Leica SL

As soon as you add an XT1 to the comparison, the SL looks ridiculous!

http://j.mp/1RrCA41

I did really like what Leica were getting at with it until I saw the size! That wouldn't even fit in my bag.
 
I thought it came out in the end that that picture of the guy holding the SL was inaccurate. I struggled to get my head round the SL. It does look to me that Leica have lost it a bit with this - just in terms of styling and ergonomically it looks - I say 'looks' as I haven't held one - a bit clumpy.
I didn't think the kit zoom which was also £££ was particularly well rated either. While you can use M lenses on it, I'd personally rather just use an M, digital or film.
Some of the studio work I've seen from this looks great with some awesome detail, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything which other cameras couldn't do already.
I'm not Leica bashing. I just struggle to get my head around the SL. I guess they have to keep in the current market, so kudos for them adding this to their line up.
 
Ruffmeister said:
I thought it came out in the end that that picture of the guy holding the SL was inaccurate. I struggled to get my head round the SL. It does look to me that Leica have lost it a bit with this - just in terms of styling and ergonomically it looks - I say 'looks' as I haven't held one - a bit clumpy.
I didn't think the kit zoom which was also £££ was particularly well rated either. While you can use M lenses on it, I'd personally rather just use an M, digital or film.
Some of the studio work I've seen from this looks great with some awesome detail, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything which other cameras couldn't do already.
I'm not Leica bashing. I just struggle to get my head around the SL. I guess they have to keep in the current market, so kudos for them adding this to their line up.
Click to expand...
That image is from DPreview's review, I'm pretty sure they're not into faking or manipulating images, why would they?

Either way, that's genuinely how it looks in your hand with the 28-90.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
That image is from DPreview's review, I'm pretty sure they're not into faking or manipulating images, why would they?

Either way, that's genuinely how it looks in your hand with the 28-90.
Click to expand...

I just thought I recalled reading it somewhere. I wasn't putting it out there as fact. Don't get me wrong, it's still a lump.
 
odd jim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jim, love you honey bun and always will :D but you're barking mad :D

The 6D v Leica figures are there to see and the diminutive 6D is about the same size as the Leica and yet the Leica is the big fat porker?? :D
 
To be honest, it looks like a breezeblock with a red dot on it. Give it a few nice curves and it will look like a 6D :)

Just think 'bloater' or BBW :D
 
Looked at the so before buying a q ...... Yep the so really is that big and it weighs a tonne........ But that red dot tho....
 
odd jim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Can't believe this thread. It's smaller than most ff dslr and people are comparing it to apsc and bloody 1" cameras, sorry but this camera is crap because it's bigger than my nans rx100, end of. How ridiculous.

Why does a mirrorless have to be small.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there's a perfect technical explanation but if it's mirrorless why is it so big?
 
Removing the need for the mirror-box just reduces the depth of the camera (sensor to lens mount), but as it's a full-frame sensor the rest of the camera is still quite large. The only other full-frame mirrorless camera is the Sony A7 although that is still quite a bit smaller than the SL. I've not tried an SL but I know people who use them with M-mount lenses and find them easier to focus than an M camera.
 
This is the bit I don't understand.

My Nikon FG, for example, is the equivalent of FF in terms of "sensor" size. Obviously with the FG the sensor is 35mm film.

It's tiny.

So, what is it about FF digital that they have to be so large, and, if mirrorless, even more so.

I'm a technical idiot so would really like this explained.
 
simon ess said:
Oh no, it doesn't have to be.

I'm wondering whether it's size is determined technically or by marketing decisions.
Click to expand...

I'd probably go with both. A lot of people are struggling with the concept of smaller body / heavy lenses / reduced battery life etc.
 
twist said:
Wrong.

Can't believe this thread. It's smaller than most ff dslr and people are comparing it to apsc and bloody 1" cameras, sorry but this camera is crap because it's bigger than my nans rx100, end of. How ridiculous.

Why does a mirrorless have to be small.
Click to expand...


It's not smaller than most DSLRs.

Try holding the thing with the 28-90 :) it's truly unwieldy.

Seriously, it's big!!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's not smaller than most DSLRs.

Try holding the thing with the 28-90 :)

Seriously, it's big!!
Click to expand...

But you're talking about the camera, not that lens? The sl with a 50 1.4 is smaller than a d750 with a 50 art. You can't say it's gigantic because of one lens.
 
simon ess said:
This is the bit I don't understand.

My Nikon FG, for example, is the equivalent of FF in terms of "sensor" size. Obviously with the FG the sensor is 35mm film.

It's tiny.

So, what is it about FF digital that they have to be so large, and, if mirrorless, even more so.

I'm a technical idiot so would really like this explained.
Click to expand...
FF doesn't mean big.

The 6d is smaller than my APSC bodies.
 
Yeah, I sort of get that.

I should have asked why are some ff cameras so big.

