Leica SL

Haven't you already got digital Leica medium format kit? What do you think it will add to your existing setup?
 
stevelmx5 said:
Haven't you already got digital Leica medium format kit? What do you think it will add to your existing setup?
Click to expand...
Yes I do have the Leica S system. I will get the SL as a walk around camera to go with the Q.........small fast AF and interchangeable lenses.......perfect
 
I haven't compared but I'm not sure how much smaller it is than your D810? Couldn't you just use some smaller primes on the D810 and get equal or better AF.
 
In that case, go for it. If you like the badge there's nothing else that gives you interchangeable lenses, AF and a red dot so it's probably perfect ;0)
 
I agree that if he likes Leica it's the only interchangeable option with AF? I'm only commenting on the size because one of his requirements was 'small' yet it will be bigger than the D810 he's already got.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I agree that if he likes Leica it's the only interchangeable option with AF? I'm only commenting on the size because one of his requirements was 'small' yet it will be bigger than the D810 he's already got.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see, in that case..... you have a point. (y)
 
Genuine question. If you take away the red dot, what is it you think you're missing from your current D810, D4s, Leica Q and Leica S systems?

Fill your boots to fulfill GAS but I'm not sure what's actually 'missing' from your lineup?
 
Last edited:
theres great things about it, but im not sold on the brutalist styling, unlabeled buttons, and heard the grip isnt good.

it can take m mount and r mount lenses too
 
That's the thing, op prob's has loads of lm stuff. I still prefer the M's but if it suits him then why not.
 
ndwgolf said:
Yes I do have the Leica S system. I will get the SL as a walk around camera to go with the Q.........small fast AF and interchangeable lenses.......perfect
Click to expand...
The SL is huge!!

It's a massive waste of money though, you can get far better FF bodies and lenses for far less...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The SL is huge!!
Click to expand...

Well, TBH it looks to be the size of a DSLR and there are a lot of people who've been bashing CSC for being too small and fiddly for their manly hands and big fat sausage fingers... and now that there's a BIG CSC (or rather - mirrorless) it's bashed for being too big? Jeez!

:D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Well, TBH it looks to be the size of a DSLR and there are a lot of people who've been bashing CSC for being too small and fiddly for their manly hands and big fat sausage fingers... and now that there's a BIG CSC (or rather - mirrorless) it's bashed for being too big? Jeez!

:D
Click to expand...
An SL with associated equivalent lens is bigger than most DSLRs...

Huge was an over exaggeration, but it's not small :). Check it out with the 28-90! I'm guessing that's their standard walkabout lens?
 
Last edited:
The Leica lenses will be aiming to be top end lenses so there's no point comparing the Leica + lens to a DSLR with some crappy £50 lens on it. Not that that Nikon lens is, I don't know, but you'll see my point. You need to match quality with quality.

The images are there on the camera size web site for all to see, the camera itself looks to be a smidgen smaller than the FF Nikon pictured with it and the lens looks big... but next to the Nikon with a Sigma Art 50mm on it there is, IMO, not a lot of difference.

No, it's not a small combination but it brings the advantages of mirrorless shooting in a larger package and that's just what some have been screaming for. Add the allure or the red dot and the quality I expect this camera and lens package to deliver and I'm sure many will be tempted.

Personally if looking to buy into something today I'd go for a Sony A7 series camera and at the mo I wont be tempted to change from my first gen A7 but I'm sure Leica will sell these camera to eager customers.

Leica v Nikon with Art lens...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,567.399,ha,t
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The Leica lenses will be aiming to be top end lenses so there's no point comparing the Leica + lens to a DSLR with some crappy £50 lens on it. Not that that Nikon lens is, I don't know, but you'll see my point. You need to match quality with quality.

The images are there on the camera size web site for all to see, the camera itself looks to be a smidgen smaller than the FF Nikon pictured with it and the lens looks big... but next to the Nikon with a Sigma Art 50mm on it there is, IMO, not a lot of difference.

