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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 10-22-2015   #81
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
did you see the picture? her open hand cannot get around more than 1/3 of the lens! seriously? its 82mm! cmon now, reality check anyone? lets pretend sigma put this out, you still behind it? dont think so, not at all.
I can't believe everyone is taken in by that photo which is an intentional exaggeration. It's source alone should give you pause.

Here is the Antidote:


SLshot by All The Websters, on Flickr

Now, calm down and try to access the camera rationally
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #82
burancap
Registered User
 
burancap's Avatar
 
burancap is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Age: 52
Posts: 2,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I can't believe everyone is taken in by that photo which is an intentional exaggeration. It's source alone should give you pause.

Here is the Antidote:

Now, calm down and try to access the camera rationally
Indeed!

As there is no scale in this photo other than the known sizes of both the small and large Apple Watches, the SL is clearly HUGE!!!
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,913
Looks awesome in that photo (with a M lens)! I hope manufacturers start making larger mirrorless cameras to match these boner lenses they keep making. Or make smaller lens to fit smaller cameras. Still Leica's SL zooms are too big for my liking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #84
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,581
^^^

That there fellah likes him some gaffers tape. Keeps an extra wrap handy around his arm
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #85
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
oh i see, the photo you dont like, the one with the actual lens leica just put out, is misleading and doctored. the one you like, that has a small rf lens attached presents the accurate picture of 'the new standard in af dslr'. you guys have some set of stones you know that? what the heck is accurate about your picture when it doesnt have the accompanying af lens that forms the foundation of this system?

no one needs justify how they spend their money to anyone else. i vehemently disagree with anyone who criticises the purchase of this or any other nonleathal item. where you guys go totally off the rails is in demanding others live your fantasy, insisting that the subjective is objective, telling those who disagree that our reasons for not wanting this is hogwash. THAT is what pisses people off, and certainly what pisses me off.

showing a fully irrelevent example is not disproving a relevent one. you think the photo of the lady holding that monstrosity is doctored, provide some proof or withdraw the charge. or show your own pictures of the SAME equipmement--the camera and lens released yesterday--to provide a different context. or better yet, admit the obvious, that the kit is monstrous, and just declare you dont give a darn you still want it. youll get a lot of support for that, including mine. but stop this other BS.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #86
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,913
It's only a camera...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #87
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
My points are:
  • The photo of the woman holding the camera and zoom lens is very distorted by foreshortening, making the rig look unnecessarily ginormous.
  • The SL body is sort of an average SLR size and weight.
  • The big 24-90 zoom is big, but not much bigger than the 180/2.8 I often walk around with.
  • Expecting all mirrorless, FF cameras to be ultra-compacts isn't realistic. Not even the Sony A7 is that.

Beyond that, I think Leica has produced a good camera in the SL that will work with my R lenses very nicely, much better than the A7 did even. I have little to no interest in zoom lenses; never have but for a couple of exceptions, they're always bulkier and heavier than I like. The price is high, but no higher than what I'm willing to spend on an M body, so that's a toss up.

Presuming I'll buy one of these at some point, I can sell off the Nikon gear to help fund the purchase. Probably won't since I can afford to keep both, and I like my old Nikkors a lot too.

Whether anyone else likes or wants the SL, or not, is fine by me. Same goes for the Sony things and the Fuji things. It just would be nice to have a conversation about the camera without all the ridiculous hyperbole and obviously incorrect information spoken as gospel.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #88
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by burancap View Post
As there is no scale in this photo other than the known sizes of both the small and large Apple Watches, the SL is clearly HUGE!!!
No, it really isn't. I acknowledge this is not meant to be a constructive discussion, but we can at least pretend. It's slightly larger than the M. If you wanted a Q with a lens mount, the SL is obviously larger than that. But it isn't a huge camera in reality. It isn't a small one either. A Sony A7 series camera is pretty small, an RX1 is very small.

