Better EVF: high magnification and the reviews suggest it is excellent
Faster frames per second: 11 fps vs. 5 fps
Deeper buffer: 30 shots vs. 23
Dual card slots
Better compatibility with Leica M wide lenses
Compatibility with Leica S lenses
Perhaps auto aperture with Leica R lenses
Lower base ISO--50 instead of 100 but probably won't translate to better base ISO performance
Perhaps faster operation.
Touch sensitive LCD
Longer shutter speed available -- will this translate into better long exposure?
Better weather sealing
Advantages of the A7r II over the Leica SL
More resolution; better high ISO signal to noise ratio (overall better sensor)
IBIS
Better AF with phase detect
Smaller size
Tiltable LCD
Probably better video
Less than half the price
My best guess is that the Leica may have a better shooting experience, but the Sony has a better sensor and IBIS. Both will be very nice cameras and for price performance the Leica will not stand up (since when does Leica ever stand up to a value proposition). Still I think people could like this camera with the right glass and I think they will like the responsiveness and the EVF, and many people will like the interface.
Here are some excellent lenses that will work much better on the Leica: Leica M 18 SEM; Zeiss ZM 18 f/4; Leica M 21 SEM; Leica M 24 Elmar; Leica 28 Summicron ASPH; Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4; Leica M 50 lux ASPH; Leica M 50 cron AA. These Leica M wide and normal lenses should all work well on the Leica SL, and all have trouble on a stock A7r II, and on the modified camera you will have colour balance issues (that can be fixed with a profile in processing) and you sacrifice the dust shaker.
Leica S 100 f/2; Leica S 120 f/2.5 Macro APO. These excellent S lenses are not useable on the A7r II and they are exceptional and for the speed and focal length (even though they cover a MF image circle) are not ridiculously big. The macro is quite special and really has no peer, IMO.
Leica R 180 f/2 APO; Leica R 180 f/2.8 APO; Leica 180 f/3.4 APO; Leica R 280 f/4 APO; Leica R 400 f/2.8 APO; Leica R 70-180 f/2.8 APO. These longer R lenses are fantastic and although you can shoot them on the A7r II, the bigger size of the Leica SL will be a bonus for these lenses and they may come with auto aperture on the SL when the new adapter is ready.
So in my mind the king of alternative lenses (the Sony A7r II) has been dethroned. The Leica SL will allow you to shoot more lenses and more lenses better and some are pretty unique and special ones even if they are pricey.
Steve Spencer wrote:
OK, I will make a case for the Camera.
Advantages over the Sony A7r II:
Better EVF: high magnification and the reviews suggest it is excellent
Faster frames per second: 11 fps vs. 5 fps
Deeper buffer: 30 shots vs. 23
Dual card slots
Better compatibility with Leica M wide lenses
Compatibility with Leica S lenses
Perhaps auto aperture with Leica R lenses
Lower base ISO--50 instead of 100 but probably won't translate to better base ISO performance
Perhaps faster operation.
Touch sensitive LCD
Longer shutter speed available -- will this translate into better long exposure?
Better weather sealing
Advantages of the A7r II over the Leica SL
More resolution; better high ISO signal to noise ratio (overall better sensor)
IBIS
Better AF with phase detect
Smaller size
Tiltable LCD
Probably better video
Less than half the price
My best guess is that the Leica may have a better shooting experience, but the Sony has a better sensor and IBIS. Both will be very nice cameras and for price performance the Leica will not stand up (since when does Leica ever stand up to a value proposition). Still I think people could like this camera with the right glass and I think they will like the responsiveness and the EVF, and many people will like the interface.
Here are some excellent lenses that will work much better on the Leica: Leica M 18 SEM; Zeiss ZM 18 f/4; Leica M 21 SEM; Leica M 24 Elmar; Leica 28 Summicron ASPH; Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4; Leica M 50 lux ASPH; Leica M 50 cron AA. These Leica M wide and normal lenses should all work well on the Leica SL, and all have trouble on a stock A7r II, and on the modified camera you will have colour balance issues (that can be fixed with a profile in processing) and you sacrifice the dust shaker.
Leica S 100 f/2; Leica S 120 f/2.5 Macro APO. These excellent S lenses are not useable on the A7r II and they are exceptional and for the speed and focal length (even though they cover a MF image circle) are not ridiculously big. The macro is quite special and really has no peer, IMO.
