Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica SL

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 09-29-2016   #41
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Keep it nice!
Your need to call people stupid has put you on notice.
I'm pretty sure Roger Hicks has called me stupid either directly or indirectly multiple times but I guess I'm just glad to be noticed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #42
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
The SL is unique in that it exhibits the kind of hubris of which only Leica is capable. It's similar to luxury watches in the sense that those proudly exhibiting one are asking to be mocked behind their backs. It's the kind of camera that the Emperor Has No Clothes was written for. The SL is basically a Nikon D600 wrapped in some nice metal with bazookas for lenses, which somehow manage to be both gigantic and variable aperture. But don't worry, they announced that a 35mm f2 will be announced at the NEXT Photokina. Have fun with your luxury D600.
S-K,

My D3X has an anti alias filter; the SL does not. To me this is a big deal. At one point I was considering sending my D3X to a lab in New Jersey and having them strip out the anti alias filter.

While you may use the expression the "Emperor Has No Clothes" I say, "My 27 inch EIZO does not lie."

Focusing with a DSLR with manual focus lenses is no fun. Vague focus and being lucky at best, or shooting in continuous and bracketing the focus. Not really a good comparison comparing a D600 and the SL IMHO.

Yes I do wear a Rolex, but also know I eat nut butter sandwiches for lunch at work, on top of that I walk to work almost always to save a $2.75 Metrocard fare, and know I am a skinny guy. The point is that the money has to come from somewhere. I'm not as rich as you think. Know that I'm not trying to pretend that I am rich.

The stainless steel Submariner I wear is over 12 years old, has been running non-stop during that time, and never has been serviced. Today I can sell it for more money than I paid for it new in 2004. At this point because it is an earlier Rolex with a simpler dial it is actually collectable.

I will concede that availability of new glass is a bottleneck, but all my M-glass works rather nicely, the Noct-Nikkor is rather lovely and easy to use, and the "R" glass is wonderful in the meantime. Meanwhile I await the fast primes.

The AF 50 Lux looks to be the same filter size as the 24-90 and the barrel perhaps a half inch shorter. No doubt it is gigantic for a 50, but I would not discount the lens yet except that because it has fewer groups and elements it should be lighter. While not for everyone...

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #43
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
Then you could use an A7RII and have a much better sensor and spend a lot less money.
Ok, I'm not buying a SL. But I do understand why someone would. A Sony is not a suitable replacement IMO. It's an ergonomic disaster. I'm just not a fan... it feels like a remote control in my hand. Sure, it's the better economical purchase, and it will be better for some types of photos, but sensors aren't everything to many of us. All of these cameras are great for photography. It comes down to ergonomics and the little things... and Sony is the worst when it comes to ergonomics and the little subtle things that make a camera special.

Quote:
The M lenses balance a ton better on the smaller A7 bodies anyways.
but I said M and R.

Quote:
The X1D and GFX are the same price or cheaper than an SL with any of the SL lenses and someone who is buying into a new system would have to have a couple screws loose to try and justify an SL over either of the two new digital medium format options which offer much better.....everything.
Unless you want to use lenses designed for FF 35mm sized sensor.

Disclaimer: I'd buy the Hassleblad.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #44
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
The Sony A7RII sensor is objectively a far better piece of technology for less than half the cost.
Perhaps the VF'er is half as good.

When I think of technology it is not just the sensor.

When I look at a performance car do I buy a Hellcat because it has 700 horsepower, or a Ford GT 350 with a meager 500 HP that is basically a track car that is street legal? For me I like the GT 350, but the Hellcat is still a cool car.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #45
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
S-K,

My D3X has an anti alias filter; the SL does not. To me this is a big deal. At one point I was considering sending my D3X to a lab in New Jersey and having them strip out the anti alias filter.

While you may use the expression the "Emperor Has No Clothes" I say, "My 27 inch EIZO does not lie."

Focusing with a DSLR with manual focus lenses is no fun. Vague focus and being lucky at best, or shooting in continuous and bracketing the focus. Not really a good comparison comparing a D600 and the SL IMHO.