The native lenses are a different matter. They are large, and while they are reasonably similar in size vs. DSLR competition that this system is said to go against, they show no real size advantage, which is probably something many people expect from a mirrorless Leica (valid or not). These lenses are said to be free of compromise (and while this does not seem to apply when it comes to constant aperture!), they may show quality that fits the size. I guess the jury is still out on that one, especially for the tele zoom and the Summilux.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #89
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
My points are:
[*]The SL body is sort of an average SLR size and weight. [*]The big 24-90 zoom is big, but not much bigger than the 180/2.8 I often walk around with. [*]Expecting all mirrorless, FF cameras to be ultra-compacts isn't realistic. Not even the Sony A7 is that.
Right, but it is the first modern mirrorless that is as large as a large DSLR and the lenses are very large for standard zooms. Since it is the first to do this, it wasn't unrealistic to expect it to have been smaller. The A7 is tiny in comparison. We get it, you love it and will defend it all day long. Conversely, there are those that are going to hate the size because they like small cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #90
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
if you want to 'pretend' at being constructive, please constructively point out the next biggest mirrorless camera by any manufacturer, compare it to the SL, and then tell us what in your opinion would fit your personal definition of 'much larger' than any other mirrorless. that would be constructive as it would be based on fact vs 'no it isnt/yes it is'.

then you could constuctively attach the monstrous ff af vario elmarit to the SL, attach the closest native normal zoom to the mirrorlees you chose above, then try to restate your position without laughing too hard.

please stop telling people WHAT WE CAN CLEARLY SEE, this kit is huge! that fact may not matter to you. GREAT! more power to you, and use it in good health. i look forward to the images. but dont be the guy caught in bed naked with another woman who asks his wife 'who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes'?

and re what shouldve been 'reasonable expectations' for this product, lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs! the major selling point of sonys a7 ff mirrorless line is that IT CAN REPLACE HUGE DSLRs! so tell me again why it was unreasonable to expect leica to not RECREATE A HUGE DSLR utilizing mirrorless technology?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #91
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
and re what shouldve been 'reasonable expectations' for this product, lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs! the major selling point of sonys a7 ff mirrorless line is that IT CAN REPLACE HUGE DSLRs! so tell me again why it was unreasonable to expect leica to not RECREATE A HUGE DSLR utilizing mirrorless technology?

I think you may be incorrect here Tony.

One byproduct of mirrorless technology was the ability to have a shorter register distance and yes, the possibiility of smaller cameras overall.

Those small cameras have great shortcomings in some situations.
They are underpowered and slow. Read around the web all the complaints of lag and poor evf reponse and resolution not to mention shot count vs battery life.
Something has to give to improve those areas. Size is that something.
In order to have a feature, It has to fit in th package.
So far smaller mirrorless options have been quite hampered in performance compared to their DSLR brothers.

This Camera seems to think outside of the box of previous mirrorless cameras. Just read the spec sheet. It's a speed demon with a super hi-res evf.
I think there is a lot to be said for offering something we are not already being offered.
Leica is a premium brand and therefore quite spend. Let's see what voice other manufaturers use to respond to this offering.
It's an excellent springboard. I hope other manufacturers go out and bounce on it!
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #92
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
People should adjust their expectations and not let a misleading, foreshortened photograph be their guide. If I want a petite, professional quality mirrorless to work with, the Olympus E-M1 is far better at being compact.

G
It's alright Godfrey, some men like their women "fat" some like them "skinny", they all need loving.
Petite is nice though....Oh what a shallow world we live in
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #93
JPSuisse
Registered User
 
JPSuisse's Avatar
 
JPSuisse is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
But on the other hand, what it does offer are the M lenses, which are worshipped by many pros. That capability, combined with the video and other techie features will be enough.

All the "it's ugly" comments make me wonder if these critics have done anything but look at the midget model holding it. That image is pure bashing, on purpose, it should be obvious.

A careful look will reveal an exquisite build, the Sony is a toy in comparison, though those straight line have killed ergos. Ming's hand hurt in a short time with the big zoom.

Many are mad because it's not they want: small, simple, M-cool and free.

I'll never own one, but I very much admire the thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Good way to sum it all up.
I see it this way too. It's not for me, but I am kind of impressed by it and see certain values in it. The technical specs are impressive.

Now, where is all that Tri-X, I still need to develop... :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #94
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
if you want to 'pretend' at being constructive, please constructively point out the next biggest mirrorless camera by any manufacturer, compare it to the SL, and then tell us what in your opinion would fit your personal definition of 'much larger' than any other mirrorless. that would be constructive as it would be based on fact vs 'no it isnt/yes it is'.
By choice of words, this outburst is clearly aimed at me. As I already said above, the camera is slightly larger than the M. You can look up the dimensions of these two cameras, and see the facts for yourself. Whatever is my personal definition of "much larger" is obviously subjective. But it is based on facts and my experience in using several cameras. One of the first things after I read about this new camera was to check the specified dimensions against cameras I use or consider getting. It wasn't a complicated task.