No, it's not a small combination but it brings the advantages of mirrorless shooting in a larger package and that's just what some have been screaming for. Add the allure or the red dot and the quality I expect this camera and lens package to deliver and I'm sure many will be tempted.

Personally if looking to buy into something today I'd go for a Sony A7 series camera and at the mo I wont be tempted to change from my first gen A7 but I'd sure Leica will sell these camera to eager customers.

Leica v Nikon with Art lens...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,567.399,ha,t
Click to expand...
The 28-90 isn't a very good lens by any stretch. The early release lens they produced for the early reviews was pretty badly slated wasn't it?

And a variable aperture lens at that price seems crazy?

I've not read any production lens reviews though.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The 28-90 isn't a very good lens by any stretch. The early release lens they produced for the early reviews was pretty badly slated wasn't it?

I've not read any production lens reviews though.
Click to expand...

Dunno, zooms scare and confuse me. :D

Aiming for quality and achieving it are different things :D

Main point I wanted to make is that personally although this Leica range isn't for me as it is too bulky and too expensive and it doesn't look like it's for you either :D I don't think it's actually too big to appeal, I'm sure some will actually prefer the larger form. Smallness has been a criticism some have made against CSC's, well, now there's a BIG jobbie to choose :D
 
The worst thing IMO about the SL is its styling. I just don't understand why they made such an ugly object!
 
Styling will often divide opinion. It's the same with many products and probably always has been.

I think it looks a teeny bit like my A7 which I initially thought was hideous and looked like something someone would make in a garden shed but now I actually like it. I'm sure some will like this Leica from the off.
 
Why's the D5 it's equivalent? The DF is a sports shooting with AF speed to match and I'm not convinced the SL keeps up with it it has the same handling. I reckon the D750/810 is the better comparison.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Why's the D5 it's equivalent? The DF is a sports shooting with AF speed to match and I'm not convinced the SL keeps up with it it has the same handling. I reckon the D750/810 is the better comparison.
Click to expand...
I think the point I was making was that a lot of people seem to say the SL is "huge" but i can't say that is a word I would use - to me it looks very average sized and probably quite similar to an ungripped nikon body like a D810 - i have not heard many people describe the D810 as "huge"

http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,557
 
boliston said:
I think the point I was making was that a lot of people seem to say the SL is "huge" but i can't say that is a word I would use - to me it looks very average sized and probably quite similar to an ungripped nikon body like a D810 - i have not heard many people describe the D810 as "huge"

http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,557
Click to expand...
I think "huge" for a mirrorless would be more apt. Especially with the 28-90... Compare that to a Canon 6d and a much more useful 24-105L for example (which is also constant aperture).

I can't grasp where the advantages of making this mirrorless were as size / weight are the obvious benefits?
 
Last edited:
I mean, look at it... It's a parody of itself! SL with kit lens and no, this hasn't be altered!

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1458405906.223846.jpg

And the OP seemed to think it was small, as a matter in point.
 
Last edited:
Jim, I can sort of see where you're coming from but isn't this camera really just the size of a decent "FF" 35mm equivalent DSLR?

It looks to be marginally smaller than a Canon 5D which although on the large size for me (as I like more compact cameras) isn't exactly gargantuan. Yes, with that big fat kit lens it looks a bit of a whopper and it wouldn't suit me but it's not exactly monstrous when compared to a 5D with 24-70mm f4 is it? You see plenty of people walking around with bigger camera and lens combinations.

Leica + kit lens v 5D with 24-70mm f4...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.496,328.367,ha,t

Leica v 5D v 6D...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.496,328.367,380.367,ha,b
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Jim, I can sort of see where you're coming from but isn't this camera really just the size of a decent "FF" 35mm equivalent DSLR?

