adamdewilde wrote:
I've seen quite a few samples now from acquaintances that somehow have gotten them (3 people I know personally have their own Leica SL in hand w/zoom). And I'm really underwhelmed by the quality I'm seeing from them. And quite worried that it's not Leica-esq. Whatever that means
I'm not going to repost their photos, as I don't think it's polite. It's from private feeds etc.. But honestly, I'm a bit worried now that I spent a lot on a camera system I'm not going to be happy with.
Hopefully I can make the camera work better for me, but at this point I'm kinda stressed.....Show more →
Adam, what are you seeing that worries you? Inherent camera characteristics, or related to the lens? IMO, it's the 24-90 that puzzles me a bit. I have seen some technically lackluster images from it, but also some that looked really great.
I agree that camera color characteristics should improve somewhat with proper profile support, but I don't expect dramatic differences. I'm most concerned about skin tone. Some samples posted by Leica have very much an IMO undesirable pumpkin-orange skin rendering.
A few compact Summicron AF primes and I might think differently, but right now, I'm not keen on the zoom, and if I will just use my M lenses on it, I might as well stick with the M. Now if Leica releases a Canon EF adapter with decent AF support.... But really doubt that will happen.
Bijltje wrote:
Maybe a stupid question, but do you guys think the zeiss batis and loxia lenses can be used on the SL? It looks like a logical step.
I will have an try with the SL this Tuesday. Looking forward. It seems like a nice alternative for the M240 with EVF.
I would believe that the question of using Zeiss Batis and Loxia lenses on the SL would be dependent upon the registration depth of both the SL and the Sony FE lens mounts. I suspect though that they may be close and an adapter may not be possible. Also, I am not sure if Leica has provided us with the SL lens mount registration, but if it is the same as the T mount, then the numbers could be checked if it is possible and would be dependent upon if the Leica or the Sony FE mounts are deeper/shallower.
Rich
Nov 08, 2015 at 11:14 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rscheffler wrote:
Adam, what are you seeing that worries you? Inherent camera characteristics, or related to the lens? IMO, it's the 24-90 that puzzles me a bit. I have seen some technically lackluster images from it, but also some that looked really great.
I agree that camera color characteristics should improve somewhat with proper profile support, but I don't expect dramatic differences. I'm most concerned about skin tone. Some samples posted by Leica have very much an IMO undesirable pumpkin-orange skin rendering.
A few compact Summicron AF primes and I might think differently, but right now, I'm not keen on the zoom, and if I will just use my M lenses on it, I might as well stick with the M. Now if Leica releases a Canon EF adapter with decent AF support.... But really doubt that will happen. ...Show more →
Skintones seem off. Blah colors. And the rendering from the lens is not exciting at all once you step back a bit.
As far as colors are concern, I'm willing to use the camera and decide for myself. BUT the lens is kinda bothering me, as I have a feeling it's not going to give me the results I want. IF the S-adapter was out, I would have just picked up two SL cameras and used the S-lenses (assuming AF is as fast or faster then the S-007).
I guess when I get back home I'll know for myself..
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think they will work without an adapter with glass. I believe the SL has a registration distance of 20mm, whereas Sony E mount is 18mm.
If there was a way to have the lenses sit inside the mount, maybe.. As in if the SL mount is bigger (diameter) then the E mount by a fair bit, so maybe some lenses could just be pushed in two mm. But said adapter wouldn't work on ALL lenses for FE.
Kinda like the time that Nikon updated it's body design, and the TS lenses wouldn't work anymore.
I don't have a subscription, but this is likely trickled down information from Sean Reed's latest report in which he compares the 28 Elmarit and the Summilux on the M240 and SL. I know the comparison is up on his website and I have seen someone else post this general summary of his results.
Information seems to be trickling out. Unless I am mistaken, and I could be, I believe that there is decent information that some of the most problematic lenses (28 Elmarit ASPH, 35 cron ASPH--Sean Reed has tested these) do better on the M240, but many lenses including the 50 lux ASPH, 70 cron AA, and now the 28 lux ASPH, do at least as well on the SL and the M240. I would love to hear more about the some of the wider lenses. I am guessing that the ZM 35 f/1.4 will be fine on the SL and do as well as on the M240, and I am hoping the 21 SEM and 24 Elmar ASPH will be almost as good on the SL as the M240, but I am a bit less optimistic about that. I suspect the 18 SEM will do at least a bit better on the M240, but I would love to see some reports. I think the faster wider lenses and the WATE will probably be about the same on the SL and M240, but this is all conjecture. It would also be great to compare the performance of these lenses on the SL to a Kolari modified A7 series camera. If anyone has any of these comparisons I would be most appreciative if you would share your results. In time we will know, but I suspect it will take awhile.
Ok, I wasn't going to post anymore on the Leica SL until I had mine in hand... BUT today I drove past the Leica store and on a whim decided to go in and check to see if they had an SL.
The battery was dead (lame) so I didn't get to test it... Though I did pick it up. And I have to say, anyone complaining about size or weight needs to SACK UP.. Because seriously it's almost comical how small ppls hands must be in all those sample photos floating around the net. The first thing that came to mind when I held the camera was "Carnies… Circus folk. Nomads, you know. Smell like cabbage. Small hands."
And after that I thought about it, and even the zoom lens looks/feels small. Maybe I'm to use to shooting with my S these days. BUT it didn't really feel bigger then my M. It was solid, buttons felt good, grip felt good. Took off the lens and realised that the camera was super light.
