Core of the SL

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, John Smith said:

I wouldn't want anything less than an SL2 in an SL3, meaning compromises in quality. For instance, I hope the SL3 doesn't have a flip screen. I think if people want something like Sigma's Contemporary line, they can buy Sigma's contemporary line. Leica created a fantastic platform with the SL. If people want to compromise that platform, there are all kinds of ways of doing it, whether it be Sigma lenses, M lenses, Lumix bodies, etc.

My understanding is that the SL2 line has already made compromises from the SL.  

It’s some time since I looked at the comparison between the SL and SL2 when released, but two things spring to mind - the loss of 4 programmable buttons and, much more critically, I understand that the SL2 sensor is not optimised for M lenses.  This came up in an earlier discussion, much to my surprise.  

I bought my SL, initially, to use with my M lenses which benefit from the EVF - 21 Summilux, 28 Summilux, 50 Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux.  A number of the improvements in the SL2 are, I’m sure, worthy, but M lens compatibility was a killer for me, and I remain very happy with the SL.  Can anyone confirm?

[beewee]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

It’s some time since I looked at the comparison between the SL and SL2 when released, but two things spring to mind - the loss of 4 programmable buttons and, much more critically, I understand that the SL2 sensor is not optimised for M lenses.  This came up in an earlier discussion, much to my surprise.  

There are a total of 7 programmable buttons on the SL2/SL2-S. 

[Advertisement]

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

[trickness]

2 hours ago, John Smith said:

I wouldn't want anything less than an SL2 in an SL3, meaning compromises in quality. For instance, I hope the SL3 doesn't have a flip screen. I think if people want something like Sigma's Contemporary line, they can buy Sigma's contemporary line. Leica created a fantastic platform with the SL. If people want to compromise that platform, there are all kinds of ways of doing it, whether it be Sigma lenses, M lenses, Lumix bodies, etc.

100% agree, I think flip screens are gimmicky trash. I want a CAMERA. Plenty of other options out there by Japanese brands if you want the full gee-whiz George Jetson whamdoozle. 

[PeterGA]

IMO Leica have the best user interface in their increasingly standardised menu systems- it makes it a joy for me to be able to switch between shooting M11 to SL2 and not have to worry about how to do this or that. I would expect the next iteration of the SL to offer at least the megapixel count of the M11 and possibly upgrade the sensor and processing tech - to allow for improvements in certain aspects of autofocus. The combination of M/SL allows one to mix and match M lenses and use the superb autofocus APO Summicrons when required -  without having to pay the massive price that Leica can demand for same lenses in smaller sizes for M.

 

 

 

 

[PeterGA]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

My understanding is that the SL2 line has already made compromises from the SL.  

It’s some time since I looked at the comparison between the SL and SL2 when released, but two things spring to mind - the loss of 4 programmable buttons and, much more critically, I understand that the SL2 sensor is not optimised for M lenses.  This came up in an earlier discussion, much to my surprise.  

I bought my SL, initially, to use with my M lenses which benefit from the EVF - 21 Summilux, 28 Summilux, 50 Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux.  A number of the improvements in the SL2 are, I’m sure, worthy, but M lens compatibility was a killer for me, and I remain very happy with the SL.  Can anyone confirm?

So... you haven't tested your M lenses on an SL2 but are prepared to reference some commentary - without reference - as to how the SL2 performs poorly compared to the SL with M lenses??? I mean really? talk abotu 'fishing' for negativities..

here is a one video from a Sony shooter who has 'discovered' Leica and mount lenses and his experience there are plenty of on line examples and blogs about shooting M lenses on an SL2 

all that said and of course- nothing beats trying for yourself does it?

 

I wont add my views - they are biased by definition - since I own and use an SL2 with M and L lenses.

 

atb

Pete

[Jeff S]

There was a discussion about software distinctions between SL and SL2 regarding M lenses. FW updates since then could have changed matters, assuming there was even an issue to begin with (not at all clear). Even then, there are the obvious sensor, processing and other differences between the SL iterations that could affect results, depending on output display goals, among other things. Makes no matter to me as M lenses stay on my M bodies. And if I did use them on the SL2, it would be simple to compare print results, which is all that would matter to me.  

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, beewee said:

There are a total of 7 programmable buttons on the SL2/SL2-S. 

Sorry, I wasn’t clear - I was referring to the loss of the four programmable buttons around the LCD on the SL.

