Leica SL 21,.. plz

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I thought this thread was about a Leica lens for the SL ??

Yes, I thought it wasn’t about AF/MF argument either 

[jaapv]

Well, that was triggered by the excellent usability of the wide Summiluxes M on the SL2.

[Advertisement]

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

[aksclix]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, that was triggered by the excellent usability of the wide Summiluxes M on the SL2.

One thing leads to another.. always.. 😌 

Anyway, it still concerns the SL21, so I think it’s a valid usecase.. 

I like having an MF override on AF lenses but not having an AF is limiting one from getting the most out of an AF camera

[jaapv]

Being an old Leica M hand, I basically still prefer MF, for the combination of speed and control it offers - with AF I have the feeling that the camera takes to much control of my vision and imposing my own idea of where the plane of focus should be is not optimal. Notwithstanding, I agree it is great for snapshot-type photography and focus stacking and such.

[aksclix]

Just now, jaapv said:

Being an old Leica M hand, I basically still prefer MF, for the combination of speed and control it offers - with AF I have the feeling that the camera takes to much control of my vision and imposing my own idea of where the plane of focus should be is not optimal. Notwithstanding. I agree it is great for snapshot-type photography and focus stacking and such.

I manually override or use MF for landscapes when I do use them for that purpose.. there are still a handful of situations where I would love to have the convenience of an AF.. that is all I am saying 

[Andrew Gough]

9 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

That's not correct. Leica has little to no way to influence AF performances. The autofocus implemented in Leica cameras is 100% Panasonic. Leica only makes minor adjustments like UI (ie green box instead of crossed square), and optimization based on slightly different core hardware.

I wonder how Nikon does it with the same Sony sensors?

[Andrew Gough]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

That runs contrary to my Summilux 24 experience - well, it does not do AF very well   The accuracy part is no problem.

I have owned it, and its a very good lens. But we are talking about AF lenses that Leica has already announced. Manual focus is too slow. for many applications. Sports, fluid people shots, weddings, and I could go on. M lenses are optically very good, but they are designed for a slower more methodical type of shooting. I also have many of these lenses for precisely these times. I get it, but not every one shoots 24mm at F8 doing landscape work. Some of us like to use these lenses wide open in fast moving dynamic situations. AF is one of the primary reasons people buy the SL series over the M. To say that they don't want or need AF, in any already announced system lens, is really just making excuses for Leica.

[Andrew Gough]

I have tested the Pana 24mm and it was very good in the centre, with a definite fall off in sharpness towards the outer edges. It remains less sharp on the edges through the aperture range. That said, for its price it is an exceptionally good lens. It does not match the Leica SL lenses in any way. Interestingly, it is almost exactly as the oft predicted. Lastly, it has no focus breathing.

I will test the Sigma's next. The 20mm is one that I am looking forward to.

[Simone_DF]

5 hours ago, Andrew Gough said:

I wonder how Nikon does it with the same Sony sensors?

You are confusing two different things. An image sensor is the part of the camera's hardware that captures light and converts what you see into a digital image.

Autofocus is the system used in combination with software, AF processor, control system.

Nikon buys image sensors from Sony, but develop their autofocus system in-house.

Leica is a small company, they don't have enough manpower to develop a full fledged modern AF system from scratch. Even a simple effort like their mobile app is half assed and crippled in even basic functionalities, clearly software development is not Leica's strenght, and that's fine. 

[Andrew Gough]

4 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

You are confusing two different things. An image sensor is the part of the camera's hardware that captures light and converts what you see into a digital image.

Autofocus is the system used in combination with software, AF processor, control system.

Nikon buys image sensors from Sony, but develop their autofocus system in-house.

Leica is a small company, they don't have enough manpower to develop a full fledged modern AF system from scratch. Even a simple effort like their mobile app is half assed and crippled in even basic functionalities, clearly software development is not Leica's strenght, and that's fine. 

So we know that the Sensor in the SL2s is a Sony which can be had with phase detect AF points. Leica and Panasonic have enough money to devolop contrast detect AF, but not phase detect AF? I seriously doubt this...

[Simone_DF]

Just now, Andrew Gough said:

So we know that the Sensor in the SL2s is a Sony which can be had with phase detect AF points. Leica and Panasonic have enough money to devolop contrast detect AF, but not phase detect AF? I seriously doubt this...

