Leica SL , 24MP FF Mirrorless Camera

hobodan said:
I think you lose credibility with your last quote - mirrorless is the future? Well if it is, you can be assured that Canon / Nikon will put an EVF into their cameras, but they have yet to do so. It's also unlikely they will get rid of the optical viewfinder, as it is by far a better and more natural way to use a camera - they would most likely incorporate an evf into a hybrid system if they ever felt an EVF was a serious tool.

Sure this new Leica looks nice, but to suggest it's going to brush aside the best from Canon / Nikon & Sony (zeiss) is optimistic at best - the former especially have well established systems and some high quality, affordable optics. I can't see why any professional would choose the Leica over the other systems I have mentioned? all newer lenses from Canon / Nikon / Zeiss have pretty excellent optics tbf.

You have to ask yourself, if it had Panasonic on it instead of the red dot, would you be so defensive? No.
Leica's M mount has history and proven quality and appeals to a niche market. This new system I don't feel will appeal to the same crowd - and I can't see a professional who wants excellent, proven tools to do his / her job choosing the SL over what's out there already, especially for the extortionate premium.
Click to expand...

Mirrorless and EVF is the way the market is heading. Technology will improve, patents will be filed like Nikon has with a full frame 28-80 mirrorless lens. Luddites will be clinging onto their mirrors and gabbing about them and their glory days in dusty corners of esoteric forums, but the world will have moved on.

I don't own a Leica, I have no dog in the hunt any more and owned one when things were particularly bad for everything from lens availability to servicing. I like to see something new and innovative from a company that was always ridiculed for 'innovation' like producing ridiculously priced limited edition cameras for obscure royal families. Its marrying up German and Japanese know how and harking back at Leicaflex SL or R3 design from the past. I quite like the way Leica is heading.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
What lenses by Nikon and Canon are much better and cheaper than that Leica one?
Click to expand...

To be fair, the only information available about the new kit lens is the figures on paper and the generally gushing primed early reviews. The figures show variable aperture, sharp at the wide end and disappointingly soft at the tele.

In comparison, both Canon and Nikon have proven lenses that deliver sharp results across the frame with constant apertures that don't cost $5k. The 24-70 2.8's from both are the staple lenses of many pros shooting a range of work with both Canon and Nikon bodies and surely even you have to admit that.
 
Laudrup said:
What lenses by Nikon and Canon are much better and cheaper than that Leica one?
Click to expand...
The 24-105 f/4 L for one.

And that came out in 1999....
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm left wondering how it meets the needs of working pros. 11fps is nice, but I can't see it making waves amongst sports photorgaphers. The AF is meant to be fast, but again... (shrug). Considering the price you'd have to pay for lenses, I can't see it catching on amongst sports photogaphers. Actually, are there even any suitable lenses for that market?
Click to expand...

Nope. Nothing like a 400/500/600 at all, the closest is the 280mm on the zoom but that isn't even out yet. The AF will be nowhere near a 1DX/D4s. Definitely not for sports.

As a studio camera it doesn't seem that great, and ergonomically, would be a pain... I mean, why hide the sync socket (essential to be accessible and ergonomically placed - preferably on the front of the camera) behind that massive rubber, hinged flap?... Oh yeah... to look nice. LOL
Click to expand...

Just use radio triggers, although I do wonder why they didn't include one built in like Phase One do. There's certainly enough space in there. Might be a nice backup for those who shoot with an S though, as the SL can AF with those lenses as well.

Sorry... I see nothing particularly tempting for professional photographers.
Click to expand...

I can see them being used wherever an M would be used... like backstage at fashion shows, reportage etc. but then I also see a D810/5D there as well.

Then there's the whole mirror-less thing. Forgive me, but isn't the point of that to make cameras smaller and lighter? This thing weighs in at nearly as much as a D800 and is pretty much the same size.
Click to expand...

I think that's the general advantage of mirrorless, but I do think having a bigger bodied mirrorless is good thing especially for full frame as the lenses don't get really get any smaller when the mirror box is removed.

The only pros you'll see using it are Lecia's pet pros that are paid to create that halo effect that trickles down into the wealthy amateur market.
Click to expand...

They've definitely positioned themselves towards the boutique/lifestyle market. Considering the number of Leica M's I see with EVFs clipped on them (just WTF) I see the SL being popular amongst those wealthy amateurs.
 
stevelmx5 said:
To be fair, the only information available about the new kit lens is the figures on paper and the generally gushing primed early reviews. The figures show variable aperture, sharp at the wide end and disappointingly soft at the tele.