18 hours ago, PeterGA said:

So... you haven't tested your M lenses on an SL2 but are prepared to reference some commentary - without reference - as to how the SL2 performs poorly compared to the SL with M lenses??? I mean really? talk abotu 'fishing' for negativities..

here is a one video from a Sony shooter who has 'discovered' Leica and mount lenses and his experience there are plenty of on line examples and blogs about shooting M lenses on an SL2 

all that said and of course- nothing beats trying for yourself does it?

 

I wont add my views - they are biased by definition - since I own and use an SL2 with M and L lenses.

 

atb

Pete

Hi Pete,

No, I’m not interested in trying the SL2 or the SL2-S at all.  I have an SL, and I’m very happy with it.  The sensor is optimised for M lenses, as was discussed at length when the camera was released.  There were problematic lenses (the 28 Summicron ASPH v1 and the 35 Summicron v1 spring to mind - both were revised), but the sensor is excellent with M lenses.  Some better on the SL than on the M10 - eg, the 50 Noctilux 0.95 (almost no purple fringing) and the 28 Summilux (corner to corner).

This discussion is about the core of the SL.  For me, M lens compatibility is critical.  I think it is fair to ask if the same optimisation of the sensor has been carried over from the SL to the SL2.  I’m not going looking for them, but there have been unequivocal statements in other threads that the SL2 sensors is NOT optimised in the same way.  That’s not “fishing for negatives” - it’s a genuine question which is surely relevant to the SL system ...

I would be interested in your experience as an SL 2 user.

Cheers
John

[PeterGA]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Sorry, I wasn’t clear - I was referring to the loss of the four programmable buttons around the LCD on the SL.

Hi Pete,

No, I’m not interested in trying the SL2 or the SL2-S at all.  I have an SL, and I’m very happy with it.  The sensor is optimised for M lenses, as was discussed at length when the camera was released.  There were problematic lenses (the 28 Summicron ASPH v1 and the 35 Summicron v1 spring to mind - both were revised), but the sensor is excellent with M lenses.  Some better on the SL than on the M10 - eg, the 50 Noctilux 0.95 (almost no purple fringing) and the 28 Summilux (corner to corner).

This discussion is about the core of the SL.  For me, M lens compatibility is critical.  I think it is fair to ask if the same optimisation of the sensor has been carried over from the SL to the SL2.  I’m not going looking for them, but there have been unequivocal statements in other threads that the SL2 sensors is NOT optimised in the same way.  That’s not “fishing for negatives” - it’s a genuine question which is surely relevant to the SL system ...

I would be interested in your experience as an SL 2 user.

Cheers
John

Ok John - I may have come across a tad 'short' in my previous post.

Based on my experience with both the SL and the SL2 - and contemporaneously shooting with M10 and now M11 I see no difference in M mount lenses between the SL and SL2. Ironically I have been able to achieve uncorrectable purple fringing in extreme situations on my M11 shooting wide open with 50 Nocti - something I have not been able to achieve when using same lens on the SL or SL2. I prefer to use my 50 Nocti on the SL2 - because it is easier accurate wide open focusing for me and the lens is better balanced on the SL/SL2 than on the M.

I enjoy using both M and SL cameras - for different reasons - the M is smaller and now higher resolution and its lenses are smaller so for walk around it is tops - the SL2 is faster, stabilised and one can buy the best lens formulations in APO Summicrons at half the price with fast and accurate auto focus as well as using the excellent 24-90 and 90-280 zooms etc ...

I don't believe that the SL or SL2 sensor was 'optimised' for M mount lenses - I think it was designed to peform better than SoCaNikon with adapter. I think the L camera was optimised for use with Leica L mount lenses - and using these delivers stellar results. If the SL3 comes with the same or larger megapixel count than the M11 - I think it will probably make my GFX100 redundant.

 

Cheers

Pete

 

 

 

 

 

[hansvons]

On 7/7/2022 at 2:43 AM, trickness said:

100% agree, I think flip screens are gimmicky trash. I want a CAMERA. Plenty of other options out there by Japanese brands if you want the full gee-whiz George Jetson whamdoozle. 

Agreed  However, Leica surveyed users recently on flip screen implementations. And I must say for video, a simple fold-out screen isn't a mistake to have, and a top-of-the-list user request. I’m pretty sure the SL3 will have one, or only the SL3-S as it's the video hybrid (and be even more pushed to the video side). 

That said, I use the screen 99% for settings; never press the play button. But I’m old-school.

Regardless, the SL3’s flip screen will be a Leica-esk solution and much praised for sturdiness and criticised for not being fully articulated. 

[IkarusJohn]

There are many opinions on the forum about the SL and M lenses - I’m not one to discount posters’ direct experiences; however, there is one factor about the SL development which induced me to buy into the SL in the first place - it was designed to play well with M lenses.  If anyone bothers to read Jono’s review of the SL or Sean Reid’s review of the SL with M lenses, the message is clear.  The first paragraph of Sean’s article confirms “Both the SL and M were designed to work with M lenses” (I paraphrase).