I also said rather clearly above that the native SL lenses in fact are large. I have elsewhere further stated that the SL is significantly heavier than I had hoped for and I am not personally happy about that.

If you have this much issue with me and this much difficulty in reading my posts, I suggest you add me to your ignore list. I don't see how to help you otherwise.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #95
Sonny Sichtstein
Mike in Sacramento
 
Sonny Sichtstein's Avatar
 
Sonny Sichtstein is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs!
And all this time I thought the reasons might possibly include the advantages of removing the mirror, the complexity, and the noise. And maybe showing the actual scene more accurately including exposure, depth of field, etc.

Don't I feel foolish now.
__________________
M8 | M2 bp | M2 | IIIf RDST bp | IIIc
Biogon T* 35/2 | Summitar 50/2 | Elmar 50/3.5 | Fed 50/3.5 | Color Skopar 25/4
Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS | Calumet C400 4x5, Caltar-S II 150/5.6 | Kiev 88, 80/2.8 Arsat | Olympus E420 w/ 14-42/3.5-5.6
Pacific Image PrimeFilm XE scanner | Epson V600 scanner | Epson P600 printer

me on 500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #96
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
thats an intersting point andy. tbh, i really had never gotten the undercurrent of dissatisfaction with mirrorless you discussed, but maybe its there. i just hear a lot of folks loving on their a7s. tbh again, i had no such issues with the rx1, except for battery life, but performance wise it was a beast without being a monster. ):

and even with battery life, that stinks with many cameras, including my rd1. its great though with mirrorless m4/3. so im not so sure size is the issue. but whatever.

and its totally understandable that you actually want a big camera or that godfrey would think this was a godsend for R glass. honestly, those reasons, or no reason, to like this is fine with me. but telling people they dont see what they see, or that size shouldnt matter to lots of folks, or that if it does this isnt a really big boy, or showing some guy shooting a rf lens to prove that elmarit isnt a lead pipe, that just gets my hackels up.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #97
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukecoke View Post
Let's just have a more straight forward comparison. No mirrorless EVF camera to SLR or to RF.



source: http://www.photographyblog.com/news/...de_comparison/

The lenses comparison is another matter...
That new Leica is big Cal, but it is not big enough.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #98
JPSuisse
Registered User
 
JPSuisse's Avatar
 
JPSuisse is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 419
Actually, my first thought when I saw the cut-away (not sure where) showing an M-lens with the M-adapter with the sensor in the background was that "maybe the next M-body might be shutterless as well with this technology."

This would then put a digital M on par with the quiteness of my MPs. I just haven't seen a big enough incremental improvement to the M8s to justify taking the plunge to another digital M. Yes, yes, I know the M8 is quirky but I still use it as much as my MPs.

In sum, all the technology and interchangeability packed in this new body bodes well for the next digital M too! (Even though I don't want film and video.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #99
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukecoke View Post
Let's just have a more straight forward comparison. No mirrorless EVF camera to SLR or to RF.

Thank you for putting the (intentionally by many!) misleading discussion about the "enormous" camera size to rest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #100
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Sichtstein View Post
And all this time I thought the reasons might possibly include the advantages of removing the mirror, the complexity, and the noise. And maybe showing the actual scene more accurately including exposure, depth of field, etc.

Don't I feel foolish now.
no doubt all thise things are true. i was taught more than one thing can be true at the same time, and if you take a look at how mirrorless was marketed, and how the a7 was marketed, i thought both what i said and what you said coexisted as true. i dont feel foolish.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #101
Sonny Sichtstein
Mike in Sacramento
 
Sonny Sichtstein's Avatar
 
Sonny Sichtstein is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
i was taught more than one thing can be true at the same time
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs!
"Entire reason" sort of shuts the door on "more than one"
__________________
M8 | M2 bp | M2 | IIIf RDST bp | IIIc
Biogon T* 35/2 | Summitar 50/2 | Elmar 50/3.5 | Fed 50/3.5 | Color Skopar 25/4
Rolleiflex 3.5 MX-EVS | Calumet C400 4x5, Caltar-S II 150/5.6 | Kiev 88, 80/2.8 Arsat | Olympus E420 w/ 14-42/3.5-5.6
Pacific Image PrimeFilm XE scanner | Epson V600 scanner | Epson P600 printer

me on 500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #102
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 63
Posts: 3,183
The obvious question is whether folks with in-use inventories of M or R glass will turn away from their current M digital, Sony, or other mirrorless body-based solutions for using that fine glass to the SL. And the second question might be whether folks will turn away from Sony/Fuji/Oly native AF implementations and spend the considerable admission price difference to be on an AF-capable Leica system with native SL lenses.
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer

Gear: more than enough, film and digital

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #103
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
The obvious question is whether folks with in-use inventories of M or R glass will turn away from their current M digital, Sony, or other mirrorless body-based solutions for using that fine glass to the SL. And the second question might be whether folks will turn away from Sony/Fuji/Oly native AF implementations and spend the considerable admission price difference to be on an AF-capable Leica system with native SL lenses.

Oh man. Ok, speaking only for myself,... I sure like the small excellent fuji af lenses (at any price).
It's going to take a tremendous change of need in my photography to make a change of digital systems.
I wish for a body with this performance without any doubt but, it's a need for only 5-10% of my projects.
Given good lenses and sensor, Most of the time a much less muscular camera does the job.
A person like me is not the Leica target.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #104
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
those are interesting points bill. most interesting is you did not mention anyone turning away from CaNikon. nothing is 100% but death, imo folks choosing M, fuji, sony and especially oly have made a size choice that they are not likely to revisit with this product. the reason i say this with some confidence is this product has more or less already existed in CaNikon and these buyers already eschewed those products. no doubt about it corvette owners, size matters!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #105
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny Sichtstein View Post
"Entire reason" sort of shuts the door on "more than one"
calm down there sonny. a little hyperbole never hurt anyone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #106
C Jensen
Registered User
 
C Jensen is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 8
To be fair, what does it look like in a side by side photo with a Fuji 690 GW?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #107
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
with the lens released yesterday, it trounces that fuji, beats it to a pulp. ):
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #108
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 672
I've been pondering the user experience, and no wheel on the back means that Exposure Comp is likely to be a fiddle to adjust on the fly, especially without taking your eye away from the EVF.

It's those kinds of ergonomics decisions which will affect whether it's taken up by the pro market or not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #109
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Right, but it is the first modern mirrorless that is as large as a large DSLR and the lenses are very large for standard zooms. Since it is the first to do this, it wasn't unrealistic to expect it to have been smaller. The A7 is tiny in comparison. ...
I don't "love it" or any horsepucky like that. I'd like to discuss it with some objectivity and reason rather than the prevailing wind of emotional pathologies. The title of the thread is, after all, "What is Leica thinking?" And there's been little sensible discussion addressing that topic.

Modern mirrorless cameras were invented for one reason, primarily: to restore the usability of the viewfinder for smaller-than-35 format TTL cameras. The side effect of compactness comes about because of the smaller than 35 format and the loss of the mirror box. Micro-FourThirds gets the most advantage because it has the smallest sensor; NEX and Fuji X get a nice boost from it, but lens size begins to creep up since the more oblong format needs more coverage, relatively speaking. Still, it's a passible advantage and lets them sell on the basis of compactness.

Other advantages to the EVF as a viewfinder are recognized ... preview, pre-exposure exposure analysis, overlays, focusing aids, all that stuff. Good stuff ... modern EVF cameras outstrip SLRs rapidly when it comes to real, useful viewfinder capabiities. Once the EVFs get to enough density and fast enough refresh, they are a viable alternative.

But then the FF rage hits the market like a tornado. FF sensors have dropped in price precipitously and everyone wants one. Sony's in a good position: they have a good sized mount for NEX and a partial lens line that will mostly work, some bits through adaptation. They can capitalize on the compact size lent by the NEX basic electronics and mount, with some issues that they can work around.

Remember that until the Leica SL, the ONLY other FF mirrorless line is Sony A7 in all its variant bodies. A7 bodies are reasonably compact, and a couple of the lenses are too. Not many. And what's the typical complaint we've heard over and over again? Big, expensive lenses, not enough lenses, and poor battery performance. Never mind a few of the other kluges along the way.

Big expensive lenses, and not enough lenses ... Let's think about that a moment. The lens designers at Sigma said a year and some back that developing premium lenses for Sony E mount was too difficult because it was too tight on the format. That turns out to be quite true. Despite how shallow the mount register is, I found shrouding with wide lenses, even lenses designed for SLRs with mount adapters that gave as clear a shot as possible to the sensor. This is one of the reasons I gave up on the A7 line. The results with a beautiful lens like the Elmarit-R 19mm or Nikkor 18mm were sub-par with corner masking and poor resolution.