Leica and Panasonic both claim that phase detect deteriorate images, and that's their super lame excuse. Which is true, in part. In certain lighting conditions, you can (but not always) get banding in the shadows and other artifacts. The issue is there, but 99% of photographers are not affected by it.

To be honest I think this is pure bullshit and a marketing excuse, the advantages of phase detect are WAY superior to its drawbacks. This is just Panasonic being stubborn with their DFD technology. The issue might be fixed in the next iteration, with a more powerful AF processor capable of reducing the gap. Time will tell. 

But this is off topic, there are more threads regarding AF performance.

You tried the Panasonic 24, I recommend you to try the Sigma 24 f/3,5 instead, unless you need a faster lens

[Andrew Gough]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Leica and Panasonic both claim that phase detect deteriorate images, and that's their super lame excuse. Which is true, in part. In certain lighting conditions, you can (but not always) get banding in the shadows and other artifacts. The issue is there, but 99% of photographers are not affected by it.

To be honest I think this is pure bullshit and a marketing excuse, the advantages of phase detect are WAY superior to its drawbacks. This is just Panasonic being stubborn with their DFD technology. The issue might be fixed in the next iteration, with a more powerful AF processor capable of reducing the gap. Time will tell. 

But this is off topic, there are more threads regarding AF performance.

You tried the Panasonic 24, I recommend you to try the Sigma 24 f/3,5 instead, unless you need a faster lens

I agree 100%. I will try the Sigma f3.5 and F2, thank you for the info!

[Stuart Richardson]

21 hours ago, Stef63 said:

My apologies for not understanding.  What type of shots would someone miss with a 21 wide prime manual focus versus an AF lens?  I see a lot of people in this thread wanting or needing AF but I did not see the practical advantage explained of AF over MF on these type of wide lenses. Again I can miss the point, but please enlighten me.

As for lens quality between an M or an SL lens I see there could be an argument based on previous SL lenses that the SL21 is to be expected to be excellent.  So anyone wanting an SL21 based on expected lens quality and impatiently waiting for it, you get my understanding. But the AF argument … please tell me. 

With high resolution bodies and fast lenses, the plane of focus is shallow enough to make it important that the focus is accurately placed. No one questions that shooting a 21mm at f8 on 35mm film is going to be sharp everywhere from infinity to 50cm or so, but hyperfocal focusing is less useful for higher resolutions and faster apertures. If we are talking about a 21mm f2 lens on a current 47mp camera (that can take almost 200mp pixel shifts), one might imagine that the coming bodies will be even higher resolution...perhaps over 60-80mp in the next 5 years. If the photographer is photographing in lower light and shooting close to wide open (especially with a focus point not too far from the camera), the combination of the high resolution and high lens speed means that the point of focus is still rather critical. Since the camera itself is geared towards autofocus anyway (the MF system of an enlarged area is slow and inaccurate in very low light), then it makes sense to offer the lens in AF. Basically, an MF would surely be usable, but it would also be strange not to include, when all the other native lenses are AF.

As for M lenses on the SL, the wider you get, the worse they tend to do. I have tried the 21mm Super Elmar M on the SL2...Sigma's 24mm 3.5 is sharper, native mount, AF, and almost 3000 dollars cheaper. I think the target audience of the 21mm Summicron wants the stunning performance of the other SL summicrons. Otherwise there are plenty of decent wide angle lenses around if you just want something to cover the focal length, whether one of the native zooms or an M lens.

[Stef63]

Stuart, you bring up some interesting points.  In my believe - I might be wrong - resolution of the sensor is not a factor to have an impact on DOF.  If I’m correct you seem to have a different opinion on this.  Sites like DOFmaster do not seem to include that aspect either, but again this is something that they might ignore as I did now that the race for megapixels is off again  

Interesting and I would certainly be happy to learn what others know about this.

…on the other hand I am with you that the target audience is those people expecting the SL21 to show  the same stunning performance  as the other summicron SL’s.  I’m now already little bit more hesitant to add … not to those needing or wanting AF on this lens 😀

[BernardC]

53 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

In my believe - I might be wrong - resolution of the sensor is not a factor to have an impact on DOF.

Magnification (print size) is a factor, and you can theoretically print bigger with more sensor resolution.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Stef63 said:

Stuart, you bring up some interesting points.  In my believe - I might be wrong - resolution of the sensor is not a factor to have an impact on DOF.  If I’m correct you seem to have a different opinion on this.  Sites like DOFmaster do not seem to include that aspect either, but again this is something that they might ignore as I did now that the race for megapixels is off again  

Interesting and I would certainly be happy to learn what others know about this.