It looks to be marginally smaller than a Canon 5D which although on the large size for me (as I like more compact cameras) isn't exactly gargantuan. Yes, with that big fat kit lens it looks a bit of a whopper and it wouldn't suit me but it's not exactly monstrous when compared to a 5D with 24-70mm f4 is it? You see plenty of people walking around with bigger camera and lens combinations.

Leica + kit lens v 5D with 24-70mm f4...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.496,328.367,ha,t

Leica v 5D v 6D...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.496,328.367,380.367,ha,b
Click to expand...
The reality is different, hense the above photo, its the only way to illustrate outside of the figures how 'huge' this appears to be. Its significantly bigger in form (especially with a lens attached, its kit lens a prime example) than a 6d with the 24-105L. Its strange as when you look at the figures it doesn't appear to be much larger, but in the hand it is (I held one in the Leica shop in Singapore when I went to their rather disappointing exhibition). The ergonomics are terrible, as well, which I think goes some way to accentuate its bulk.

This DPreview review (where that image came from) shows this quite well.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/74...ca-hands-on-with-the-leica-sl-typ-601?slide=3
 
Last edited:
A friend has recently bought one and I am very impressed. The body is actually quite a nice size and the evf is excellent. The size of the 24-90 is too great for general use in my opinion though results are very good. My friend generally uses the camera with one of his Leica R lenses and these are an excellent match in size and weight.
 
odd jim said:
The reality is different, hense the above photo, its the only way to illustrate outside of the figures how 'huge' this appears to be. Its significantly bigger in form (especially with a lens attached, its kit lens a prime example) than a 6d with the 24-105L. Its strange as when you look at the figures it doesn't appear to be much larger, but in the hand it is (I held one in the Leica shop in Singapore when I went to their rather disappointing exhibition). The ergonomics are terrible, as well, which I think goes some way to accentuate its bulk.

This DPreview review (where that image came from) shows this quite well.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7448206943/a-lot-to-leica-hands-on-with-the-leica-sl-typ-601?slide=3
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I'm not convinced that the reality is different or that the Leica + lens is a significantly bigger beast than a FF DSLR + similar lens. Those images at DPR are one bloke holding the camera whereas at the size comparison site you can see cameras pictured in the various orientations and without the close up and lens forward view which is going to make the lens look bigger.

The body and lens figures are there to be studied and here's the Leica against your chosen camera for comparison, the 6D...



The dimensions look to be similar to me and this is against a FF DSLR camera which is AFAIK on the smaller side, the Leica weighs a bit more but maybe not a whole lot more.

Yes, the kit lens looks to be a lump and it probably is on the large end of the scale for the type of lens but it isn't IMO an outrageously large lump when compared to other roughly equivalent DSLR zooms.
 
woof woof said:
Hmmm. I'm not convinced that the reality is different or that the Leica + lens is a significantly bigger beast than a FF DSLR + similar lens. Those images at DPR are one bloke holding the camera whereas at the size comparison site you can see cameras pictured in the various orientations and without the close up and lens forward view which is going to make the lens look bigger.

The body and lens figures are there to be studied and here's the Leica against your chosen camera for comparison, the 6D...



The dimensions look to be similar to me and this is against a FF DSLR camera which is AFAIK on the smaller side, the Leica weighs a bit more but maybe not a whole lot more.

Yes, the kit lens looks to be a lump and it probably is on the large end of the scale for the type of lens but it isn't IMO an outrageously large lump when compared to other roughly equivalent DSLR zooms.
Click to expand...
Having held it with the kit lens, it's bigger. It just is!

Look at the picture, it's not a conspiracy I'm trying to create, the DPreview article it comes from agrees with me . It's a lump of a beast. Go try one :) And the Leica kit lens is significantly bulkier than the 24-105.

BTW, a DSLR doesn't have to be 'larger' because it's FF. Have you held a Canon 6d? It's smaller than the xxd bodies I have.
 
Last edited:
More room for a bigger red dot :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top