Yes I do wear a Rolex, but also know I eat nut butter sandwiches for lunch at work, on top of that I walk to work almost always to save a $2.75 Metrocard fare, and know I am a skinny guy. The point is that the money has to come from somewhere. I'm not as rich as you think. Know that I'm not trying to pretend that I am rich.

The stainless steel Submariner I wear is over 12 years old, has been running non-stop during that time, and never has been serviced. Today I can sell it for more money than I paid for it new in 2004. At this point because it is an earlier Rolex with a simpler dial it is actually collectable.

I will concede that availability of new glass is a bottleneck, but all my M-glass works rather nicely, the Noct-Nikkor is rather lovely and easy to use, and the "R" glass is wonderful in the meantime. Meanwhile I await the fast primes.

The AF 50 Lux looks to be the same filter size as the 24-90 and the barrel perhaps a half inch shorter. No doubt it is gigantic for a 50, but I would not discount the lens yet except that because it has fewer groups and elements it should be lighter. While not for everyone...

Cal
Great, you could have gotten an A7RII and had it Kolari Mod'd and then you'd actually have the best sensor available commercially. But instead you paid over 7 grand for the joy that owning a Leica brings you. But arguing that you're getting anything beyond the enjoyment of owning an expensive thing is like arguing that a Birkin bag is better at carrying stuff.

As to your Rolex reference. Well it's great that those have appreciated, however M240s are currently near 50% of their New price and only going down. Digital Leica's are not investments.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #46
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is online now
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Ok, I'm not buying a SL. But I do understand why someone would. A Sony is not a suitable replacement IMO. It's an ergonomic disaster. I'm just not a fan... it feels like a remote control in my hand. Sure, it's the better economical purchase, and it will be better for some types of photos, but sensors aren't everything to many of us. All of these cameras are great for photography. It comes down to ergonomics and the little things... and Sony is the worst when it comes to ergonomics and the little subtle things that make a camera special.



but I said M and R.



Unless you want to use lenses designed for FF 35mm sized sensor.

Disclaimer: I'd buy the Hassleblad.
I'll definitely agree that the ergonomics of the A7 are far from the best and the menus suck at first but once you get it all laid out it's easy and you don't normally have to dive into the firey pit of hell which is the Sony menu system.

Most of the R lenses are similar-ish in size to their M counter parts until you get to the extreme ends of the spectrum and are just fine on the A7 as well.

I'm a GFX kind of guy because I'm down for adapting all the good old stuff as well haha. The X1D looks awesome from a size standpoint and if I shot more landscapes and travelled more and needed a camera for that with that kind of resolution it would be my choice as well. And it looks dope, so there's that too lol.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #47
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
The SL is unique in that it exhibits the kind of hubris of which only Leica is capable. It's similar to luxury watches in the sense that those proudly exhibiting one are asking to be mocked behind their backs. It's the kind of camera that the Emperor Has No Clothes was written for. The SL is basically a Nikon […]
Please: be so kind and always write «Leica SL» when you're talking about «Leica SL».

Otherwise, people like me — albeit I'm born after the introduction of the camera in question — could guess that you're trying to bash the «Leicaflex SL», and in that case I would be forced to tell you that you're talking Bravo Sierra.
__________________
bump for this scarce item:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot.../21207/cat/500

Cheerio from the Austrian Alps,
Alexander

A platoon of breech-block is a cock.
(evilB item 120540033981)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #48
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
Great, you could have gotten an A7RII and had it Kolari Mod'd and then you'd actually have the best sensor available commercially.
Because we all know that a sensor is the only way to measure a great camera...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #49
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Perhaps the VF'er is half as good.

When I think of technology it is not just the sensor.

When I look at a performance car do I buy a Hellcat because it has 700 horsepower, or a Ford GT 350 with a meager 500 HP that is basically a track car that is street legal? For me I like the GT 350, but the Hellcat is still a cool car.

Cal
The VF in the SL has weird contrast and color. Sure it has more pixels but that really only results in a smoother image. You STILL have to zoom in to focus accuratly with a manual lens, just like you do with a Sony VF. The Sony VF OTOH have accurate colors and great contrast. The Fuji's are the best of the bunch. And now you can get a Fuji medium format digital with 3 lenses available in year one that a photographer would actually want to use, for less than an SL with 1 lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #50
radi(c)al_cam
Registered User
 
radi(c)al_cam's Avatar
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
The VF in the SL has weird contrast and color. [… ]
BRAVO SIERRA!