Leica R 180 f/2 APO; Leica R 180 f/2.8 APO; Leica 180 f/3.4 APO; Leica R 280 f/4 APO; Leica R 400 f/2.8 APO; Leica R 70-180 f/2.8 APO. These longer R lenses are fantastic and although you can shoot them on the A7r II, the bigger size of the Leica SL will be a bonus for these lenses and they may come with auto aperture on the SL when the new adapter is ready.
So in my mind the king of alternative lenses (the Sony A7r II) has been dethroned. The Leica SL will allow you to shoot more lenses and more lenses better and some are pretty unique and special ones even if they are pricey....Show more →
A lot to criticize and a lot to like might work with a $2000 camera. But for a $7k+, I'm not sure I would be willing to make too much compromises. I admit I really like the 50 ISO thing, big EVF, dual slot (mainly because of UHS-II support). I'm not sure about its responsiveness yet, but the GUI does seem to get more complicated. I read most of the reviews out there right now and some said because of the amount of customization, the menu system is similar to Sony's now. However, the lens system is what really kills it for me; too big and heavy.
Again, I thought Leica is the master of making small lenses with high IQ. I guess Karbe is not in the team. Paying this much a camera would require a viable ecosystem into the future, not just to adapt stuff. Sony is already excellent at this, big lens can always be used with a gripped A7. And the future of SL system is medium format size and weight with a competitive FF IQ (but not the top). To me, the look of the camera is irrelevant. I can put up with the ergonomics for light lens, but for big lens, I don't know if that grip (contour-less) is going to be comfortable. In the end, I would consider buying it if it's not for what Jono Black said in his review that its M compatibility is good but not as good as the M240. Again, sound to me like a modded Sony cam (for less than half the price). If anything, the next M with this same tech would be a big hit for Leica.
Sony only gets dethroned when this camera is adopted more by the mass. The difference is academic when Leica can only sell this to a few individuals.
Regarding the question about how I calculated current prices for the 1953 lens prices, I just used a USD inflation calculator. I don't know what the average income was at that time vs. now. But yes, it seems people now have more disposable income, or are much more willing to go into debt to maintain a certain lifestyle. And why not when credit is so easy to obtain? Isn't that the whole point... to trap people into a debt/consumption cycle from which to profit?
ryankarr wrote:
The 50 Lux won't be out until late 2016?
Gives everyone time to save their pennies. And Sony to release one or two more camera iterations.
---------------------------------------------
retrofocus wrote:
What to do....one Leica SL or getting two Sony A7R II cameras.....
Interesting that Leica needed to copy the mistake from Sony to make big lenses for mirrorless cameras.
Looks like a collector item to me for some very few, very likely not a big seller.
Why does mirrorless have to automatically equal small/tiny/undersized?
The mistake Sony made was waffling and falling short of high image quality with some of their lenses, such as the 24-70, while still making them comparably sized to DSLR system lenses that don't balance well with the petite a7 form.
While we still have to see objective, independent reviews of the new SL glass, it would seem Leica is not trying to promise anything about small size and rather aiming for best possible image quality. Both of the zoom designs are complex, particularly the 90-280. If anything, they've taken a page out of Zeiss's lens design philosophy. I have a Canon 300/4 and it's not a small lens. Similar in size to a 70-200/2.8, if not slightly larger. How is Leica going to make a 280/4 smaller? That would seem to defy currently available technology.
From what I've gleaned so far, the SL's size was somewhat dictated by lens size. What's the point of doing what Sony did - make a super small camera - when the native glass will be large and the resulting combination will be awkward to use?
I agree with Brad and this seems somewhat aimed as being a junior S-system. If you're in the Leica ecosystem and want small, you go Q or M.
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding the question about how I calculated current prices for the 1953 lens prices, I just used a USD inflation calculator. I don't know what the average income was at that time vs. now. But yes, it seems people now have more disposable income, or are much more willing to go into debt to maintain a certain lifestyle. And why not when credit is so easy to obtain? Isn't that the whole point... to trap people into a debt/consumption cycle from which to profit?
Gives everyone time to save their pennies. And Sony to release one or two more camera iterations.
---------------------------------------------
Why does mirrorless have to automatically equal small/tiny/undersized?
The mistake Sony made was waffling and falling short of high image quality with some of their lenses, such as the 24-70, while still making them comparably sized to DSLR system lenses that don't balance well with the petite a7 form.
