They don't explore the cameras settings either, so they don't work out that SAF is vastly better than CAF, even for moving subjects. Technique trumps gear, every time. Most of my favourite kids shots were taken on an M. 95% are sharp. The rest are art. 

Now they're looking a a 100MP camera to get photos of their kids? The SL2 is overkill!! Personally I can imagine little more droll than scanning through bulging hard drive packed with thousands of 100MP, nearly identical, perfectly sharp and exposed boring photos of my kids. Patience, technique and a couple of well timed exposures is all I ever needed. These people don't need a 100S. They need a video camera because that's what they're really doing. Slow video. The lack of craft is depressing.....

Gordon

Why do you think the photographers who criticize the AF of the SL-Cameras were not exploring the functions of the camera? Ever tried the CAF of the SL Version 1? It is not usable at all...my Apo Summicron 75mm pumps all the time and it is so frustrating, that I never use CAF on it. And I am not only taking pictures of my kids, it should be an all around Camera to manage all my needs: Taking pictures of my family, birthday parties, landscape photography, street photography and so on. And I want the best IQ I can get. Not every SL-User is new to the game...I am interested in photography for 8-9 years now and I switched from the M-system because of a broken sensor on my M9-P. At that time Leica only offered me an Upgrade to an already outdated M-camera (the M10 was fresh on the market but they did not offere an upgrade to the M10) or an SL. So I switched to the SL-system and the IQ is everything I dreamed of. But that doesn‘t matter, if the AF is not good enough to take sharp picture with spot on focus of people who are moving towards me. And I don‘t talk about running people! An autofocus-camera in this price range should do that in my opinion. Every AF-camera even in an way cheaper price range can do it better...this is nothing we can gloss over. 
 

If the GFX 100s can give me the same wow-factor in IQ and hits focus way more often...why should I stay at Leica? In the end it is so depressing when zooming into the pictures and discover that the focus was not spot on. 
 

I will try the GFX 100s this summer and the SL2s...and then decide which way to go. I would love to stay with Leica. But at the moment (with my SL-1) I am not really satisfied. This AF is not taking justice to that amazing lenses. And in the end the AF is not a kind of special feature that could be ignored, it is the main reason if a picture is sharp exactly where it should be or not. A crappy AF is limiting the camera in its usage...and the other manufacturers shows us, how good an AF can be. The technology is there but Leica is years behind in this regard. And I don‘t think we all should gloss over. Imagine a Leica SL3 with an AF with eye detection which hits focus all the time. I don‘t think that you are right by saying we all would have tons of boring pictures then. That depends on the skills of the photographer how to compose the picture and so on. But I would never have to worry if a person is moving or not, if the eye is tack sharp on a portrait or not and so on. 

[ZHNL]

I doubt GFX100s will give you much on AF based on initial reviews I saw. I hardly believe this should the reason to get it over SL2. I look forward to get it though. 
 

your money, your fun but please don’t accuse Leica SLx for something it never was. 

[ravinj]

If the goal is "best IQ", Phase One XF IQ4 is better. If the goal is best AF, then no MF is going to give that. Neither is Leica. 

So now that we know SL2 / SL / SL2-S AF is inferior and is not going to get any better soon and will never be the best, the path is clear.

For those who need the best possible AF with SL primes and also best possible M lens performance on a non-M body, the path is also clear. 

There are cheaper cameras that can AF better. There are cheaper cameras that can AF better and deliver comparable / better IQ than the SL series. However, there is no FF or MF camera that meets both the requirements above. There is no other non-M FF or MF camera that can recognize my 6-bit coded M lenses, apply the profiles and also AF SL primes. There is also no other MF or FF camera that can share the same battery and charger as Leica Q2. So by adding n number of parameters, I can deem any camera better or worse for n number of use cases compared to SL series. Why stop at just AF? 

Edited March 4, 2021 by ravinj

[Mr.Q]

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

I'm great at manual focusing with a M rangefinder.  I also don't mind autofocus as long as it's fast and reliable.  I hate shooting with shitty AF.  I shouldn't have to adapt the way I shoot to shitty algorithms and lackluster technology.  It gets in my way and sucks the joy out of shooting.

Likewise, I'm great at driving cars (involved in motorsport for 40+ years) and I love driving with a good manual gearbox.  I also love driving the latest Porsche with their super impressive PDK transmissions.  They're truly a work of art.  I can not stand driving in a 2000's BMW SMG or Alfa Romeo selespeed gearboxes. They're both clunky and slow to shift gears. Again, it no longer becomes fun.