To me, that SL is monstrous. Why?
 
twist said:
But you're talking about the camera, not that lens? The sl with a 50 1.4 is smaller than a d750 with a 50 art. You can't say it's gigantic because of one lens.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm talking about both as the OP referred to wanting it as a walkabout system (chiefly because the 28-90 is the kit lens, albeit a £4K kit lens, and it would be classed as the native walkabout lens).

But it's relative to other native lenses coming for the system, such as a larger tele. What on earth will that be like?!

And again relative, I could put a 40mm pancake on the 6d and I could put it in my coat pocket.

The SL? Not so sure.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I'm talking about both as the OP referred to wanting it as a walkabout system (chiefly because the 28-90 is the kit lens, albeit a £4K kit lens, and it would be classed as the native walkabout lens).

But it's relative to other native lenses coming for the system, such as a larger tele. What on earth will that be like?!

And again relative, I could put a 40mm pancake on the 6d and I could put it in my coat pocket.

The SL? Not so sure.
Click to expand...

I may have missed his post referring to the zoom specifically but do you think perhaps he could use his existing lm glass or primes? In which case it would still be smaller than the equivalent dslr. Not everyone considers a slow zoom as a walkabout lens.

As we've seen the 50 prime is as big as any other high quality 50 such as the art. Why make the asumption that anything else in the pipeline is huge.

What's the issue here? He likes leica, he has money to spend, let him get on with it.

You must have huge pockets.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Jim, love you honey bun and always will :D but you're barking mad :D

The 6D v Leica figures are there to see and the diminutive 6D is about the same size as the Leica and yet the Leica is the big fat porker?? :D
Click to expand...
I love you too, but again,

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1458427936.332993.jpg

It can't be illustrated better :) :)

Ok I know I'm emphasising this with the 28-90, but that is the native walkabout setup....

Anyway I've said enough, I can't be swayed as I've met one in person, I walked away thinking it was a little oversized, at least compared to what I'm used to. And I was amazed it was mirrorless, can't help thinking how big it would have been if they stuck a mirror in it?!

I can't wait for them to bring out a 600mm.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I may have missed his post referring to the zoom specifically but do you think perhaps he could use his existing lm glass or primes? In which case it would still be smaller than the equivalent dslr. Not everyone considers a slow zoom as a walkabout lens.

As we've seen the 50 prime is as big as any other high quality 50 such as the art. Why make the asumption that anything else in the pipeline is huge.

What's the issue here? He likes leica, he has money to spend, let him get on with it.

You must have huge pockets.
Click to expand...
Ok, I agree, but the OP wanted a ***small*** walkabout system, it was just in my limited experience it isn't that. You could put a smaller prime and as you point out its a slow (and limited range) zoom - but imagine how big and expensive a constant aperture fast zoom would be for this body? But that's by the by.

My pockets are standard, but it depends what jacket I'm wearing. But clearly my pockets aren't as big as Leica customers ;)

That said, the OP is particularly fond of his Leicas and I doubt anything negative anyone has to say will be taken note of so there is that to consider, so any point of view, even from someone who's held and had a little play (albeit we weren't allowed to put a card in it and it had no battery!) won't count for anything. And he's banned...
 
Last edited:
And just for reference Mirrorless FF bodies with native 50mm lenses. We're seriously aren't recommending the SL over the (better) alternatives are we?

ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1458428927.603254.jpg

Where are the advantages other than the badge (if you're a Leica collector?)

Disclaimer - I've not held a Nikon DF :)
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
More importantly, why is the OP banned? :0)
Click to expand...
I think his posting style required some work in his other threads in general photo sharing... Let's just say he won't hear anything bad said about Leicas, and if you do you're a pauper who can't afford one (but wishes they could) so if he's reading this as a 'guest' it'll be killing him [emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I think his posting style required some work in his other threads in general photo sharing... Let's just say he won't hear anything bad said about Leicas, and if you do you're a pauper who can't afford one (but wishes they could) so if he's reading this as a 'guest' it'll be killing him [emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]
Click to expand...
Do leica owners ever like anything bad said.... I'm a new leica owner but I'm the new breed that just buys it because I always wanted one I'm aware there are better cameras about I just wanted to own one before prob selling it later in the year lol well if I can ever get it off the wife that is lol
 
gramps said:
and banned for 2 weeks, seemingly for having money and a preference for Leica's ... bizarre!
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are a lot of people who have money on here....... but the way you carry yourself is more important than ££££
 
owenb said:
I'm sure there are a lot of people who have money on here....... but the way you carry yourself is more important than ££££
Click to expand...
Do you get banned for having money?
 
fabs said:
"seemingly" being the key word here but this isn't the place for that discussion or anywhere else on the open forum for that matter.
Click to expand...

agreed...... anyway I'm off to polish my Leica Q..........
 
Oh my, It's to hope a minimum bank balance isn't put in place to stay a TP member ......If it's more than a quid I'll have to permanently reside on the Leica forum :exit::D
 
back on thread do any sl owners have a pic of it in there hands???? when I looked at it I would say it was slightly larger than a 1dx ..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top