A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601)

chopsteeks:

No it's not an exaggeration.

But Zeiss makes some very good lenses, and certainly better Zeissed match good Leicas, but both look a bit different for colour.

Then there are the extraordinary Leicas.

chops:

Sorry not believing your claim about using Leicas--bodies maybe.

I'll just buy a Hasselblad instead oh wait I mean a Sony. LOL

In addition, your argument of "those don't shoot 4K" The Leica's 1080p doesn't even compare. If we're talking about video, the Sony A7SII is FAR superior to the Leica SL. In camera IS, exponentially better low light capablitiy, along with better log files, and higher bit rate files. The A7RII is BETTER than the Leica SL at high ISOs. EVF? Sure, if an somewhat better EVF, is worth a bigger, heavier, more expensive, less capable camera then I guess the Leica is for you. For the rest of the photographic community? Probably not.

I cannot speak for any Leica, as I have never owned one. However I do love the rendering of their lenses and the sensors. While I cannot afford a Leica a this level, I do have the best I can afford, which is a D810 with Zeiss lenses, and love the output. I have also a Sigma SD1M and DP2M which provide very good black and white output, perhaps not to a Leica standard, but nevertheless very good indeed. Perhaps a M8 and a 35/50 may be a place I will start in the future on a Leica sample, without breaking the bank. This new SL seems to be very high performance and now just low ISO that many others seem to suffer from (Sigma cameras have the same issue)

mike:

The SL is plenty good thru ISO 6400 in raw. And can be used above that. Obviously not inexpensive. It's a tiny bit better than the Sony A7RII for higher ISOs, but no near the Nikon D750. So much better than Sigma cameras for higher ISOs.

Right, I imagine the D810 with a good Zeiss is excellent. All but the very very best lenses from Leica aren't any better than good Zeisses, but the look is a bit different, so if your tastes prefer one then that one could be seen as "better".

I agree on your comments on the "look". I don't own a Leica, but if you gave me one I could take pictures with it and immediately see the differences between it and my D810/Zeiss. I know I would like that look, as I do my D810/Zeiss. I have the same experience when I use my Sigma 24-35 ART lens. It produces a different "look" which suits me under certain conditions, for others I will use a Zeiss lens. There is something about a well composed Leica shot that makes we want to "understand" the content more, than a mere recording of the image. Hard to explain but I know it when I see it.

mike:

If you have a Nikon (or Canon or Pentax) APSC body, there's guy in Spain selling conversion kits for mounting Leica R lenses on Nikon bodies. Obviously you have to buy a Leica R lens on Ebay or something like that, and you can only shoot aperture priority or full manual.

The reason you can't use most full framed SLRs is because of mirror swing.

And yes he also has kits for mounting R lenses on Sigma SLRs.

I already modified my Sigma mount to Nikon, so i could use the Zeiss lenses on that platform. Not a trivial exercise I might add!
But yes, I would love to add a "walkabout" Leica lens to the Nikon platform. Do you have any suggestions? I probably should ask this question on the Leica forum. I already have a Nikon 50mm f1.2 which is a great lens with some special rendering characteristics, but it's not a Leica ...

mike:

Here's the guy in Spain's website.

http://www.leitax.com

It's only easy to use a few R lenses on full framed SLRs that aren't Leica. He has some details.

I can't comment on Leica R lenses, I only ever owned M lenses.

Thanks. Will take a look.

I'm trying to be neutral here, I shoot both Sony and Leica, well It's 24MP A7II and I didn't like it. Then I jump in to M system as I already own Leica M lenses. Result is far beyond Sony, I'm impressed by the image quality the camera produced. The RF mechanism also made me really enjoy photography more, thus I become fan of Leica. With its price Leica isn't for everybody, so one could argue better than another but it's like comparing apple and orange, one thing for sure once you try Leica you will fall in love with its system deeply..with Leica its always love or hate thing anyway..cheers

So an M8 would be a good place to start?

I don't know much about M8, but some say M8 CCD can produce equally crispness files as M9 with its own limitation like 1.3x crop over M9. If you have $1500 to spare why not, demand for M8 still there if turned out you didn't like it

Whatever makes you happy...