In comparison, both Canon and Nikon have proven lenses that deliver sharp results across the frame with constant apertures that don't cost $5k. The 24-70 2.8's from both are the staple lenses of many pros shooting a range of work with both Canon and Nikon bodies and surely even you have to admit that.
Click to expand...

I already said the 24-70 was a pro workhorse, but it doesn't appear to be in this calibre of this Leica lens. It's not really a 'kit lens' in the traditional sense of the term either.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Whoopy doo. DxO's tests disagree with him, as do my findings. My D800E is lens limited. Fact.
Click to expand...

Physicist, astronomer, photographer and fine printer Ctein has written hundreds of articles for dozens of magazines about the science and technique of photography over four decades. It's no myth that his weekly TOP column appears on Wednesdays.
Click to expand...


He seems to have the credentials and experience.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Some say that phone cameras is the way the market is heading. :D
Click to expand...

That iPhone vs D800 thread on here by someone shows how scarily good the iPhone camera is now. Imagine these with silicon lenses and faster processors and better software in years to come. I do wonder if the phones will just obliterate the lower to medium end of the market. Flappy mirrors seem an anachronism when you look at the new technology. The EVF is getting a hard time too, but they are growing on me as they get better.
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I'm sure that was the kit lens they sold with the consumer 6d body, limited to f/4 at all focal lengths.
Click to expand...
Limited to f/4?

It's been around a lot longer than the 6d!
 
Laudrup said:
That iPhone vs D800 thread on here by someone shows how scarily good the iPhone camera is now. Imagine these with silicon lenses and faster processors and better software in years to come. I do wonder if the phones will just obliterate the lower to medium end of the market. Flappy mirrors seem an anachronism when you look at the new technology. The EVF is getting a hard time too, but they are growing on me as they get better.
Click to expand...
The iPhone 6 (and S) is not so good full screen, away from the phone, not a touch on APSC let alone FF.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
I already said the 24-70 was a pro workhorse, but it doesn't appear to be in this calibre of this Leica lens. It's not really a 'kit lens' in the traditional sense of the term either.
Click to expand...

How do you know? The only reviews I've read seem to find some pretty fundamental flaws;

"The telephoto end is a very mixed bag. I experienced serious forward focus shift when stopping down, resulting in much softer images than expected (not reflected on the top panel info). This does not help matters because though the centre is strong at f4, you really need to stop down to bring the corners to match"

"In addition, the telephoto end somewhat lacks bite – I suspect this has something to do with the number of elements. I can only hope this behaviour is attributable to the lens being a preproduction unit."

"I honestly didn’t think the camera balanced that well with the 24-90, which is probably down to the profile of the handgrip as much as anything."

"Optical Image stabilization is included in all SL lenses, and activated on the camera via the system menu. Leica rate their system to work at an effective 3 stops, which is pretty much the industry standard but I’d advise against using it for general use as the system, which handy in certain situations, can reduce image quality, ever so slightly. For my further testing, I will ensure it is in the ‘off’ position, except for when I really need"

"While the lens does look a little large for the camera, the vertical grip (to be released in 2016) will offer further balance to this combination."

"The one thing I didn’t like was the fly by wire focusing ring with no depth of field scales or hard stops"

"I honestly didn’t find the grip comfortable, and landed up with sore fingers and a claw after a day of shooting it. I suspect that balance will be much better with M or R lenses, but then you lose AF and IS."


These are taken from two different reviews (Ming Thein and Kristian Dowling) which, to be fair, also include lots of positive comments. My point is that you can't simply brush aside either the Canon or Nikon Pro go-to lenses simply because Leica make lots of fantastic lenses so this one must be equally amazing.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's sharp at the tele end for one thing, even wide open.
Click to expand...

It is 16 years old, has a longer zoom, is much cheaper, not as well corrected and it is going to be better? That is highly unlikely. I had a 24-105 and if you gave me the option of a £3k Leica Asph zoom I'd have no hesitation getting rid of the 24-105.
 