The Leicaflex SL has one of the most brilliant VF ever!
__________________
bump for this scarce item:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot.../21207/cat/500

Cheerio from the Austrian Alps,
Alexander

A platoon of breech-block is a cock.
(evilB item 120540033981)
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #51
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
BRAVO SIERRA!


The Leicaflex SL has one of the most brilliant VF ever!
+1

........
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #52
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is online now
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
BRAVO SIERRA!


The Leicaflex SL has one of the most brilliant VF ever!
You're the only one yelling here.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #53
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 471
I'm a Rolex wearer...w/A7...does that make me... a bad man...hahaha!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #54
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emile de Leon View Post
I'm a Rolex wearer...w/A7...does that make me... a bad man...hahaha!
I would say stylish AND smart.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #55
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Quote:
I would say stylish AND smart.
Thx man!
But I do stick Leica lenses on it...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #56
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
Then you could use an A7RII and have a much better sensor and spend a lot less money. The M lenses balance a ton better on the smaller A7 bodies anyways. The X1D and GFX are the same price or cheaper than an SL with any of the SL lenses and someone who is buying into a new system would have to have a couple screws loose to try and justify an SL over either of the two new digital medium format options which offer much better.....everything. Don't start on the "well the SL has higher FPS," thing because we know that people aren't using the SL like a flagship CaNikon body.
Brennan,

I agree the M-lenses balance better on the smaller body, and M-lenses on the SL they seem too small. The twitchy focus of the M-glass bodes well on a M-body, but know that the long rotation of the thicker R lenses is no handicap. I'm an old SLR shooter so everything feels right to me.

Is it wrong to shoot film for medium format? Anyways I have mucho medium format film cameras.

In my case I was shooting a flagship Nikon, a D3X, I did some serious inquiry whether the camera could be tethered, and because all my small format glass could be used the utility of buying the SL to replace a D3X seems to be a good choice because I like the camera. If I wanted to use the SL as a full blown studio camera, I think it would work rather well.

The spin that it costs more or is expensive is a moot point.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #57
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
I'm a GFX kind of guy because I'm down for adapting all the good old stuff as well haha. The X1D looks awesome from a size standpoint and if I shot more landscapes and travelled more and needed a camera for that with that kind of resolution it would be my choice as well. And it looks dope, so there's that too lol.
You seemingly can't go wrong with either.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #58
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is online now
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 26
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
You seemingly can't go wrong with either.
I'd definitely be happy with either haha. I can't wait to get my hands on both of them so I can take sweet shots in the warehouse lol.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #59
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
The Fuji's are the best of the bunch. And now you can get a Fuji medium format digital with 3 lenses available in year one that a photographer would actually want to use, for less than an SL with 1 lens.
S-K,

The MF Fuji is a very appealing camera for sure. My money is already spent.

For me it was not a mistake. Like you I first handled the SL at PhotoPlusExpo 2015. The SL impressed me back then. I also thought it was odd that Leica did not premier fast primes over zooms.

Know that my small format gear gets more use, but also know that I have mucho MF film gear. I have no regrets. The SL is a great camera for me.

I happen to own a Fuji GL690 and GM670 and mucho Fuji glass.

I also print.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2016   #60
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by brennanphotoguy View Post
I'll definitely agree that the ergonomics of the A7 are far from the best and the menus suck at first but once you get it all laid out it's easy and you don't normally have to dive into the firey pit of hell which is the Sony menu system.

Most of the R lenses are similar-ish in size to their M counter parts until you get to the extreme ends of the spectrum and are just fine on the A7 as well.
Brennan,

Call me an old man. At my age (I have had a hard life) I want and enjoy the comfort. If there is a luxury premium I decided to pay the price for the comfort.

How much am I willing to pay for a camera that offends my intelligence by being more complicated than I am. At my age I do not want to struggle unless it is fun. The A7 never interest me.