Moving on ... Leica had gotten to the point of prototypes with FF DSLR, the R10, and dropped the project as it had become too unwieldy, too expensive. To try to compete against the like of Nikon and Canon without producing the exact same thing they were making netted them a price war and little else. Meanwhile, Leica knows that the most valuable thing their customers have are Leica lenses, lots of them, and any digital camera to use Leica lenses from Leica had to be of an outstanding level to get the most out of those lenses.

They tackled the RF cameras first, as this is Leica's legacy. Creating digital RF bodies was a particularly knotty problem as the lenses were designed to take advantage of exactly what was hardest to deal with in digital sensors: moving the lens inset into the body to keep overall size small and lens designs simple. They made it. Through the M8, M9, and then into the M typ 240 they achieved the level of quality and responsiveness that Leica was famous for. Most of the user lens investments were validated with great results. The M9 was a tremendous success and netted financial security to develop other things.

The decision to build the S system must have been an interesting one. Here they could take advantage of a known viewfinder technology at an even larger size where it would excel, and the additional weight and complexity of lenses wouldn't matter much since the camera moved into the medium format digital class. They built a superb system, albeit at a very high price.

That leaves all those R lenses and eager users out there. Forty some years of brilliant R lenses ... What to do? Well, Sony had proved that a FF sensor worked with a digital viewfinder, with some level of problems. Now the question was "how well can it be made to work if we start from scratch and optimize the design for ALL our formats and lenses?"

When the T came out two-and-some years back, I laughed. "They're getting ready" was my first thought. They didn't make the NEX mistake; they designed a robust lens mount with more than enough diameter to provide unshrouded coverage for a full 24x36 sensor. If you compare the mount diameter vs sensor diagonal ratio, it goes beyond even the optimum that Olympus and Kodak came up with for the FourThirds system. The R system itself has a very large mount diameter ... this is an important factor in why Leica could build such outstanding and exotic lenses for the R system and have them perform so well. Unlike the Olympus-Kodak trade off of getting just enough optimization that a relatively modest price nets maximum gain, Leica prioritizes on maximum gain first and price afterwards.

So what is Leica thinking? Pretty much the same as always, "How can we make the best?" and then, "How can we maximize the value of our customers' lenses?" The SL is sized right for the lenses that are needed to cover the format properly, unlike the A7 series, with the right body heft and plenty of room for fingers and controls without clutter. They're building the body the same way they do the T, so it is a rigid, solid structure that bodes very well for heat dissipation and stability of the sensor and lens mount, and minimizes shutter vibrations all at the same time. In the dedicated lenses for the camera, they're putting in optical stabilization for best of breed performance tuned precisely to each lens. The mount is robust enough to not shroud very wide-angle R and M lenses, the sensor stack is thin enough to minimize problems with oblique angled ray trace lenses, etc etc. And the best EVF yet will support all the features and viewfinder quality expected of a top of the line Leica, sibling to the S SLR.

What I'm a little shocked at is that they've done all this and managed to hold the price to just the same as the M typ 240.

The Leica SL is likely not for everyone, just like the M typ 240 is likely not for everyone. The value proposition for it is very different from the value proposition for a Sony, which lives on the notion that every other year you'll buy another disposable thing that's better than the last. It's certainly not the "buy cheap, use until broken, replace with better" model. It's a value proposition that says, "you have $50,000 worth of our beloved lenses, here's how to make them shine for another decade until we deliver a camera that pushes them even further along."

I suspect that once the Leica SL gets into the field, it will prove itself worthy several times over. Oh, I'm sure there will be glitches too. In order to push boundaries, you have to be willing to fail some of the time.

I look forward to seeing one in the flesh. :-)

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #110
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackXList View Post
I've been pondering the user experience, and no wheel on the back means that Exposure Comp is likely to be a fiddle to adjust on the fly, especially without taking your eye away from the EVF.

It's those kinds of ergonomics decisions which will affect whether it's taken up by the pro market or not.
It does have a thumbwheel, as well as a joystick. ??