Whilst I agree with your argument of sorts, if a lens costs £3k yet delivers less than perfect results surely you'd be a fool to still buy it because of the badge?
 
stevelmx5 said:
How do you know? The only reviews I've read seem to find some pretty fundamental flaws;

"The telephoto end is a very mixed bag. I experienced serious forward focus shift when stopping down, resulting in much softer images than expected (not reflected on the top panel info). This does not help matters because though the centre is strong at f4, you really need to stop down to bring the corners to match"

"In addition, the telephoto end somewhat lacks bite – I suspect this has something to do with the number of elements. I can only hope this behaviour is attributable to the lens being a preproduction unit."

"I honestly didn’t think the camera balanced that well with the 24-90, which is probably down to the profile of the handgrip as much as anything."

"Optical Image stabilization is included in all SL lenses, and activated on the camera via the system menu. Leica rate their system to work at an effective 3 stops, which is pretty much the industry standard but I’d advise against using it for general use as the system, which handy in certain situations, can reduce image quality, ever so slightly. For my further testing, I will ensure it is in the ‘off’ position, except for when I really need"

"While the lens does look a little large for the camera, the vertical grip (to be released in 2016) will offer further balance to this combination."

"The one thing I didn’t like was the fly by wire focusing ring with no depth of field scales or hard stops"

"I honestly didn’t find the grip comfortable, and landed up with sore fingers and a claw after a day of shooting it. I suspect that balance will be much better with M or R lenses, but then you lose AF and IS."


These are taken from two different reviews (Ming Thein and Kristian Dowling) which, to be fair, also include lots of positive comments. My point is that you can't simply brush aside either the Canon or Nikon Pro go-to lenses simply because Leica make lots of fantastic lenses so this one must be equally amazing.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll have to worry about the quality of a £3k lens not being good enough for you. It'll outperform about 99% of the people who pick it up.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Whilst I agree with your argument of sorts, if a lens costs £3k yet delivers less than perfect results surely you'd be a fool to still buy it because of the badge?
Click to expand...

No lens is perfect, everything is a compromise. It could be closer to perfection if it was much heavier and much more expensive but nobody could afford it or carry it.
 
Laudrup said:
I don't think you'll have to worry about the quality of a £3k lens not being good enough for you. It'll outperform about 99% of the people who pick it up.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's really expensive and has a little red plastic dot so it must be awesome...those reviewers must just be jealous

Even with the comments aimed squarely at the lens having some pretty obvious flaws you're still happy to blindly decide it's better than 99% of photographers will notice?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The iPhone 6 (and S) is not so good full screen away from the phone, not a touch on APSC let alone FF.
Click to expand...

They will only get better and for social media or online use they are far easier to use. The image quality is hard to tell the difference from more expensive dedicated cameras in a lot of cases. Plus it is always with you.
 
Laudrup said:
They will only get better and for social media or online use they are far easier to use. The image quality is hard to tell the difference from more expensive dedicated cameras in a lot of cases. Plus it is always with you.
Click to expand...
If social media is your priority when you shoot you don't need anything decent or anything with any telephoto ability.

And if you can't tell the difference between an iPhone and a DSLR with a decent lens your doing it wrong...

I take my RX100 with me everywhere I go, and it's smaller than my iPhone. And takes a much, much better photo. I wonder how this Leica compares to an iPhone 6 now that we mention it...
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
It is 16 years old, has a longer zoom, is much cheaper, not as well corrected and it is going to be better? That is highly unlikely. I had a 24-105 and if you gave me the option of a £3k Leica Asph zoom I'd have no hesitation getting rid of the 24-105.
Click to expand...
It's better than the chunk of crap on that Leica. The Leica lens might be "better corrected" (nothing the LR profile can't fix) but I'd take that over the soft tele end of the Leica lens any day of the week.

And the 24-105 isn't the best lens Canon make, that's just the starting point, which I'd take over the Leica.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Yup, it's really expensive and has a little red plastic dot so it must be awesome...those reviewers must just be jealous
Click to expand...

It looks to be a high quality lens and camera. I don't think there is much point pretending otherwise.
 
odd jim said:
It's better than the chunk of crap on that Leica. The Leica lens might be "better corrected" (nothing the LR profile can't fix) but I'd take that over the soft tele end of the Leica lens any day of the week.

And the 24-105 isn't the best lens Canon make, that's just the starting point, which I'd take over the Leica.
Click to expand...

You seem to be very confused about what Lightroom is capable of for a start.

Tell me about all these other lenses that are much better.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
You seem to be very confused about what Lightroom is capable of for a start.
Click to expand...
I'm not confused at all, I'm well versed in LR thanks :) One click corrects the 24-105.
 