I'm not saying that the SL is inexpensive, or that it doesn't have a luxury premium, but for me struggling with the menu and ergonomics would discourage my enjoyment.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2016   #61
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 8,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
Nah it looks like Sony did. Then Leica stole the idea, but said the Sony sensors were too good so they used a cheap one like they always do, and then bought some EVF tech from Epson.
Actually Leica cooperates with Panasonic...
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2016   #62
johnwolf
Registered User
 
johnwolf's Avatar
 
johnwolf is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,126
I've never owned a digital Pentax, but if I were interested in an SLR-style system, I'd look carefully at the K1. Apparently a great body with nearly unlimited lens choices. And one could be pretty well equipped for the cost of one SL lens.

Not exactly the minimalist philosophy we love in Leicas, but camera configuration can be a simple as you want, regardless of having a myriad of options.

John
__________________
web site | blog | Latest project: The Wall
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2016   #63
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwolf View Post
I've never owned a digital Pentax, but if I were interested in an SLR-style system, I'd look carefully at the K1. Apparently a great body with nearly unlimited lens choices. And one could be pretty well equipped for the cost of one SL lens.

Not exactly the minimalist philosophy we love in Leicas, but camera configuration can be a simple as you want, regardless of having a myriad of options.

John
As an ex-Pentaxian, it's hard to say this but "nearly unlimited with lens choices" isn't a good description of the K1. In fact, you are 100% limited to Pentax mount lenses, and particularly the most recent ones for good functionality and performance. And Pentax lenses can be very very good—but are quite variable in both their build quality AND their performance.

I found Pentax gear very very good when it was good, and extremely frustrating when it was slightly off the mark. Sadly, that turned out to be a good bit of the time, too much of the time because at that time I was dependent upon my gear to make my living.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-2016   #64
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,796
SL compared with others of it's kind...or cost?

maybe the new MF mirrorless cameras are better compared to the 006 or 007?

It's funny, I've followed Sony very closely and began shooting RF lenses on the Nex-5. I had one of the first A7r cameras in the USA. Today my second body, behind the M9 is a A7 Kolari v2. A group of us followed all these developments over at FM, bought and compared Sonys, Leicas and lenses ad infinitum LOL

One of the most respected, Charles K, bought every new Sony including A7r2 and made many interesting observations about how various lenses got along with the Cameras. He just bought a XT1 and is moving to Fuji because of that camera.

Sony is brilliant and Sony is mind numbingly stupid. But to the point, if you like certain M or LTM lenses which are 35 or wider, the stock A7r2 is terrible. Spend another 500 for the thin filter mod, and then all you have to do is deal with is the profiles LOL. Sony lenses are all over the place and QC is famously erratic.

Why an SL instead of a M240 or MM? Not only can you shoot R glass, but you can shoot nikon and soon any mount I'd guess. No funny thick filter set placed on top of the sensors which distorts the wider ray angles, like all the A7 cameras are crippled by. As a platform for M and SLR glass with some native AF possibilities the SL smokes the A7r2.

The next camera I want? A7S Kolari. That camera actually will give me new choices in a variety of situations, since it can shoot clean at incredible ISOs. For that, I can endure the many tedious aspects of Sony design.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-20-2016   #65
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post

Why an SL instead of a M240 or MM? Not only can you shoot R glass, but you can shoot nikon and soon any mount I'd guess. No funny thick filter set placed on top of the sensors which distorts the wider ray angles, like all the A7 cameras are crippled by. As a platform for M and SLR glass with some native AF possibilities the SL smokes the A7r2.
Funny thing is I still own my almost 4 year old MM. I love my Monochrom warts and all. Currently I'm on a list to be called for sensor replacement. I remember how the initial response was to this camera. One poster hear on this forum call the rumored idea of a monochrome digital Leica "dumb." LOL.

For me the Leica SL takes some things a little further than a M-240. First off in comparing the files (both are 24 MP) the M-240 is only 12-bit and the SL is 14-Bit, so the file sizes are 288 MB and 336 MB respectively. Probably only important if you are trying to print big, but more data and detail is just that. I replaced a Nikon D3X with the SL.