To my mind, any future SL camera development needs to continue this trend.  Bother cameras will have other strengths, but this cross-over was critical when the SL was released with just one lens.  Even now, while there are two SL 50mm primes, the 50 Noct is a great pairing with the SL.

I don’t wish to prolong this aspect, but it is worth putting the record straight.  The SL was designed to work with M lenses, and generally does so well, in my experience.

[John Smith]

This is yet another reason I think the SL platform is fantastic: Leica and Other Lenses: A Closer Look.

[Jeff S]

And to keep the record straight, Jono found no problems using his 6 or so M lenses on the SL2 (including the 28 Summilux), and preferred using them on the SL2 rather than the SL due to IBIS and especially to the magnified zoom controllability.  On the latter, he wrote…”What's more there was no pointer in the viewfinder to move around. This was my biggest problem using M lenses on the SL, and so much of a problem I had basically give up.”

 

https://www.slack.co.uk/leica-sl2.html
 

Jeff

[beewee]

It’d be a mistake to generalize M lenses of all vintages and focal lengths to say whether ‘M lenses work well on the SL’.

The latest M lenses (i.e. 35 APO and 28 Lux) certainly behave better as they were designed/released in the SL era. When I say ‘work well’, I mean they perform as well on an SL body as they do on an M body. Tele-centric (or at least near tele-centric) lens designs which also tend to be telephoto focal lengths from the M line works fine on the SL, regardless of vintage. However, the problem becomes more problematic with non-telecentric lenses which are most commonly wide and ultra-wide angle lenses. However, the WATE is an exception in that it is tele-centric design with a rear lens group that has more in common to a tele-photo lens than a traditional wide angle lens.

Where things fall apart for the SL bodies, regardless whether it’s a type 601, SL2, or SL2-S, is that they don’t work as well on non-tele-centric lens designs which are common to wide angle M lenses. To add more nuance, it’s also not a binary answer either in that it either ‘works well’ or not. It’s on a spectrum that is dependent on the lens design (is the lens near tele-centric or not at all) and most likely involves other factors such as focus distance where a lens may behave better at far distance compared to close distances, or vice versa.

Focus distance and its impact on image quality is not limited to M lenses either and can also be independent of the sensor/body. For example, the APO-Telyt R 180/3.4 from the 1970s has some of the best microcontrast of any lens in its focal length, even compared to modern lenses, when focused to infinity but becomes soft at close distances. This is just the nature of the lens design and what it was originally designed for (naval applications for identifying ships at far distances).

The problem with the endless discussion of M lenses ‘works well’ or not on SL bodies without specifics (specific lens models, use cases, etc) is that there is no context and this will only lead people to say seemingly opposite observations and the discussion just go round and round.

So what to make of all this? In order to have a productive discussion regarding M-lenses on SL bodies, people need to specify what lenses they are referring to in their observations and also note the kind of use cases they have. Only then, can we have context and have a nuanced discussion that give proper insight into whether the M-SL combos may be suitable for someone or not.

Edited July 8, 2022 by beewee

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

And to keep the record straight, Jono found no problems using his 6 or so M lenses on the SL2 (including the 28 Summilux), and preferred using them on the SL2 rather than the SL due to IBIS and especially to the magnified zoom controllability.  On the latter, he wrote…”What's more there was no pointer in the viewfinder to move around. This was my biggest problem using M lenses on the SL, and so much of a problem I had basically give up.”

 

https://www.slack.co.uk/leica-sl2.html
 

Jeff

He also said on more than one occasion that he prefers M lenses on M cameras..

@beewee, it would also be a mistake to asume that all M lenses of all vintages and focal lengths work well on digital M cameras of all vintages.  If you wish a detailed discussion of different focal lengths on the SL, Sean Reid covers this.  The context, however, is that the SL handles M lenses better than the opposition.  Many of us tried to use M lenses wider than 50mm on the Sony A7 when it was released (I had an A7r), and it was a hopeless exercise (apart from @lct and his Kolari mod).

Anyway, this has been done to death.

Edited July 8, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Jeff S]

16 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

He also said on more than one occasion that he prefers M lenses on M cameras..

@beewee, it would also be a mistake to asume that all M lenses of all vintages and focal lengths work well on digital M cameras of all vintages.  If you wish a detailed discussion of different focal lengths on the SL, Sean Reid covers this.  The context, however, is that the SL handles M lenses better than the opposition.  Many of us tried to use M lenses wider than 50mm on the Sony A7 when it was released (I had an A7r), and it was a hopeless exercise (apart from @lct and his Kolari mod).