While we still have to see objective, independent reviews of the new SL glass, it would seem Leica is not trying to promise anything about small size and rather aiming for best possible image quality. Both of the zoom designs are complex, particularly the 90-280. If anything, they've taken a page out of Zeiss's lens design philosophy. I have a Canon 300/4 and it's not a small lens. Similar in size to a 70-200/2.8, if not slightly larger. How is Leica going to make a 280/4 smaller? That would seem to defy currently available technology.
From what I've gleaned so far, the SL's size was somewhat dictated by lens size. What's the point of doing what Sony did - make a super small camera - when the native glass will be large and the resulting combination will be awkward to use?
I agree with Brad and this seems somewhat aimed as being a junior S-system. If you're in the Leica ecosystem and want small, you go Q or M. ...Show more →
Ron, I seriously doubt that the ergonomics of this SL is suitable for those big, ginormous lenses. They should have made it in an SLR shape like the Samsung NX1 for instance. No need to go with that faux DSLR shape from Sony.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
As for the Leica: the design is downright ugly!
Why copy an SLR design when people prefer the rangefinder style viewfinder with mirrorless cameras?
(not crushing your nose as a right-eye shooter nor poking it as a leftie..)
Because overall with mirrorless SLR-style bodies have been significantly more successful than RF-style bodies. People simply do not prefer the RF body style, as is born out by sales
In Fuji land, the SLR-style X-T1 is far and away the most popular body, with the X-T10 now coming second.
In m43, the OM-D's and GH's are the most popular bodies, again SLR-style.
Sony's breakout success has been the SLR-style A7 bodies
Samsung doesn't even do an RF-style body.
Except the NX500 has no EVF. I guess I'm an exception and would be one who prefers a EVF camera in an RF design with the VF in the top left...
hiepphotog wrote:
Ron, I seriously doubt that the ergonomics of this SL is suitable for those big, ginormous lenses. They should have made it in an SLR shape like the Samsung NX1 for instance. No need to go with that faux DSLR shape from Sony.
I wonder too and would have preferred a more ergonomically moulded grip over the design-school-inspired look. Maybe something a pack or two of Sugru can fix?
I don't get why people complain about the price. It's around the same level as the Nikon D3X was, and the D3X was price in 2008 dollars. The 3 year old Canon 1D C was twice as expensive and offering less of everything except size and weight. It's a Leica intended for professional use this, not a Digital Rebel.
Leica SL looks like a perfect solution for me. The only thing keeps me from it is the price. I wish they introduce a more economic version of SL. A $3999 dumb downed version would be great.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
Because these days, ppl are just plain rich even if they don't see it that way. A Mac whatever for 2'000 here, an iPhone every year for 600 each, craps (err, beats) headphones for 300, etc etc etc.
I think we live on different planets. I don't spend anywhere near that much. My computer is several years old, my smartphone was a hand-me-down, never spent any money on a headphone.
Why copy an SLR design when people prefer the rangefinder style viewfinder with mirrorless cameras?
(not crushing your nose as a right-eye shooter nor poking it as a leftie..)
Speak for yourself. I don't have a preference for either RF-style or SLR-style. All I care about is whether it works for me.
rscheffler wrote:
Why does mirrorless have to automatically equal small/tiny/undersized?
The mistake Sony made was waffling and falling short of high image quality with some of their lenses, such as the 24-70, while still making them comparably sized to DSLR system lenses that don't balance well with the petite a7 form.
While we still have to see objective, independent reviews of the new SL glass, it would seem Leica is not trying to promise anything about small size and rather aiming for best possible image quality. Both of the zoom designs are complex, particularly the 90-280. If anything, they've taken a page out of Zeiss's lens design philosophy. I have a Canon 300/4 and it's not a small lens. Similar in size to a 70-200/2.8, if not slightly larger. How is Leica going to make a 280/4 smaller? That would seem to defy currently available technology.
From what I've gleaned so far, the SL's size was somewhat dictated by lens size. What's the point of doing what Sony did - make a super small camera - when the native glass will be large and the resulting combination will be awkward to use?