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #111
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
godfrey i read your analysis and find it very thoughtful and logical. except leicas stated purpose is to redefine digital autofocus, thus the three behemouth 82mm round af lenses. certainly, a side benefit may accrue manually focusing R lens users, but deciding thats the main thrust of this 'innovative autofocus system' is directly at odds with what theyre saying and seems at odds with the af logic of it all, as well as pretty much every other commentator whose spoken on this.

once we question that premise and replace it with leicas public premise of creating a state of the art af system, well, then everything just really breaks down. because then we have to consider these ungainly, unsightly, unwieldy lenses, which when combined with your admittedly 'medium format' sized camera, seems less state of the art than bad art.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #112
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
The obvious question is whether folks with in-use inventories of M or R glass will turn away from their current M digital, Sony, or other mirrorless body-based solutions for using that fine glass to the SL. And the second question might be whether folks will turn away from Sony/Fuji/Oly native AF implementations and spend the considerable admission price difference to be on an AF-capable Leica system with native SL lenses.
I have R, M, Micro-FourThirds, and Nikon SLR systems at present. I already sold off my Sony kit.

Were I to obtain an SL body tomorrow, I'd sell off the entire mFT kit first; it's mostly redundant already. I'd trim down my M kit somewhat to one film and one digital body and keep the 24/35/50/75/90/135 RF lenses.

Then I'd have to work out some decisions. Stick with the R lenses as my mainstay for the SL is a given. Currently, that's 19/24/35/50/90/135/180 with two doublings. I like AF, but it's not a priority for me. So it is likely the best choice to wait for the 90-250 zoom for when the extra reach and OIS would be most useful. Hold onto one Leicaflex SL body, sell the others.

Then work out what I want to keep in Nikon. Mm. That's currently 18/25-50/28/35af/50/50af/55micro/85/105micro/180af ... I could just sell all but the micros, and pick up the R 60/100 micros. I'd have to think on that. :-)

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #113
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
... and re what shouldve been 'reasonable expectations' for this product, lets keep in mind the entire reason for the invention of mirrorless cameras was to replace HUGE DSLRs! the major selling point of sonys a7 ff mirrorless line is that IT CAN REPLACE HUGE DSLRs! so tell me again why it was unreasonable to expect leica to not RECREATE A HUGE DSLR utilizing mirrorless technology?
Absolutely not. The reason for creating TTL electronic imaging systems was to provide a better viewfinder as replacement for sub-35mm SLR viewfinders, which are compromised and dim due to the lack of focusing screen area.

35mm SLRs are very well worked out with efficient, clean viewfinders. Moving from an optical reflex to EVF viewfinder is a big innovation, done for the secondary advantages of the EVF over optical viewfinders.

Changing the size of the body, however, means nothing with respect to the size of lenses needed for the 35mm format. It is the lenses that make FF cameras bulky, and modern, optimized lenses for digital sensors with image stabilization, etc built into them are usually large and complex devices.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #114
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 63
Posts: 3,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Oh man. Ok, speaking only for myself,... I sure like the small excellent fuji af lenses (at any price).
It's going to take a tremendous change of need in my photography to make a change of digital systems.
I wish for a body with this performance without any doubt but, it's a need for only 5-10% of my projects.
Given good lenses and sensor, Most of the time a much less muscular camera does the job.
A person like me is not the Leica target.
I feel the same. My Fuji X gear is good enough, most of the time, most places. I think the SL is brlliant, but unnecessary for me as well.
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer

Gear: more than enough, film and digital

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #115
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 63
Posts: 3,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
I have R, M, Micro-FourThirds, and Nikon SLR systems at present. I already sold off my Sony kit.

Were I to obtain an SL body tomorrow, I'd sell off the entire mFT kit first; it's mostly redundant already. I'd trim down my M kit somewhat to one film and one digital body and keep the 24/35/50/75/90/135 RF lenses.

Then I'd have to work out some decisions. Stick with the R lenses as my mainstay for the SL is a given. Currently, that's 19/24/35/50/90/135/180 with two doublings. I like AF, but it's not a priority for me. So it is likely the best choice to wait for the 90-250 zoom for when the extra reach and OIS would be most useful. Hold onto one Leicaflex SL body, sell the others.