The SL has the processor for the Leica "S" and has 2 Gig buffer that can handle 33 DNG shots before becoming full. For those that do fashion photography trying to replace a big Digital SLR the SL is the better choice. This processor is really grand and well engineered, and it works in the league of a pro level DSLR.

The AF 50 Lux I already pre-ordered. For me autofocus is a great capability that M-bodies does not offer.

Lastly I'm impressed on how well my Noct-Nikkor works on the SL with a Novaflex adapter that allows me to use the Noctilux F1.2 profile. At F1.2 with the additional 8mm in focal length I have a wonderful portrait lens.

I have even used a 65/3.5 Elmar Visoflex lens with a triple level of Leica adapters with the 50 Elmar profile (both are Tessars). Every small format lens I own adds to the creative possibilities, and I don't really see any compromise or limitations.

I know there are less expensive cameras, and also other great cameras, but the SL is a camera like my Monochrom that seems that Leica kinda designed especially for me.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #66
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,796
Great post, Calzone.

You remind me soon we will be seeing shots with S lenses from the SL

Another place it fits like no A7 can: a second body for two systems: M and S, beside a place as first body for the oft unsung R line

It costs alot. Somebody paid 7k for the M9 I now use. The SL will become a viable path for the more cost conscious in time. A working SL is always going to be worth money.

Fuji and Leica have been thinking alot about still shooters and what they like and need. Sony has been pushing the sensor and footprint envelope for the FF cameras, which is a benefit to everyone, but Sony can't make a natural package. That's also probably good long run, as still the digital barnack, a smaller, lighter M platform, has yet to be cashed in
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2016   #67
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
I am very-very lucky to own a 50 Lux-R "E60." Only about 2700 were ever made. The "E60" has a long focus throw like a Noctilux, but this long focus throw is no handicap on the SL. The 50 "E60" has a rendering a lot like a Noctilux with wonderful bokeh and smooth creamy OOF, but without the light falloff that gets displayed in the corners.

Now image being able to close focus accurately and easily with a Noctilux. Basically this is a magic lens that begs to be shot wide open. Then you have a camera that is designed to exploit Leica glass which really performs in a supreme manner wide open.

This lens is not ASPH, but is remarkably sharp wide open, then combine that with the balanced combination of softness.

Anyways this is no ordinary lens, and it gets utilized to its full potential on the SL.

The Noct-Nikkor with F1.2 exaggerates the shallow DOF, and the extra 8 mm compounds the shallowness. Bokeh gets kinda crazy, but the Noct-Nikkor really comes across as a true portrait lens.

Anyways it does not really get better than this unless perhaps you are shooting a Leica S. For me this is doubtful because I already print big and I could not afford to print the files big to exploit the added resolution and IQ of an S.

I would agree that for a long time line/horizon the SL can have legs. I'm so excited about PhotoPlusExpo tomorrow. Perhaps in the Leica booth they might have a working pre-production AF 50 Lux. Anyways this is my hope.

I paid $8K for my Monochrom that is still a great camera, the SL was only $7.5K. Now I am spoiled. LOL.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2016   #68
TRIago
Registered User
 
TRIago is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 42
I'm sure the SL is a fine camera and I can see why people would buy it. Buy I would not. But that's personal. If I go Leica, I go M. I'm not a professional photographer, tho. But seriously if I was and looking for a FF (35mm equivalent) I'd take a Canon right away. It is a better value in my point of view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
My Leicas kill fascists.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2016   #69
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIago View Post
I'm sure the SL is a fine camera and I can see why people would buy it. Buy I would not. But that's personal. If I go Leica, I go M. I'm not a professional photographer, tho.
Me too. Leica, to me, is the M. I do like the Q though too.

Quote:
But seriously if I was and looking for a FF (35mm equivalent) I'd take a Canon right away. It is a better value in my point of view.
Well, you don't even think of Leica if you are thinking of the best value.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2016   #70
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
The SL is not a common camera, but I saw one "in the wild" Sunday. The only other one I saw in the wild was at an ICP Symposium where Tina M. was the owner and speaker doing a presentation on her shooting in Iran and Syria.