It's mind-blowing that some people can not relate to this.

[hillavoider]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

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

I'm great at manual focusing with a M rangefinder.  I also don't mind autofocus as long as it's fast and reliable.  I hate shooting with shitty AF.  I shouldn't have to adapt the way I shoot to shitty algorithms and lackluster technology.  It gets in my way and sucks the joy out of shooting.

Likewise, I'm great at driving cars (involved in motorsport for 40+ years) and I love driving with a good manual gearbox.  I also love driving the latest Porsche with their super impressive PDK transmissions.  They're truly a work of art.  I can not stand driving in a 2000's BMW SMG or Alfa Romeo selespeed gearboxes. They're both clunky and slow to shift gears. Again, it no longer becomes fun.

It's mind-blowing that some people can not relate to this.

It’s the Leica coolaid, strong stuff 😁

 

but jokes aside I agree 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The divide seems to be between those who use AFc and those who don't. I can't remember the last time I used AFc, but I have no problem getting in-focus images with AFs with moving subjects - not fast action sports or BIF (that's not what I shoot), but dancers, actors, children, travel/street - focus is just not a problem I have with them.

I don't see Leica's AFc getting up to the standard desired by some here any time soon. The only solution is to move to another camera: but this time don't buy it till you've checked it out!

[Flou]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb ZHNL:

I doubt GFX100s will give you much on AF based on initial reviews I saw. I hardly believe this should the reason to get it over SL2. I look forward to get it though. 
 

your money, your fun but please don’t accuse Leica SLx for something it never was. 

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. 

[Alistairm]

It’s simple really. If you have trouble hitting focus regularly with an SL or SL2 body then it’s a very poor choice of camera for you. Personally, it’s not a problem. Maybe it’s because I’m a back button user for almost everything and have never trusted a camera to choose where to focus when I push the shutter? I don’t know. But if I was having trouble getting in focus images with any brand I’d unhesitatingly dump the system for one where my photos were in focus. It’s nice to have choices. 

[Mr.Q]

24 minutes ago, Alistairm said:

It’s simple really. If you have trouble hitting focus regularly with an SL or SL2 body then it’s a very poor choice of camera for you. Personally, it’s not a problem. Maybe it’s because I’m a back button user for almost everything and have never trusted a camera to choose where to focus when I push the shutter? I don’t know. But if I was having trouble getting in focus images with any brand I’d unhesitatingly dump the system for one where my photos were in focus. It’s nice to have choices. 

Yes, it is nice to have choices. The problem I have is people making condescending statements about folks lacking in technique or craft because the AF does not meet their requirements. It's like questioning other people's intelligence because they have trouble navigating through a Sony menu.  Or calling people physically challenged for disliking a camera's ergonomics or handling.  It makes me mad, honestly.

[Jon Warwick]

I assume a lot of these differing views depends on past experience ....in my case, as a long-time user of manual-only focus cameras (M cameras / medium format film / large format film), I found the SL2 rather superb in its accuracy and speed of autofocus!! But clearly people have used other autofocus systems that they think are superior to the SL's, so I can see where the debate can originate from.

By extension, the GFX100S that I'm getting will probably spend a lot of time on a tripod to fully benefit from its 100mp resolution (and to use focus bracketing), so again a tier 1 focus speed is neither here nor there (for my use).  The place I envisage the GFX100S for my use is mainly with the camera on a tripod, pointing at the Alps, and having the 100mp record all the detail in those small pine trees and rocks across the valley ....similar to how I use my 5x4.

For family pictures, the camera I'm planning on using remains the M7 with film .....ironic given its manual focus, so slower and more a task to achieve accuracy, but I simply prefer the rendering of portraits done on film.  Digital, even with lower megapixel cameras, records with a level of contrast of fine details like wrinkles that I'm not sure I see with my own eyes when I'm looking at the subject (ie, someone's face just doesn't look "that sharp" in reality!), but film seems to nail the reality of it just right, for my eyes at least.

[tom0511]

With all respect and I fully understand the SL AF is  not good enough for some people in this thread.

But I dont think it is shitty, it is pretty fast and accurate in S-AF, I also have 2 kids and a fast dog. With no doubt phase detection and improved C-AF are on my wishlist. I have used the SL2 for handball games of the kids, it is hit and miss. But usually I get some good shots, it is just not you get 8 sharp images out of 10 like with the D500, you get maybe 3 or 4, or sometimes mayb just 2.