…on the other hand I am with you that the target audience is those people expecting the SL21 to show  the same stunning performance  as the other summicron SL’s.  I’m now already little bit more hesitant to add … not to those needing or wanting AF on this lens 😀

Your belief is a fact. DOF has nothing to do with resolution, nor with focal length other than a derivative value , only with subject distance and magnification throughout the imaging chain. And aperture of course. D

[MrFriendly]

On 12/22/2021 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Gough said:

If, and I say if, they are delaying development of SL lenses to produce M lenses, then they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that they did with the R system. This would mean abandoning all of the development costs associated with the current/announced SL lenses and system. If Leica wants to truly see the SL system become a professional system, then they need to develop it a lot further.

Delays like we have seen, will only reduce the existing customer base for this system. I have had the M system, and while it is useful for personal photography, AF and the SL system are where it's at for professional use. Many of us want to see the Leica part of the system grow. We also want to see the AF improve to the same standards of the competitors. This is entirely achievable if Leica deployed the resources to do so. 

You cannot succeed by announcing  and delaying products unreasonably. Regardless of Leica's size, marketing forces will prevail. Eventually, people tire of waiting and abandon the system. This hurts Leica, Sigma and Panasonic and the whole L mount. They have created something that could be much more than its individual parts, and all encompassing system for photography and video. Not capitalizing on that, is a big mistake IMHO.

We are only asking for previously announced lenses...

I could be wrong about this, but I think Leica is all about the M system.  They could abandon the SL system today, and they would still survive and do well.  In fact, I believe that all the other systems (TL, CL, S, SL, and Q) are projects by Leica to fund research and development of new possibilities for the M system.  The aim of the TL was to see how a camera with only a LCD screen (and optional EVF) would perform.  The aim of the CL was the possibilities of an EVF.  The S is the sensor, which is sometimes used in the M (e.g., M10-M and M10-R).  The SL is the lenses, and 35 APO is a miniaturized version of the APO-Summicron-SL 35mm, so I would expect an APO 28 and new APO 75 and 90 for the M in the near future.  And of course, the Q was all about imagining what an M would have looked like if it had been designed and engineered from the ground up in the digital age, instead of having an analog M that had digital components bolted on.

[Stuart Richardson]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Your belief is a fact. DOF has nothing to do with resolution, nor with focal length other than a derivative value , only with subject distance and magnification throughout the imaging chain. And aperture of course. D

Basically, with a very high resolution camera it is more obvious that the DOF is shallower than it might appear in a smaller magnification. Focus is always a plane, and placing that plane in the correct spot has been part of photography since the beginning. A 21mm f2 on a 47mp full frame sensor will still have shallow enough DOF that it will need to be placed accurately. Since the camera system this lens would be bolted onto is an AF camera system, it seems odd to think it would be anything other than autofocus, just like all of the other lenses made for that system (maybe there are some manual only tilt shift lenses or something, but all the Leica lenses are AF at least...).

All that said, if you never print large or crop a lot, then it is unlikely to be very noticeable for you.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Simone_DF]

6 hours ago, MrFriendly said:

I could be wrong about this, but I think Leica is all about the M system.  They could abandon the SL system today, and they would still survive and do well.

Sure, until they won't.

As the old saying goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Basically, with a very high resolution camera it is more obvious that the DOF is shallower than it might appear in a smaller magnification. Focus is always a plane, and placing that plane in the correct spot has been part of photography since the beginning. A 21mm f2 on a 47mp full frame sensor will still have shallow enough DOF that it will need to be placed accurately. Since the camera system this lens would be bolted onto is an AF camera system, it seems odd to think it would be anything other than autofocus, just like all of the other lenses made for that system (maybe there are some manual only tilt shift lenses or something, but all the Leica lenses are AF at least...).

All that said, if you never print large or crop a lot, then it is unlikely to be very noticeable for you.

Sorry Stuart   but you are simply wrong. The plane of focus is in the middle to 2/3rd of the DOF (depending on subject distance) and the definition by resolution  of that plane has nothing to do with the size of the gradient of acceptable unsharpness AKA DOF. I think you are confusing this with the potential ability  to print larger with higher resolution (a different discussion-what resolution does one need to print to any size  ) which will affect DOF providing the viewing distance remains the same