Kinda cool not seeing SL's everywhere. In this manner it remains distinguished.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2016   #71
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIago View Post
I'm sure the SL is a fine camera and I can see why people would buy it. Buy I would not. But that's personal. If I go Leica, I go M. I'm not a professional photographer, tho. But seriously if I was and looking for a FF (35mm equivalent) I'd take a Canon right away. It is a better value in my point of view.
A Canon DSLR was my first "serious" DSLR. It always worked well, but its lenses never inspired me. I changed it out for other systems two years later—that was over a decade ago...

The Leica SL and Leica lenses inspire me. Simple as that. Its value proposition is that I love using it, and the lenses I use on it (SL, R, and M series) are outstanding in every way that matters to me. Many of those lenses pre-date the state of the art Canon lenses I had by several decades.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-2016   #72
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Here are some odd lenses to mount on a SL.

Nikon 35/1.8 LTM, Chrome Pentax-L 43/1.9 LTM; black Canon 28/3.5.

65/3.5 Visoflex via a triple stack of Leica adapters.

58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor AIS via Leica T-M adapter stacked with a Novaflex LEM/NIK. This stack of adapters allows me to utilize the Noctilux F1.2 profile. Nikon 45/2.8P (Tessar) that allows me to utilize a 50 Elmar profile. The 45/2.8P offers mucho contrast and saturation for a look of slides.

Using every small format lens I own is kinda seamless and fun.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-12-2016   #73
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 6,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Great post, Calzone.

You remind me soon we will be seeing shots with S lenses from the SL

Another place it fits like no A7 can: a second body for two systems: M and S, beside a place as first body for the oft unsung R line

It costs alot. Somebody paid 7k for the M9 I now use. The SL will become a viable path for the more cost conscious in time. A working SL is always going to be worth money.

Fuji and Leica have been thinking alot about still shooters and what they like and need. Sony has been pushing the sensor and footprint envelope for the FF cameras, which is a benefit to everyone, but Sony can't make a natural package. That's also probably good long run, as still the digital barnack, a smaller, lighter M platform, has yet to be cashed in
So last Friday I went to an event at the Leica Store in SoHo where they mounted "S" glass on a tethered SL to make portraits. John Kreider, a Leica Product Specialist answered my question about the advantage of "S" glass on a SL by zooming in on a file. There was macro like detail, deeper shadow detail than I ever saw, and added smoothness to the highlights. Basically more dynamic range.

Anyways I was blown away. Looked very medium format to me. Never saw that level on my 27 inch EIZO that I saw on a Mac powerbook's small screen.

Of course a strobe was used to bring out the information. The lens used was the 100/2.0 ASPH so this was not a slow lens like on my medium format film cameras. And yes it was stopped down.

Anyways definitely a big step towards medium format.

Sunday at our NYC Meet-Up we celebrated "lens-fest." Jim brought a Noctilux F1.2. What was interesting was comparing the 50 Lux-R E55 against my 50 Lux-R "E60." I was expecting my E60 to crush the E55, but my E60 only was a minor amount sharper. In fact the E55 displayed more saturated/deeper colors.

At home I tested my 50 Lux ASPH against my E60, and the clear winner was the E60. I wonder if the lack of size constraints allowed Leica to build a better lens, or if "R" glass exploits a larger image circle to exploit the "sweet-spot" like the "S" glass does.

Anyways it seems independently the guys at the Leica Store reported to me that they compared a 35 Lux-R against a 35 Lux ASPH FLE and were surprised that the "R" glass was sharper. Larger image circle?

Now I'm thinking that the AF 50 Lux I pre-ordered, coming out in spring 2017, has an 82mm filter thread, and is only perhaps a half inch shorter than the huge 24-90 zoom. The AF 50 Lux should be lighter due to less elements and groups, but my guess is that Leica is going to exploit a big image circle and the sweet spot.

The Pre-production AF 50 Lux I tried at PhotoPlusExpo wide open perhaps is large for good reason. John Kreider also mentioned that he will be testing the 50 Lux with new firmware this week. The AF should be speeding up.

When I check my G-mail I should have the shots John took of me, but know that the shots from Friday's event will be posted on the Leica Store SoHo's facebook page. I am wearing a white alpaca fur hat for the highlight. BTW the new level of detail was very macrolike.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:19.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.