Size never be a concern for me. I missed camerawest Leica SL demo day. They made it work day somehow. I won't preorder it but use it in person will most likely change my mind one way or the other.
zhangyue wrote:
Size never be a concern for me. I missed camerawest Leica SL demo day. They made it work day somehow.
The pro photographers Leica hopes to attract to the SL don't work 9-5 regular hours/jobs.
And those in the wedding industry tend to be busy on Saturdays/weekends.
Adam, thanks for the commonsense hands-on report. I guess many complaining about size seem to be of the mirrorless=as small as possible mindset rather than properly proportioned for the average human hand.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't have a subscription, but this is likely trickled down information from Sean Reed's latest report in which he compares the 28 Elmarit and the Summilux on the M240 and SL. I know the comparison is up on his website and I have seen someone else post this general summary of his results.
Information seems to be trickling out. Unless I am mistaken, and I could be, I believe that there is decent information that some of the most problematic lenses (28 Elmarit ASPH, 35 cron ASPH--Sean Reed has tested these) do better on the M240, but many lenses including the 50 lux ASPH, 70 cron AA, and now the 28 lux ASPH, do at least as well on the SL and the M240. I would love to hear more about the some of the wider lenses. I am guessing that the ZM 35 f/1.4 will be fine on the SL and do as well as on the M240, and I am hoping the 21 SEM and 24 Elmar ASPH will be almost as good on the SL as the M240, but I am a bit less optimistic about that. I suspect the 18 SEM will do at least a bit better on the M240, but I would love to see some reports. I think the faster wider lenses and the WATE will probably be about the same on the SL and M240, but this is all conjecture. It would also be great to compare the performance of these lenses on the SL to a Kolari modified A7 series camera. If anyone has any of these comparisons I would be most appreciative if you would share your results. In time we will know, but I suspect it will take awhile....Show more →
What really confuses me is that the 28 lux design seems to be computed with the SL cover glass thickness in mind.
By the way some interesting a7II and SL comparisons here.
Edward, reading some comments over at LUF and it would seem the SL vs. M 28 Lux performance difference is very slight. But then, I'm not subscribed to Read's reviews and can't say whether someone else's 'slight' is the same as how I would interpret it.
I wonder if it could hint at future M sensor trends... I.e. gradual easing away from sub 1mm thicknesses, or to support a dust-shake feature, which some seem to want. But that wouldn't be a good thing for most current M users with a range of glass that benefits from current sub 1mm thickness
rscheffler wrote:
Edward, reading some comments over at LUF and it would seem the SL vs. M 28 Lux performance difference is very slight. But then, I'm not subscribed to Read's reviews and can't say whether someone else's 'slight' is the same as how I would interpret it.
I wonder if it could hint at future M sensor trends... I.e. gradual easing away from sub 1mm thicknesses, or to support a dust-shake feature, which some seem to want. But that wouldn't be a good thing for most current M users with a range of glass that benefits from current sub 1mm thickness
The point is, we don't know yet how they compare at infinity. The difference could be accentuated, reduced, or completely reversed. However, from my own perspective, the difference at close range is less important because one rarely shoots planar subjects up close, but considering the price of the lens, and that it is an M lens after all, I would have expected exactly the opposite results. This said, I don't think Leica will sacrifice all previous M glass for the sake of one, so probably it was just easier for them to design the 28 lux this way, or maybe it performs better at infinity (which unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case judging from the MTF and user reports).
Hmm... good thing I haven't sprung for the 28 Lux, feeling quite content with the 28 Cron. Perhaps this is a sly way for Leica to provide a fast wide prime lens immediately for the SL, granted without the AE/AF conveniences, once word leaks out that it's better than on the M?
edwardkaraa wrote:
What really confuses me is that the 28 lux design seems to be computed with the SL cover glass thickness in mind.
By the way some interesting a7II and SL comparisons here.
Hi Edward,
Thanks for posting the link to the Leica forum thread. I found the examples from the three lenses tested there helpful, but I was surprised by how much the difference between the SL and the A7 II varied. With the 28 elmarit ASPH, neither lens was all that great even at f/8 and although the SL was clearly better the difference wasn't as dramatic as i expected. If 100% were an ideal image, I would say the SL was 60% and the A7 II was 30%. With the 35 summicron ASPH the difference in the cameras was striking. At f/4 I thought the SL image was quite good, perhaps 80% of ideal, whereas the A7 II was pretty awful maybe 20%. The 50 lux ASPH produced pretty dramatic results between the two cameras as well. At f/4 the image (these were corner crops, I expect a zone B dip with this lens at this aperture) was very nice on the SL again about 80% of ideal (maybe a bit better), and the A7 II it was maybe 30%. So these examples have me quite optimistic about the SL's performance, but it is clear, to me anyway, that we will have to see how each lens tests and ideally we would see how each lens tests on 4 different cameras--SL, M240, unmodified A7 series, and modified A7 series. But even these samples, which test the SL vs. an unmodified A7 II, tell me that I would likely be happy with the 50 lux ASPH, and the 35 cron ASPH, on the SL, but I would have some worries about the 28 elmarit ASPH, but that is just me and my standards.
I totally agree Steve. The 28 elmarit wouldn't be acceptable on the SL to me neither. The 35 cron and 50 lux perform really well, and the 28 lux actually works better on the SL. I'm very sure that my ZM glass will also work very well on the SL because of the classic non aspherical design and relatively long exit pupil distance. Even the ZM 25 that was disaster on the a7 should work as good or better than the 35 cron in the linked test. I'm quite optimistic
Perhaps this is a sly way for Leica to provide a fast wide prime lens immediately for the SL, granted without the AE/AF conveniences, once word leaks out that it's better than on the M?