@HowaboutRAW

The silent shutter loses some DR and can be an issue under electrical lights, but it is still so much better than not having it.
I owned an A7 II and it was the worst street camera ever.
The shutter sounded like a pneumatic tool going off :(
It's good to be able to make the trade off and turn it off or on as required.

M = M 240.
Film Leilas don't band? Really?
The M and the Q most definitely band, pretty noticeably...

I too have handled the SL and it is just too much for too little for me. If they'd made an interchangeable lens Q, then they would have nailed it IMHO.
I own a D810 and fast big zooms already.
The SL brings nothing to that game for me.
For this I'll buy Nikon or Canon every time...

BTW, I thoroughly tested my M 240 + 90 APO against my D750 + 85 1.8G before I sold all my Leica's.
The only advantage the Leica has is size and with the SL, it sadly doesn't even have that.

Your money - your choice.

EvilT:

I'm not suggesting there's no use for silent shutter, just that it has trade-offs.

Film doesn't band. Albeit there can be stretches.

I've never noted banding in my hundreds of M240 samples.

The D810 is a very nice camera.

Of course the SL may not be for you.

That 90mm Leica is not one of the strongest M lenses. There are much better M lenses.

EvilT:

No, it's not. The 50mm f/2.0 APO is.

Now I guess the examples I've tried could be bad for some reason.

@HowaboutRAW

You are beginning to sound like my wife :)

ET:

Try the 75mm M f/1.4. Film era, made in Canada.

@HowaboutRAW

Oh please.
The 75mm Summicron APO is a much better lens and I prefer the 90 APO to it.

Film era lenses, I still own: 35mm F2 Cron "8-elements", 50mm F2 Cron "Rigid", Summilux 50mm F1.4 "Type 2" and a new old stock Summicron 90mm F2 Type 2.

Film era lenses have a nice retro look because they cannot resolve the digital sensors correctly. They were designed in an analog world and as a result, have none of the corrections required baked in.

Modern Leica lenses are a totally different thing IMHO...

Evil:

The current 75mm Leica M is also not a particularly strong lens.

You seem to be making another mistake, lens quality is not simply to be judged by detail resolving power. Canon and Nikon both make lenses that be plenty sharp wide open.

But no one really thinks those best from Canon and Nikon to be optically very special, except fanboys. (Albeit in the last 12 months Nikon finally seems to have figured out what Zeiss and Leica figured out decades ago.)

@HowaboutRAW

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what gear you use, it matters what images you make.

You can see my work here:

www.sfstreetz.com

Cheers

EvilT:

I looked at your website. I'm guessing that most of the Indochine photos weren't shot with a Leica lens.

@HowaboutRAW
Actually the earlier ones from Vietnam were all Leica...
Back to your armchair, expert...

Sorry Evil,

I'm pretty far from an armchair concerning Leica lenses.

Define "earlier"?

EvilT:

How do you know?

Which lens were you using that 90mm f/2?

cbasue:

Wrong.

Leica or Panasonic? Who knows with the SL? Smaller Leica cameras are Panasonic like Hasselblad are (were!) Sony. Making money with low cost high class technique of Asian heritage.
But with the bigger cameras it usually is a secret to the user who developped and contructed the body.
As Leica could no longer afford or construct good and modern technique and quality lenses anymore Minolta constructed lenses, these were labeled for Leica ... decades ago.
So if you wanted to get the original you had to take Minolta instead of Leica.
Now it's Panasonic in most cases if not generally.
As Leica two times was nearly bankrupt, saved only by inverstor's money (actually from Austria) their aim should be earning money to survive. How can you do that? Selling more than investing; so buy technique and sell it as good as you can.
That is what Leica does, independingly from customers' believes about the camera, for Leica it is only important to sell.

You are right, it is a "PROTOTYPE".
Indeed while I was standing there they took the long zoom from the person trying it to send it to Asia for a preview of some sort. I didn't hear exactly what they said.

Ming Thein was very clear the sample he used was a prototype, sorry I didn't specify that, my bad. He didn't draw final conclusions, just described what he experienced with the prototypes.

It's hard to say everything in a small about of space/time. My impression is he looks forward to the fully sorted out lens, camera, and operation systems, as do I.