One thing I am pretty sure: if the SL2 is too slow for you , than you wont be happy with any MF camera. Do yourself a favor and checkout a dedicated sports camera, from Canon, Nikon or Sony.

 

[Flou]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb tom0511:

With all respect and I fully understand the SL AF is  not good enough for some people in this thread.

But I dont think it is shitty, it is pretty fast and accurate in S-AF, I also have 2 kids and a fast dog. With no doubt phase detection and improved C-AF are on my wishlist. I have used the SL2 for handball games of the kids, it is hit and miss. But usually I get some good shots, it is just not you get 8 sharp images out of 10 like with the D500, you get maybe 3 or 4, or sometimes mayb just 2.

One thing I am pretty sure: if the SL2 is too slow for you , than you wont be happy with any MF camera. Do yourself a favor and checkout a dedicated sports camera, from Canon, Nikon or Sony.

 

I never tried the SL2 or SL2-s...but I will and I hope so much, that it will be good enough for my needs. I don't need a superspecial state of the art-AF-system...I am not interested in sports-photography or something similar. But I don't want to miss so many good shots, only because my kids are moving towards me (even with very slow movement). 

Perhaps the SL2-s is all I am hoping for  At the moment I can only relate to the SL1 and the AF is really bad on that camera. I hit focus more often with manual focus on my old M9-P than the AF of my SL1 does...and that's not what should be acceptable for such a great and expensive camera. 

[tom0511]

I didnt feel a big difference in AF performance between SL and SL2, I have never tried the SL2-s, but I can not believe that it should be that much better.

As an M and SL2 shooter I have a different experience thoug, I find AF not perfect, but with S-AF and 1-point focus I get much faster and reliable correct focus compared to the M.

Also dont forget SL lenses are very sharp, high resolution and wide open narrow DOF. Nailing a face of a running kid at 75mm/2.0 I would say will allways be luck. And the sharper the lens and the higher the resolution the more one will also recognize small AF inaccurancies.

I am quite interested in which regard the AF of the SL2S shall be improved, eventhough I dont want to give up the resolution of the SL2 anyways.

[Mr.Q]

37 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

With all respect and I fully understand the SL AF is  not good enough for some people in this thread.

But I dont think it is shitty, it is pretty fast and accurate in S-AF, I also have 2 kids and a fast dog. With no doubt phase detection and improved C-AF are on my wishlist. I have used the SL2 for handball games of the kids, it is hit and miss. But usually I get some good shots, it is just not you get 8 sharp images out of 10 like with the D500, you get maybe 3 or 4, or sometimes mayb just 2.

One thing I am pretty sure: if the SL2 is too slow for you , than you wont be happy with any MF camera. Do yourself a favor and checkout a dedicated sports camera, from Canon, Nikon or Sony.

 

I have the GFX100S and I've been shooting with it for a week now. AF is noticeably faster than the SL2. When tracking in dim light, the difference is substantial, as in 3-5 times better hit rate.

[frame-it]

58 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

One thing I am pretty sure: if the SL2 is too slow for you , than you wont be happy with any MF camera

page 24 post #475!!....and still the same old claims [GFX100s is the main context]

Edited March 4, 2021 by frame-it

[tom0511]

Very impressive for a medium format camera!

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

49 minutes ago, Flou said:

I never tried the SL2 or SL2-s...but I will and I hope so much, that it will be good enough for my needs. I don't need a superspecial state of the art-AF-system...I am not interested in sports-photography or something similar. But I don't want to miss so many good shots, only because my kids are moving towards me (even with very slow movement). 

Perhaps the SL2-s is all I am hoping for  At the moment I can only relate to the SL1 and the AF is really bad on that camera. I hit focus more often with manual focus on my old M9-P than the AF of my SL1 does...and that's not what should be acceptable for such a great and expensive camera. 

 

21 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

I have the GFX100S and I've been shooting with it for a week now. AF is noticeably faster than the SL2. When tracking in dim light, the difference is substantial, as in 3-5 times better hit rate.

Are you guys using AFc or AFs?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[RoySmith]

15 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

...Technique trumps gear, every time....

Gordon

Well said. 👏🏼

[tom0511]

vor 29 Minuten schrieb frame-it:

page 24 post #475!!....and still the same old claims [GFX100s is the main context]

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.