Then work out what I want to keep in Nikon. Mm. That's currently 18/25-50/28/35af/50/50af/55micro/85/105micro/180af ... I could just sell all but the micros, and pick up the R 60/100 micros. I'd have to think on that. :-)

G
Godfrey, I can see why the SL is in your sights down the road. Happy dance time!
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer

Gear: more than enough, film and digital

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #116
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbelyell View Post
godfrey i read your analysis and find it very thoughtful and logical. except leicas stated purpose is to redefine digital autofocus, thus the three behemouth 82mm round af lenses. certainly, a side benefit may accrue manually focusing R lens users, but deciding thats the main thrust of this 'innovative autofocus system' is directly at odds with what theyre saying and seems at odds with the af logic of it all, as well as pretty much every other commentator whose spoken on this. ...
Thank you for the compliment.

I don't know what "digital AF" is.

Leica's stated purpose is to provide state of the art AF as well as the best lens performance possible. The new lenses are in support of that goal. However, I don't think it's possible to deny their interest in providing the many R system customers a suitable platform for what amounts to many thousands of dollars worth of excellent lenses, never mind the M system customers too. Leica has always done its best for their customers and respected their lens investments as the real cement of the relationship. I am absolutely sure that Leica presumes a large portion of the initial SL sales will go to people who already have Leica M and R equipment and that they will be judging it as a body based on using their existing lenses first and foremost.

The AF lens designs being developed are very complex with many elements. Such lens designs need strong mounts and very accurate, fast servomotors to meet the goals of "state of the art AF" as well as Leica's durability and robustness standards. Since they're also incorporating OIS into these lenses, that takes yet more room and also benefits from the robust mounts.

Are they too big? Well, they're certainly larger than I would prefer, but too big is a value judgement. The stated size of the 24-90/2.8-4 is 88x138 mm, 1140kg; it has 18 elements in 15 groups and takes the 82mm filter size.
  • My Nikon 180/2.8 ED-IF AF-D is 79x144mm, 760g with 8 elements in 6 groups, and no OIS. I don't find it difficult to manage at all, it's a full handful to hold but isn't outrageously too thick to grip easily. I'd have no difficulty with another 10mm diameter. It, along with a D750 body, slips nicely into a Domke F5xb, along with a 35 or 50mm lens too, so I don't really feel it is oversize at all.
  • A closer match to the SL lens is the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S, which comes in at 84x104mm, 710g, and takes a 77mm filter (17 elements in 13 groups). It's obviously much more lightly built at 430g lighter (almost a pound), but otherwise seems quite similar. (Oh yes, remember you have to factor in another inch for lens length between the SL lens and a DSLR lens; having no mirror box takes 20+ mm out out of the body for mount registration, but it has to go somewhere. ;-)

All together, however, the SL wasn't designed for compactness and light weight; it was designed for performance and durability. The story is the same for its lenses. They're big, but not inhumanly so.

G

afterthought:

The Leica SL is only the second "mirrorless" FF available. It will be interesting to see what Nikon and Canon offer if (when...) they decide to move from their all SLR systems to a modern EVF camera. I'm sure it will happen, the questions are when and what they'll produce.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #117
ajramirez
Registered User
 
ajramirez's Avatar
 
ajramirez is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 173
Does anybody know if the M adapter (which I understand reads the 6 bit code) will trigger lens profiles in the SL as it does in the digital M bodies? I wonder if it is possible for Leica to optimise the sensor for M lenses and also for lenses designed for a longer flange distance.

If if plays nice with M lenses, it could be a winner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #118
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajramirez View Post
Does anybody know if the M adapter (which I understand reads the 6 bit code) will trigger lens profiles in the SL as it does in the digital M bodies? I wonder if it is possible for Leica to optimise the sensor for M lenses and also for lenses designed for a longer flange distance.

If if plays nice with M lenses, it could be a winner.
According to Jono Slack's article (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...-sl-test-jono/), the M adapter triggers M-mount lens profiles and the R Adapter L does the same for R-mount lenses.

It's just manipulation of the captured data to suit a calibration spec. While not exactly simple, it's quite doable with today's compute power, even in embedded devices.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #119
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 864
I wonder whether the electronic viewfinder displays all the information film makers have been used to for years (e.g., zebra, peaking, focus areas, histogram, etc).

Edit: I just looked it up and it seems to have all of the above and more. Focus peaking and zebra will be nice!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-22-2015   #120
borge
Registered User
 
borge is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 155
The only one's who was thinking was the marketing department.
Yet another failure that the later generation M's financially will have to "cover" for. I can foresee several price increases in the next years due to the SL. Something's gotta cover the R&D cost when the system won't be able to cover it itself.
__________________
Website: www.indergaard.net
  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 05:31.


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.