I agree with Brad and this seems somewhat aimed as being a junior S-system. If you're in the Leica ecosystem and want small, you go Q or M. ...Show more →
I disagree - I know several people who own an A7 series camera, and the main reason for all of them getting it is the smaller body size, followed by FF sensor. Tele lenses of course will always be longer - your examples of 300 mm FL lenses are no comparison to my point to make regular FL lenses smaller. It is funny that always tele lenses are used as example when defending bigger sized lenses made for smaller camera bodies. Do you think that this SL camera body is predominantly used with long tele lenses - I don't think so.
mawz wrote:
Because overall with mirrorless SLR-style bodies have been significantly more successful than RF-style bodies. People simply do not prefer the RF body style, as is born out by sales
In Fuji land, the SLR-style X-T1 is far and away the most popular body, with the X-T10 now coming second.
In m43, the OM-D's and GH's are the most popular bodies, again SLR-style.
Sony's breakout success has been the SLR-style A7 bodies
Samsung doesn't even do an RF-style body.
There would be a high demand in RF cameras in the past if they had been more affordable. The big majority of photographers which I know prefer a smaller camera body over a bulky SLR body if affordable and available. That's why many now use the A7 series camera with smaller sized SLR or better rangefinder lenses. IMO smaller mirrorless FF cameras are the future.
Nice summary. But why do you think that it will behave better with M-lenss? That remains to be seen...
Steve Spencer wrote:
OK, I will make a case for the Camera.
Advantages over the Sony A7r II:
Better EVF: high magnification and the reviews suggest it is excellent
Faster frames per second: 11 fps vs. 5 fps
Deeper buffer: 30 shots vs. 23
Dual card slots
Better compatibility with Leica M wide lenses
Compatibility with Leica S lenses
Perhaps auto aperture with Leica R lenses
Lower base ISO--50 instead of 100 but probably won't translate to better base ISO performance
Perhaps faster operation.
Touch sensitive LCD
Longer shutter speed available -- will this translate into better long exposure?
Better weather sealing
Advantages of the A7r II over the Leica SL
More resolution; better high ISO signal to noise ratio (overall better sensor)
IBIS
Better AF with phase detect
Smaller size
Tiltable LCD
Probably better video
Less than half the price
My best guess is that the Leica may have a better shooting experience, but the Sony has a better sensor and IBIS. Both will be very nice cameras and for price performance the Leica will not stand up (since when does Leica ever stand up to a value proposition). Still I think people could like this camera with the right glass and I think they will like the responsiveness and the EVF, and many people will like the interface.
Here are some excellent lenses that will work much better on the Leica: Leica M 18 SEM; Zeiss ZM 18 f/4; Leica M 21 SEM; Leica M 24 Elmar; Leica 28 Summicron ASPH; Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4; Leica M 50 lux ASPH; Leica M 50 cron AA. These Leica M wide and normal lenses should all work well on the Leica SL, and all have trouble on a stock A7r II, and on the modified camera you will have colour balance issues (that can be fixed with a profile in processing) and you sacrifice the dust shaker.
Leica S 100 f/2; Leica S 120 f/2.5 Macro APO. These excellent S lenses are not useable on the A7r II and they are exceptional and for the speed and focal length (even though they cover a MF image circle) are not ridiculously big. The macro is quite special and really has no peer, IMO.
Leica R 180 f/2 APO; Leica R 180 f/2.8 APO; Leica 180 f/3.4 APO; Leica R 280 f/4 APO; Leica R 400 f/2.8 APO; Leica R 70-180 f/2.8 APO. These longer R lenses are fantastic and although you can shoot them on the A7r II, the bigger size of the Leica SL will be a bonus for these lenses and they may come with auto aperture on the SL when the new adapter is ready.
So in my mind the king of alternative lenses (the Sony A7r II) has been dethroned. The Leica SL will allow you to shoot more lenses and more lenses better and some are pretty unique and special ones even if they are pricey....Show more →
Before I left for the office this morning, I quickly refreshed a few sites to see pictures of this thing. I initially thought it was NEX-sized, and walked off mumbling something about a cutesy small camera yet again. Oh well. Moving along.
Later at work, I finally saw the DPreview photos with someone actually holding this monstrosity in their hands. I can't decide whether it was designed by the Engineers from Prometheus, or by the person that designed the original Xbox Controller (which won "Blunder of the Year", I believe).
Seriously, is this a joke? It's like Leica tried to design a compact European four-door sedan, and ended up with a Honda N Box. Or a Nissan Cube.
Then again, people still buy full length fur coats to show off their wealth and that they're above others in social status and drain bamage...
Gotta say when I first saw it I thought it would have the S sensor. That would have been seriously cool. But this ... not exactly in line with the whole M ethos.
