DP Review of the SL

brennanphotoguy

brennanphotoguy

Well-known
Local time
8:09 PM
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
934
DP Review did one of their famous reviews on the SL. They came to the conclusion that I came up with as well. What do you think?

The SL, on the other hand, is trying to be something much more difficult to be: a mirrorless full-frame all-rounder that's free of compromises and aimed at the professional or well-heeled enthusiast. Despite being a beautifully built camera capable of exceptional images, I just don't see it measuring up in a crowded market of objectively better, cheaper and more flexible options.
Click to expand...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl-typ-601/7
 
No-one else has an EVF that matches the Leica SL's. No other camera works as well with M lenses as the SL.
I'd get one if the EVF (like all of them) didn't give me an headache.
I'm saying it's going to be Leica's digital M5...
 
Huss said:
No-one else has an EVF that matches the Leica SL's. No other camera works as well with M lenses as the SL.
I'd get one if the EVF (like all of them) didn't give me an headache.
I'm saying it's going to be Leica's digital M5...
Click to expand...

Haha digital M5 is probably an accurate assessment of this camera. Capable, flawed, interesting, not for everyone. I just find their failure to produce lenses for it particularly egregious. What Leica user was clamoring for two giant variable aperture zooms? No thanks.
 
Brennan,

I don't disagree with the review, although JPEG performance is not important to me. Pretty much I agree with the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The 50 Lux-SL does seem a lot slower than the 24-90. The 24-90 is hard work to carry, and it does get uncomfortable at the end of the day.

What is not spoken though is how well the SL feels and works with Leica "R" glass, and also the flexibility of using a lens like the Noct-Nikkor on the SL. Not sure it would be a good experience using this glass on the unmentioned cameras that cost less, but the experience is a good dose of pleasure on my SL. Pretty much nailing the focus using the Noct-Nikkor wide open is pretty reliable, as is a 35 Lux-R and a 50 Lux "E60."

The 50 Lux-SL is perhaps only a half inch shorter than the gigantic 24-90 collapsed to 24mm and is only 2.6 ounces lighter. Anyways the size and weight is considerable.

BTW the image stabilization was not mentioned (only with native SL lenses) and I can tell you that it works unbelievably well, and that alone for night shooting offers strong consideration for buying that big native glass.

Cal
 
Of course all those R lenses would work just fine on an A7x and have stabilization in body to boot. The only advantage it has natively is that you don't have to get it Kolari modified to work well with M glass, but of course that Kolari mod is available and still cheaper than an SL.
 
Calzone said:
Brennan,

I don't disagree with the review, although JPEG performance is not important to me. Pretty much I agree with the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The 50 Lux-SL does seem a lot slower than the 24-90. The 24-90 is hard work to carry, and it does get uncomfortable at the end of the day.

What is not spoken though is how well the SL feels and works with Leica "R" glass, and also the flexibility of using a lens like the Noct-Nikkor on the SL. Not sure it would be a good experience using this glass on the unmentioned cameras that cost less, but the experience is a good dose of pleasure on my SL. Pretty much nailing the focus using the Noct-Nikkor wide open is pretty reliable, as is a 35 Lux-R and a 50 Lux "E60."

The 50 Lux-SL is perhaps only a half inch shorter than the gigantic 24-90 collapsed to 24mm and is only 2.6 ounces lighter. Anyways the size and weight is considerable.

BTW the image stabilization was not mentioned (only with native SL lenses) and I can tell you that it works unbelievably well, and that alone for night shooting offers strong consideration for buying that big native glass.

Cal
Click to expand...

The only lenses that don't work well on the Sony mirrorless bodies are M mount wide angle lenses. I've used a Noct on an A7RII here in the warehouse and it looked great and was super easy to focus as well. They mentioned stabilization as well just stating that it was only in the lenses and not the bodies like in the A7 series. They did say the build quality, EVF, and the way the buttons felt was great which I felt as well.
 
I believe the Fujifilm X-t2 has a better evf than the SL. Fuji benchmarked the Xt2 evf on the SL. Although I dont think the human eye can really tell the difference with such high refresh rates on the evf. Also the M10 handles M glass better =)

edit - resolution better on SL evf but Xt2 has higher refresh rate.

edit - to clarify " Also the M10 handles M glass better =)" comment. Leica stated that M10 sensor better calibrated to M lens than the SL is.
 
brennanphotoguy said:
The only lenses that don't work well on the Sony mirrorless bodies are M mount wide angle lenses. I've used a Noct on an A7RII here in the warehouse and it looked great and was super easy to focus as well. They mentioned stabilization as well just stating that it was only in the lenses and not the bodies like in the A7 series. They did say the build quality, EVF, and the way the buttons felt was great which I felt as well.
Click to expand...