Anyway, this has been done to death.

I’m aware of all of that. The issue you raised was the performance of M lenses on the SL, specifically citing Jono in your comments “for the record.”  And earlier you commented on the SL2’s being less optimized for M lenses than the SL.  So I merely quoted Jono regarding this specific comparison.  He didn’t find any lesser performance on the SL2 (using his M lenses), and in fact gave two reasons for generally preferring the SL2 over the SL for use of all M lenses.  For the record only.

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

Just now, Jeff S said:

I’m aware of all of that. The issue you raised was the performance of M lenses on the SL, specifically citing Jono in your comments “for the record.”  And earlier you commented on the SL2’s being less optimized for M lenses than the SL.  So I merely quoted Jono regarding this specific comparison.  He didn’t find any lesser performance on the SL2 (using his M lenses), and in fact gave two reasons for generally preferring the SL2 over the SL for use of all M lenses.  For the record only.

Jeff

Actually, I’ve never commented on the SL2’s performance.  I mentioned that others had made the comment, and was wanting verification - if it appeared otherwise, then it was poorly written.  Always keen for Jono quotes, as I read most of what he writes

I have the SL.  Have never had or used the SL2.  I raised the issue simply for verification as others here have commented that the SL2 is not good with M lenses (I really can’t recall - perhaps you could use your superior searching powers, Jeff).

[Jeff S]

1 minute ago, IkarusJohn said:

Actually, I’ve never commented on the SL2’s performance.  I mentioned that others had made the comment, and was wanting verification - if it appeared otherwise, then it was poorly written.  Always keen for Jono quotes, as I read most of what he writes

I have the SL.  Have never had or used the SL2.  I raised the issue simply for verification as others here have commented that the SL2 is not good with M lenses (I really can’t recall - perhaps you could use your superior searching powers, Jeff).

It was I who apparently didn’t write clearly. I know you were only referring to potential comments by others, in raising the topic yourself.  You’ve been quite clear about never wanting or needing to use an SL2.

I have no interest in further searching the topic, as I only use my M lenses on my M bodies, and rely on my own experiences for making judgments about gear differences. I’ve only briefly used the SL, prior to my buying the SL2. Both fine cameras, capable of great results.  The SL2 just suited my needs better.
 

That said, I don’t recall any general sentiment that the SL2 was ‘less optimized’ for M lens use, other than the software discussion I linked earlier. Seems to me that personal experiences will vary based not only on specific M lenses, but on each user’s shooting and display requirements under various conditions. As usual with most aspects of photography.

Jeff

[trickness]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Actually, I’ve never commented on the SL2’s performance.  I mentioned that others had made the comment, and was wanting verification - if it appeared otherwise, then it was poorly written.  Always keen for Jono quotes, as I read most of what he writes

I have the SL.  Have never had or used the SL2.  I raised the issue simply for verification as others here have commented that the SL2 is not good with M lenses (I really can’t recall - perhaps you could use your superior searching powers, Jeff).

I don’t know who commented that the SL2 is inferior to the SL with M glass, but I can share without reservation that this has not been the case for me when I upgraded to the SL2. My M glass looks absolutely stunning on the SL2, I think the color on this camera is better than its predecessor, I like the fact that there are less buttons, and ibis is wonderful. That said, I still think the OG SL remains a spectacular image making machine. All the upgrades present in the SL2 are very nice to have, but they don’t make the SL obsolete.

[Stuart Richardson]

I have also used the M10, Panasonic S1, SL and SL2 with M glass and in fact compared them all against each other with trickier lenses (28mm v3 Elmarit and 25mm Biogon). To my recollection, the M10 had the best corner performance with sensitive lenses, both SL cameras were similar in terms of the sensor glass’s effect on the image, but the SL2 was the sharper because of the higher resolution. 
 

Interestingly, with longer lenses like the 90mm APO, the Panasonic S1 was sharper than the M10 and SL, but it was terrible with wides and notably softer with lenses like the 50mm Asph. Overall, the SL2 was the sharpest in every test because it was optimized for M lenses and the 47mp of resolution walks all over the 24mp cameras for sharpness, other than in perhaps in the extreme corners where some lenses are very soft. 
All the normal and wide SL lenses were significantly sharper than any of the M lenses I tested. This was not true for the longer lenses like the 75mm and 90mm APO M lenses, which were sharper than the 24-90 zoom. Nothing non-native came near the SL APO Summicrons, not even the S lenses. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount