SL Typ 601 in 2024

[Luke_Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, steelephotography said:

 As for the AF, I’ve been hearing a lot of negativity about the contrast focusing, is there any truth to that?

I think the negativity comes from comparing the Contrast Detect AF in the SL and SL2 bodies with that of Phase Detect AF cameras from other makers.  Contrast detect can be more precise but tends to be slower.  So for fast or erratic moving subjects PDAF cameras are generally the better choice.  I read all the complaints before buying my SL. In my event shooting the autofocus is fine.  It can track subjects walking towards me, and children sliding towards me on a tall water slide.  Those are my worst cases.  If I were a sports photographer I would make a different choice.

[tomasis7]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

You will miss critical focus more than 95% of the time.  Using a fix-focus camera or smart phone is even faster. You don't have to twiddle the aperture and focus ring.
Or use preset focus on an M and press the button  (30 ms before) the moment that your subject is sharp in the RF patch. 
Zone focus is spray and pray. Nobody would accept an AF system that gives zone focus results. The 601 is quite good at manual focus as it is designed to accept M lenses on an adapter.

You're talking about an f1.4 or 500mm lens. But zone focusing is a large distance of sharpness so you don't need a critical focus. 

None can see where it is focused at f8 or f11. The M lens is good, especially with the tab. 

The AF makes you a bird hunter. But to do that below, it is something else. 

[jaapv]

The focus is on the gate the blur suggests movement. I like my shots to be in focus. I am not HCB. I cannot afford to misfocus my shots and still have them perfect. 

 

AF needs a separate skill set. You still need to control it. 

[dpitt]

58 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

You're talking about an f1.4 or 500mm lens. But zone focusing is a large distance of sharpness so you don't need a critical focus. 

None can see where it is focused at f8 or f11. The M lens is good, especially with the tab. 

The AF makes you a bird hunter. But to do that below, it is something else. 

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!

I think Lartigue was better at this than HCB. I was at an exposition lately and what he achieved with the primitive box camera's of the time is amazing e.g. this one (1911):
https://www.holdenluntz.com/artists/jacques-henri-lartigue/wheeled-bobsleigh-designed-by-jacques-henri-lartigue/

Edited May 8, 2024 by dpitt

[costa43]

Zone focusing has it's place with manual glass. If you are shooting some candid street photography from the hip with a manual lens and you want 'acceptable missed focus' then it's your only option I guess. Film was a lot more forgiving than digital for this.

I use the distance markings and the position of the tab to pre focus so when I lift the camera to my eye, only a minor adjustment is needed. I find it makes a big difference to my hit rate when speed is required.

If the OP wishes to use manual glass alongside the native lenses, then the original SL is a great value proposition, if manual glass is not a priority then another option could be to buy a used Panasonic S5 for even less and build an L mount kit around this. The body can replace the Canon for video in due course should the OP wish to buy the latest and greatest later on down the line.

[BernardC]

There's nothing wrong with zone focusing, or scale focusing. That's how most motion picture crews do it. There are however a few caveats:

• Focus on your subject, don't rely on depth of field. The scale on your lens might tell you that "everything' is in focus, but that's only true for small prints.
• Most AF lenses have no distance scale, or their distance scale is very approximate. Manual focus lenses are usually quite good.
• Scale focusing is an acquired skill. You need to practice.

My "trick" is to learn some common distances. I can visualize my height (180cm), 3m, and 5m. That's close enough for most shots, with some fine adjustments (for instance if a subject is between my standing height and 3m, I'll scale focus between those two marks.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but in video you want to control your focus transitions and AF is mostly too jumpy. 

[tomasis7]

the point is that you cannot take a "Bresson" photo with AF. It requires a fast reaction and composing. 

Hunting a single object in the swallow viewfinder doesn't always take the photo you want unless it is a bird or sport hunting with a binocular. 

AF is very slow because you have to decide what point to focus on and then let the AF work, but the object is already gone. With zone focus, you make a shutter click after a quick composition. 

If one trains enough to preset focus beforehand, one becomes more aware of the surroundings and doesn't get his thinking/seeing cluttered by the complicated interface. 

Edited May 8, 2024 by tomasis7

[tomasis7]

5 hours ago, dpitt said:

I think Lartigue was better at this than HCB. I was at an exposition lately and what he achieved with the primitive box camera's of the time is amazing e.g. this one (1911):
https://www.holdenluntz.com/artists/jacques-henri-lartigue/wheeled-bobsleigh-designed-by-jacques-henri-lartigue/

he is very good at zone focusing and he used a small aperture in the lenses.

Their photos are different. Lartique was stuck on a tripod  HCB could walk freely and take photos in a dynamic way

I love Lartique photos though. 

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

AF is very slow because you have to decide what point to focus on and then let the AF work,

Never heard of half-press focus-recompose? Back button focus?  Spot focus? Post-focus?  Yes, I like my photographs to be in focus in the spot where I want it. A bit of a learning curve, I admit. But the M rangefinder was a good training. Never used Zone Misfocus there either.

[tomasis7]

On 5/8/2024 at 9:30 PM, jaapv said:

Never heard of half-press focus-recompose? Back button focus?  Spot focus? Post-focus?  Yes, I like my photographs to be in focus in the spot where I want it. A bit of a learning curve, I admit. But the M rangefinder was a good training. Never used Zone Misfocus there either.

i don't want chimping, pressing/half-pressing a button, constantly looking through the vf, thinking all the time where to spot-focus, and all that "hokus-pokus". It works well for certain types of photography. 

Imagine walking around without a photo camera and observing the surroundings with a made-up square with your hands. I want that kind of freedom. A camera should have an eye extension without obstruction as much as possible. 

To accept AF, I need to insert Neuralink into my head. 

[jaapv]

Yes. I agree. That is why setting a camera to autofocus is liberating in that case.
Just set it to AF, aim it at the scene you want to photograph and press the button. It will be better focused than if you use zone. With an high-specced camera you can use post-focus for exact positioning of you focus at home. You are right that using spot focus for street is just plain silly. That is when you want an eye in focus when shooting through bushes. If one uses it the way you describe then one is only proving that one has no notion what one is  doing. 
Only if you have a manual lens and you want to shoot without looking through the VF does zone focus make sense. Otherwise focus-recompose, follow-focus or pre-focus are the techniques to use. Preferably on an M   

But, in the end, everyone should take the images one wants using the technique one likes and have fun doing so. I have found over the years that camera makers strive to that end and provide the tools. Rejecting those tools without understanding them is selling yourself short. 

[JohnathanLovm]

From my 1 year experience with SL601, I say it’s on par with today mid-tier mirrorless camera. It’s still can hold its own and still receive firmware updates. You might need use SL3 battery to improve the battery life. 

[tomasis7]

On 5/11/2024 at 10:17 AM, jaapv said:

But, in the end, everyone should take the images one wants using the technique one likes and have fun doing so. I have found over the years that camera makers strive to that end and provide the tools. Rejecting those tools without understanding them is selling yourself short. 

AF is useful for video making. Im new there. I look for TL lenses for weight purposes.

AI (artificial intelligence) is useful as well as it recognizes people/animals.  I'm sure we get new features in the AI area in the next new models. It isn't easy to keep pushing chip technology, so it will distract you with new AI features. I leave it to others and I get back to the dinosaur times. 

We must also recognize that manufacturers do not provide because they think it is best for photography but to sell new bodies. 

Back to the topic, SL601 is a very flexible body and you do what you want. Whether af, manual, video.. M is quite limited and costs 2-3x more. I was waiting for a decent digital M forever and then plunged into SL instead. 

[jaapv]

On 5/16/2024 at 3:12 PM, tomasis7 said:

I look for TL lenses for weight purposes.

They will crop down to APS-C format on a full-frame L camera. Best get a CL body in that case.

[tomasis7]

21 hours ago, jaapv said:

They will crop down to APS-C format on a full-frame L camera. Best get a CL body in that case.

No, it is Super35 that will be used. 

Edited May 19, 2024 by tomasis7

[AdjusterBrett]

Sorry, late to the party (traveling for work - weather issues)...   I AM NO PRO - weekend (daily) HACK.  I have plowed through more equipment than most hacks in a very short period, and about a 1/4 million photos in that time...

If you are expecting results to lag slightly behind today's current market AF - I have some 'investment' property you might be interested in as well....

I have the SL (601).  The opportunity cost of real Leica glass (AF) keeps me away.  Have: Sig DG DN 85/1.4, 105/2.8, 100-400, PAN 20-60 and the 50/1.8 el-cheapo for AF glass.  HAD Sig 105/1.4 (beast), 24/1.4, 50/1.4 and the Pana 24-105/4.  ALL were great lenses - but if you don't use them, you don't need them (reason for departure or what I call 'catch & release).  Noted - the 105/1.4 is ungodly - in IQ, Bokeh, and WEIGHT/SIZE.

I have >200 vintage lenses - most form in person auctions (I'm way too cheap) - and from this I have sets that get used (Pancolar 50/2.0 & 1.8 completely different lenses, Swirly Russians of course, soapy MamSek 55/1.4, usual TAKs, Topcor ReAutos, and so on).  I fell in love with vintage very early in my photo adventure - I'm 56 (today), with a nine year old.  Bought a sony R1, then fuji xt2, and now some 30 bodies later, have a few keepers.  Only body I ever bought new - X-T4.  Been through Sony, Fuji, and a couple Nikons.

I also have a Lecia TL2 (with the Visoflex), Panasonic S1, Sony RX1 (and multiple R1 and RX100m3's for work)in the coral.  Still have several Fujis and a Sony (need to do the catch/release thing), but it's three bodies I use regularly - SL, TL2, and the S1.

If I have the SL: I shoot 90% vintage.  Due to its size - it's NOT grab and go - it's on purpose, and PREFERRED if I'm ok with lugging the weight all day.

If I have the TL2: I shoot at least 75% vintage.  The pana 20-60, and two vintage in a peak sling - grab and go - all the time.  Why - SIZE - and it too has a unique handling and its FUN.

If I have the S1: I shoot less vintage - about a 1/3 of the time.  If Video is needed, or lighting, or multi shot, or LOW LIGHT (damn thing shoots in the dark - they say same sensor as SL - NO WAY, shoot regularly at >10K iso with almost no ill-effect).  This too is on purpose - you could easily outfit a freighter with the port anchor as the SL and the starboard anchor the S1.  For Video - the S1 was only recently surpassed in spec and functionality - remember - IBIS, 12 bit, and CfExpress.

Autofocus: SL vs S1 - noticeably slower at lengths, but usable.  The TL2 is worse once you exceed 75mm.  HOWEVER - what you are doing will determine your actual need.  I am regularly at the base of a roller coaster with other father's and long lenses - waiting for their child to fall over that first hill.   With the TL2 - no way you would ever get AF to work during the action (same with SL) - but I simply lock in on the track - 20 feet below the crest and then shoot - it works.  ON the S1 it's got a trick up its sleeve - it's better than the SL or TL2 - but that like saying the geo metro can outrun the electric bike in a 1/4 miles.  The S1 shoots this hybrid video stuff that then pulls 3/4 Rez stills - and it works surprisingly well.  HOWEVER - compare to the dad next to me with an A7III and the SAME lens - it's embarrassing.  You want to shoot rug-rats playing soccer - buy a Sony or Nikon.

So we will just set aside the magical pixy dust of Leica and talk a bit about handling.

For me - with manual focus - NOTHING matches the SL, period.  Had (used) SL2S for four days and well over 1000 shots - only had the SL for a month prior - and decided against it for three reasons (aside from price).  FIRST - handling.  Perhaps I got used to it (SL/601) - but the simplicity of the GIANT buttons on the SL - fits me.  I usually only set manual WB (colorcheckr), then the triangle and shoot.  If I need to adjust something - it's so stupid easy on the SL - it's done in seconds and I'm shooting again.  SL2S didn't live up to that.  Second - and I may get bashed for this - but it WAS my experience - EVF.  I'm no engineer and cannot explain it (although I think the magnification is higher off the SL vs SL2S or S1) - but for VINTAGE focusing - the SL wins.  I have the TL2 with the Viso - and it gives the SL2S and the S1 a run for the money - again - don't know why.  THIRD - GPS.  As much as I might 'dog' on the SL2S for its buttons - by comparison the S1 (I believe) offers a 6 credit hour graduate level course entertaining the endless options available in its menus...

If you are looking to AF - I can tell you that the SL (601) IS slower than my Pana S1 with panasonic and sigma lenses, and not even in the same ballpark for high ISO.  I can't afford any of the AF Leicas (or cannot say - hum - I'll plunk down a couple grand for that - when I can have another 50 - 100 vintage lenses for the same amount).  All my Sigs are current (DG DN variants) - 85/1.4, 100-400, 105/2.8macro - and I've had the 105/1.4 (awesome - but linked to this or the S1 - you need a rolling cart - its absolutely huge), 50/1.4, 24/1.4 - all have been great - I just don't shoot that much autofocus, and love my character rich vintage.  I've also the two mentioned from Panasonics before.  The Pana 20-60 literally ALWAYS goes with me - it's just a stable offering - and a great range.  In all fairness the TL2 (Visoflex), 20-60, usually a fast 50 or artsy 50, and a compact 100ish go in a peak sling with me (almost anywhere).  it too is very comfortable (although completely different than anything you have ever shot on).

One more note, I have very few Leica lenses - the best I have is an old 90/2.8 - and it has its own unique signature - but I've found certain lenses do special things on the Leicas - beyond my fuji, pana, and sony (with the same lens) - and that was one of the special things I really liked about it.  I can shoot an old Exacta mount pancolar 50/2.0 on the Fuji or sony - and put side by side with the SL or TL2 - and yes if I were insane, I could probably duplicate in LR or PS with enough trial and error - but I like to shoot, not edit.  Might be me and my limited settings in the camera (I do the triangle, of course, and shoot a white balance colorcheckr, and that is about it).

That said, I have charged through at least 30 bodies in 8 years - and the SL and the TL2 will likely be at my side (and my goto) for quite some time to come.

Side note - I have GREAT luck with the Leica app - linked.  If you want to take photos - and share SOC - it's hard to beat.  I chose the SL (and subsequently - and happily - the TL2 with the funds left over for the SL2S used when I did this), and have no regrets - just wish I had more time to explore it (and them all).  

I certainly do not drink the koolaid - and I've shot (wealthy friends) several of the newer stuff - and I drool over the 24-90 (ridiculously useful range - great output) - but the weight and the cost - way out of my league.   When someone asks about a print on my wall - my pride comes from explaining why the rendering is like it is - used a Mamiya Sekor on the SL, wide open, at dusk with the lighted trees behind, and because the WB was set for pre-dusk, the tint worked to its favor (B&W of course), enhancing what you see.  When I'm out shooting - I know my flock (or am getting to know them) - and if I see something that will be cool in the shot if its shot with XYZ lens - I grab for it and see what I can do.  Both my 85/1.4 and my 105/2.8 macro (both sigmas) are WAY TOO SHARP - unless of course you really need to see the alignment of the facial hair follicles in the photo...  

Food for thought from the dark side (non-pro), who owns it (and loves it for what it is).  I do not have any exposure to either the sigma nor the Leica 24-70.  I have vintage in those ranges - and compared to the 20-60 - not likely to get a seat for the ride along - as I tend to know what I'm going to shoot before I depart and choose my glass accordingly.