p.3 #1 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
Adam, The SL has lots of issues. But I'm shooting it and an M side by side and if anything the SL is slightly better and noticeably better at higher ISO's than the M.
p.3 #2 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
Ugh. Leica's mandatory noise reduction drives me crazy. It makes what would be an amazing backpacking camera (M240) nearly useless for me because I can't easily do long exposures at night. Sad that they still haven't fixed this on the SL... maybe the next M?
p.3 #3 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
I have to say that after 2 days of ownership I find the SL quite better than the M in IQ and to be honest I'm a bit puzzled by Adam's complaints. Maybe I will discover some bad issues as I use it more but so far so good.
p.3 #4 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
rscheffler wrote:
Interesting to see your results with the 50 APO. It is subtle, but I think if you had a lot of experience with it on the M240 and came to expect that degree of sharpness/micro contrast, the SL results would be somewhat disappointing, though likely only noticed by the photographer. But when you've put that much money into a lens purchase and you're shooting for yourself....
Yes, it's something I'm debating too, as in the end, I can only keep one camera (I'm just an enthusiast, not a pro). Should I keep the M240 and suffer through the handling issues for the ultimate image quality, or should I keep the SL for a much improved handling and usability, but take the slight hit in image quality? What makes it harder to decide is the 50 APO. One does not buy a lens at its price point to be ok with any hits in image quality. It's the sharpest lens I've ever used, soundly beating out every other lens I've tested it against, so taking that quality hit means that I've basically wasted the extra money I spent -for- that extra increase in quality. Decisions decisions...
adamdewilde wrote:
I'm so glad I decided to stick with the M240 and S-006. The S is leagues better in the IQ dept. That and the M240 is still a far better sensor then the SL sensor.
I'm really not sure what to do with the SL+Zoom.. I want to keep the SL around incase the 50Lux-L is an amazing lens.
I'm pretty much in the same boat. The 50 Lux could be on par or even exceed the 50 APO, but we won't know until the end of this year (or even beyond, depending on supply constraints). That's a long time to hold onto a camera for just one lens of unknown quality. I've also considered the S006/S007 with the 70mm, but having to use 1/250s for handheld shots is not really acceptable for me.
p.3 #5 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
Ranma13 wrote:
Yes, it's something I'm debating too, as in the end, I can only keep one camera (I'm just an enthusiast, not a pro). Should I keep the M240 and suffer through the handling issues for the ultimate image quality, or should I keep the SL for a much improved handling and usability, but take the slight hit in image quality? What makes it harder to decide is the 50 APO. One does not buy a lens at its price point to be ok with any hits in image quality. It's the sharpest lens I've ever used, soundly beating out every other lens I've tested it against, so taking that quality hit means that I've basically wasted the extra money I spent -for- that extra increase in quality. Decisions decisions...
I'm pretty much in the same boat. The 50 Lux could be on par or even exceed the 50 APO, but we won't know until the end of this year (or even beyond, depending on supply constraints). That's a long time to hold onto a camera for just one lens of unknown quality. I've also considered the S006/S007 with the 70mm, but having to use 1/250s for handheld shots is not really acceptable for me.
With the S-006 250th is a good idea. But I've gotten away with 125th using the 35S, 45S, 70S, 100S, 120S. With the 100S and 120S needing far better technique then the other three lenses. At 180th and good technique you're ok. At 250th it's safe.
The S-007 when it's being consistent with it's handling (what I mean is hard to explain). I can bang out shots at 125th no problem with any of the mentioned lenses and decent technique. But once in a while it'll give me a motion blur image at even 250th. Quirky camera the S-007. You also tend to get quite a few black frames. Seems like shutter cocking issues. The S-007 has pretty decent ISO in RAW. You can get a fair two stops over the S-006.
The S007 is a very fast camera. Tech wise it seems on par with Canon and Nikon. The AF will be a bit slower, just due to the construction and size of the lenses. Think 85L in terms of focusing speed. But more accurate at nailing focus. Aside from the 100S which is problematic on the S-007.
As for the SL + 50Lux-L... I'm not sure if it'll be "better" then the 50APO, as I love the rendering of the lens more so then anything else. But I'm sure it'll be close to Otus lenses, but hopefully not as boring (for lack of a better word). Maybe some of that 100S magic will seep into the 50LuxL
p.3 #6 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
edwardkaraa wrote:
I have to say that after 2 days of ownership I find the SL quite better than the M in IQ and to be honest I'm a bit puzzled by Adam's complaints. Maybe I will discover some bad issues as I use it more but so far so good.
I'm glad you like it.. I look forward to your images Edward. One of the reasons I'm not selling it is to see how you and others adapt to it's workflow. I'm also waiting to see if Leica updates the firmware and fixes some of the complaints I have with the sensor. The other is of course because I'm holding out for the 50Lux-L.
p.3 #7 · Leica SL observations compared to Q and M240
flash wrote:
Adam, The SL has lots of issues. But I'm shooting it and an M side by side and if anything the SL is slightly better and noticeably better at higher ISO's than the M.