Brennan,

Not being good for M-glass wides was a deal breaker for the A7 for me.

Image stabilization in the body is a great thing.

Cal
 
fenixv8 said:
I believe the Fujifilm X-t2 has a better evf than the SL. Fuji benchmarked the Xt2 evf on the SL. Although I dont think the human eye can really tell the difference with such high refresh rates on the evf. Also the M10 handles M glass better =)

edit - resolution better on SL evf but Xt2 has higher refresh rate.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Having used both, the higher dot count of the SL's evf is overrated. It also has poor contrast and color. You have to zoom in to see fine focus on both the SL and XT2 or any A7x so I'll take a viewfinder with great color and contrast and an adequate number of dots over the mess of an image that you see in the SL.
 
SaveKodak said:
Agreed. Having used both, the higher dot count of the SL's evf is overrated. It also has poor contrast and color. You have to zoom in to see fine focus on both the SL and XT2 or any A7x so I'll take a viewfinder with great color and contrast and an adequate number of dots over the mess of an image that you see in the SL.
Click to expand...

Mess of an image? I found the SL easy to focus w/o having to zoom in. A first for any EVF that I used.

What I did notice, when it was handed to me, was that everything was blue. The previous user had gone into the WB settings and picked tungsten. After I changed it to AWB, everything was fine.
And this is another thing that was impressive with the SL. I had never touched one before and it took me just a moment to find that setting and make a change.
 
I don't read reviews. I use the camera.

I've been using the Leica SL extensively since November 16, 2015, the day it was released. All of my beloved and sometimes ancient Leica R lenses work brilliantly on it, better than on any other camera they've been adapted to. All of my Leica M lenses work brilliantly on it, better than on any other camera beyond the Leica Ms they were designed for. The dedicated SL24-90mm lens outperforms nearly all of the above all by itself. The dedicated SL90-280mm lens, out for almost a year now, outperforms most legendary long lenses in the class, zoom or prime.

The SL firmware has been updated several time with new features requested by the users. It has very few glitches, and none of them particularly serious for all but the most niche-oriented user.

Mine has performed flawlessly for over 10K exposures so far. It is beautifully built, is superbly balanced, has exceptionally well-worked-out controls, features, and image quality.

I don't care what the reviewers say at all, nor do I care what anyone else feels about it. This camera is exceptional in every way.

G
 
SaveKodak said:
Of course all those R lenses would work just fine on an A7x and have stabilization in body to boot. The only advantage it has natively is that you don't have to get it Kolari modified to work well with M glass, but of course that Kolari mod is available and still cheaper than an SL.
Click to expand...

Cal,

Your just so gullible, you know how much I love my A7Rii, I'll trade you at the next meet-up so you can get rid of that nasty SL...

Joe:rolleyes:
 
jszokoli said:
Cal,

Your just so gullible, you know how much I love my A7Rii, I'll trade you at the next meet-up so you can get rid of that nasty SL...

Joe:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"The Leica SL's 24MP sensor turns in respectable performance in our dynamic range tests. It's somewhat ISO Invariant from ISO 200 to 400 onwards, while exposure latitude tests indicate similar dynamic range to a Canon 5D Mark IV. In other words, dynamic range lies somewhere between Canon's previous generation of sensor technology and where Sony's technology currently is. It's worth noting that extremely dark signals get clipped to black which, combined with some banding, makes heavily pushed tones far less usable than Nikon competitors. The SL is still a good ways behind the dynamic range class leader: the Nikon D810 with its native ISO value of 64."

You would regret that trade. The Sony BSI sensor is state of the art.
 
I think that it's just as important how you feel about a camera , how it works for you.
I`m just as inclined to weigh that consideration against a purely technical assessment
 
I've not shot any of the above mentioned, other than my SL, and think the files are absolutely brilliant.
However, I have seen plenty of friends files and prints, from the others, and was not impressed in the least.
 
Damned with faint praise, it seems. And yet; quite a long list of "cons" and still it gets 84%. Not sure what we can take away from reviews like this?

Try before you buy, as always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top