Laudrup said:
It looks to be a high quality lens and camera. I don't think there is much point pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...

I concede, you win. Even in the face of clear deficiencies of the lens and numerous other posts suggesting thoughts from actual Pro photographer perspectives you stand firm and blindly kneel at the heels of Leica. Congratulations on your blind faith and good luck for the future.
 
odd jim said:
If social media is your priority when you shoot you don't need anything decent or anything with any telephoto ability.

And if you can't tell the difference between an iPhone and a DSLR with a decent lens your doing it wrong...

I take my RX100 with me everywhere I go, and it's smaller than my iPhone. And takes a much, much better photo. I wonder how this Leica compares to an iPhone 6 now that we mention it...
Click to expand...

If the iPhone is difficult to distinguish on here from a D800 then your RX100 will fare even worse. Superteles are a niche in a niche and the iPhone does look decent enough, certainly looks enough for most people and their general uses.
 
boliston said:
interesting comparison of SL and A7R here http://www.photographyblog.com/news/leica_sl_vs_sony_a7r_ii_side_by_side_comparison/
the thing that strikes me about the A7R is there is no LCD so I'm not sure if there is any easy way of setting shutter speed - I'm used to a dedicated shutter dial on the M8 but I would be worried if I had no easy way of setting something as basic as shutter speed.
Click to expand...

You set it to Shutter priority or Manual then turn the dial on the front or rear of the camera depending on your setup and the shutter speed changes. The shutter speed is displayed in the EVF so you don't need to move the camera away from your eye to change it.

Canon have never had a dedicated shutter speed dial on any of their DSLRs yet somehow lots of people manage. Maybe it's not actually needed?
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
It looks to be a high quality lens and camera. I don't think there is much point pretending otherwise.
Click to expand...
Love is blind?

You've read about the lens I take it?
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
If the iPhone is difficult to distinguish on here from a D800 then your RX100 will fare even worse. Superteles are a niche in a niche and the iPhone does look decent enough, certainly looks enough for most people and their general uses.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about super teles, I'm talking about anything over say, 35mm.

I'm not saying the iPhone is hard to distinguish from the d800, the exact opposite. Why would the RX100 fare worse, it blows the iPhone out the water?

I'm finding your posts a bit confusing now...
 
Laudrup said:
But it doesn't make it on a par with a highly corrected lens.
Click to expand...
But you can't correct lens softness (as reported on the Leica), but you can correct a bit of wide end barrel distortion, I know which I'd prefer if I had to make a choice. And it costs a tenth of the Leica lens.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Love is blind?

You've read about the lens I take it?
Click to expand...

You seem to think a 24-105 is better. What next, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is better than an Otus or a Summilux Asph because you hit the lens correction button?
 
Laudrup said:
You seem to think a 24-105 is better. What next, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is better than an Otus or a Summilux Asph because you hit the lens correction button?
Click to expand...
No not at all.

But I'd take an easily corrected sharp lens over a "well corrected" (though this is undefined) lens that's soft when zoomed in.

Ergo, that makes it better for me, and likely many other photographers who aren't blinded by the badge.
 
stevelmx5 said:
You set it to Shutter priority or Manual then turn the dial on the front or rear of the camera depending on your setup and the shutter speed changes. The shutter speed is displayed in the EVF so you don't need to move the camera away from your eye to change it.

Canon have never had a dedicated shutter speed dial on any of their DSLRs yet somehow lots of people manage. Maybe it's not actually needed?
Click to expand...

I'm sure most DSLRs apart from the entry level ones normally have an LCD which will at least display shutter speed - I would not wish to have to keep lifting the camera to my eye and peer through the viewfinder each time I wanted to check or adjust the shutter speed - to me the viewfinder is a device for framing (and adjusting focus when fine focus adjustment is required) rather than making adjustments to the shutter speed.
 
But you're used to a rangefinder which by definition has no information in the viewfinder so you need a physical dial. With a DSLR or mirrorless you always have the rear screen to see your settings or the EVF which can display considerably more than any top lcd or shutter dial.
 
odd jim said:
But you can't correct lens softness (as reported on the Leica), but you can correct a bit of wide end barrel distortion, I know which I'd prefer if I had to make a choice. And it costs a tenth of the Leica lens.
Click to expand...

It's an all right lens the 24-105 but the Leica lens is operating in a different league here. If Canon released a £3k L zoom of exotic construction nobody would be saying 'I bet that 16 year old 24-105 is much better'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top