Still, my conclusion remains, all things being equal I am very interested in the SL!!! I really liked it!!! I could learn to navigate the system, but I'm on a cheap beer budget. For now the D810 is a reach, but more reachable.

Did I like what I saw at Zeiss? Of course!
Oh yes! I kept a rag in hand to wipe off the drool... LOL.

The show was great.

surlezi,

You can try them and see.

DXO's lens scores can tell you if a lens is good or bad, can't say if a lens is extraordinary though. The best SigmaArts get the same basic scores as Oti, but the results from Oti look better.

Now, no, not every Leica or Zeiss lens is optically extraordinary, but mostly they are.

There's probably a test that could be developed, but developing such a test presumes a better understanding of light and colour.

HowaboutRAW: I guess the person in the photo has seriously small hands then?

The camera looks like a huge flat slob of chunky metal with a cartoon-logo.

Knacker:

Again the camera is about the size of a Canon 6D or Nikon D810.

marmotto:

You ask to try it at the counter. It will take a while before this SL is in stock for demo though.

lol

marmotto:

And after say 6 months there will be demo units in serious cameras stores.

I'm sure it's a nice product. Nice images and all. But not for the price. This is Hasselblad Stellar (or whatever rebadged Sony + $6000 price premium) territory. There are other and far better options for the price. Like I said this is a celebrity/oil tycoon boutique type camera.

Re: body price. Maybe I misread but this is a new mount, with one lens only right now, so in essence you're forced to buy it as a kit. $12,000?

mgblack:

I doesn't help your case that you misrepresent the price of Oti.

You mean you can get a Milvus+adapter+A7RII body for less than $7500. Got to.

This Leica has better high ISO performance, a seal body, a much quieter shutter, and a better EVF.

mgblack:

Not saying what the features are worth.

Just pointing out that your Oti pricing was off by a bit.

The A7RII, with the firmware update, is an excellent camera.

The Leica has a much quieter shutter than the a7rII? Wow, quieter than completely silent - that's impressive.

RubberDials:

Only the the fully electronic shutter on the A7RII is completely silent. And if you use a fully electronic shutter that adds noise to the image.

Therefore if one say really wants to take advantage of the high ISO capacity of the A7RII one has to shoot with the mechanical shutter engaged.

Yes, the same applies to the A7S too.

Hope this clarifies your understanding.

PhotoJ:

Lenses, that's a big part of the appeal.

It's much better with things like Leica M lenses than a Sony A7--well at least until this A7RII, which I've not tried with an M lens yet.

Leica lenses sure do a better job than Canikon.

PhotoJ:

What's easy to see is the use of optically much better lenses. So yes all other things being equal, which they usually aren't, if the image is shot with a good Zeiss or Leica it shows easily. It's harder to pick between the Zeiss or Leica, or Schneider, or even the best Samsungs.

Get over it. Leica has never been a cheap or earthly priced system, it has a name a lens quality that is second to none. If it is not for you just move on and pontificate on something else....

washy:

Not true.

Though stopping down better Canon L lenses helps them--a bit.

Depends on the Leica M lenses you have too. Don't know the G9's lens, the G6's lens isn't very good.

The Ricoh GR has a very nice lens.

Don't really care what your guy could or couldn't see.

PhotogJosh:

First paragraph: Yeah keep telling yourself that, you've convinced no one familiar with optically better Leica lenses.

villa:

Leica lenses aren't simply about better reds.

HowaboutRAW, you're wrong.

Leica should stop the whole camera joke and start make lenses for other brands, that's how they could make real money in the modern camera marked, trough their name and old reputation.

Their glory days of their old analog cameras and manual lenses are long gone.

You seem to front that Leica is best in every class, concerning photography, you seem to forget that it definitely isn't, not even in the lens department.

- They are good, but when you start comparing, you'll find that there are many lens-makers making better glass.

Most modern brands have glass that is equal or superior to the various Leica glass.

You are trying to convince yourself that spending way to much doe is somehow justified by "Leica superiority", while at the same time making a fool of yourself for not recognizing that there is no such thing any more.

Drawn out?

"excellent".

Finde ich auch!

Go home, Germany, you're drunk.