I just finished a test of manual focusing a variety of lenses from 28mm to 90mm on the SL3 so I can meaningfully compare it with the M11/Visoflex II and the M11 EV-1.
In short the MF experience on th SL3 is great. Easy to see, smooth in EVF, accurate, and fast. It fixes everything I hate about the Visoflex.
I really hope the EV-1 can match or somehow exceed the SL3 experience. But without IBIS I am not confident that is possible.
1bwana1 wrote:
I just finished a test of manual focusing a variety of lenses from 28mm to 90mm on the SL3 so I can meaningfully compare it with the M11/Visoflex II and the M11 EV-1.
In short the MF experience on th SL3 is great. Easy to see, smooth in EVF, accurate, and fast. It fixes everything I hate about the Visoflex.
I really hope the EV-1 can match or somehow exceed the SL3 experience. But without IBIS I am not confident that is possible.
The M EV1 would be more than 400g lighter, probably smaller as well, perhaps slightly better performance for some lenses and obviously there is the convenience factor of not requiring an adapter, but without IBIS and if there are no improved manual focus utilities I have my doubts... especially also if it comes in at the same price point as the regular M. We should know soon enough.
tzhang4284 wrote:
I gotta say if this rendering is accurate, the overall aesthetics on the front looks off compared to a regular M11 or a Q3. They should've moved some of the design elements - e.g. light sensor or logo over to the side. Fuji did a better job with similar elements on the X-E5.
Agreed.. i'm sure the point has been made in the prior 40+ pages of comments, but I fear Leica has made a severe misstep by using the "Q3" design aesthetic instead of the M11-series design. I understand why they did it, and the potential risk that comes from touching anything related to their M-series bodies.. but I think trying to sell what is a M-priced body in a Q package is going to be a bridge too far for many. Had this been an M11 with EVF, I'd be first in line.
I guess it will ultimately come down to the focus-assist / EVF implementation. I'm afraid they've put themselves in an uphill battle from the start though with the Q-inspired design for what many had hoped would be an "M with an EVF" solution.
BrandonSi wrote:
Agreed.. i'm sure the point has been made in the prior 40+ pages of comments, but I fear Leica has made a severe misstep by using the "Q3" design aesthetic instead of the M11-series design. I understand why they did it, and the potential risk that comes from touching anything related to their M-series bodies.. but I think trying to sell what is a M-priced body in a Q package is going to be a bridge too far for many. Had this been an M11 with EVF, I'd be first in line.
I guess it will ultimately come down to the focus-assist / EVF implementation. I'm afraid they've put themselves in an uphill battle from the start though with the Q-inspired design for what many had hoped would be an "M with an EVF" solution....Show more →
Perhaps you missed the supposed leaked image on the previous page 42 #9 ? Looks very similar to my M11 body design. I would not be surprised if Leica used the exact same EVF from the Q and from the looks of it in this "leaked" image they may have. Otherwise still looks like the M11 body.
rscheffler wrote:
The hope (my hope!) is that MF assist in the EV-1 will be so good there will be no need to zoom in to visually confirm focus most of the time.
I think this must be the case to justify the existence of the EV-1 versus adapting M lenses to other mirrorless options with IBIS and other benefits.
1bwana1 wrote:
I just finished a test of manual focusing a variety of lenses from 28mm to 90mm on the SL3 so I can meaningfully compare it with the M11/Visoflex II and the M11 EV-1.
In short the MF experience on th SL3 is great. Easy to see, smooth in EVF, accurate, and fast. It fixes everything I hate about the Visoflex.
I really hope the EV-1 can match or somehow exceed the SL3 experience. But without IBIS I am not confident that is possible.
The SL-3 also has IBIS, which greatly helps the experience.
edit: I totally missed your last sentence somehow. Agree the lack of IBIS will detract significantly from the experience.
Am I alone in finding it strange - given Leica's history of small is beautiful - that they have no current compact interchangeable lens AF camera offering?
KLaban wrote:
Am I alone in finding it strange - given Leica's history of small is beautiful - that they have no current compact interchangeable lens AF camera offering?
No, you are not. There has been a consistent demand for an ICL Q (or a FF CL if you want) for about a decade now.
SlowDriver wrote:
No, you are not. There has been a consistent demand for an ICL Q (or a FF CL if you want) for about a decade now.
I’m not sure Leica can produce FF AF lenses that are up to their standards but not enormous. The Q lenses are large, even though they’re integrated into the body.
SlowDriver wrote:
The SL is not a bestseller. More than SL sales they might be trying to protect Q (and M) sales.
I mentioned it in this thread earlier a few times - agreed that the SL sells below expectations, but IMO this will be the main reason why we won't see an on-par camera specs with the M EV1 either. Several discussed earlier here how M lenses perform on the SL3 and that this was seen as prerequisite requirement in the EV1 - exactly my point why Leica will do everything to avoid this kind of in-house competition to protect the SL series from more potential loss (meaning the EV1 will not be equivalent or even top whatever the SL offers - AF and video capabilities excluded for comparison of course).
Well, I am certainly intrigued to see this new offering from Leica this week. However, not feeling the gravitational pull yet based on all the intial leaks, comments, etc... wow us Leica!!.
It all comes down to that EVF experience. The big deal about the camera, the sole differentiator with the standard M, is the EVF replacing the rangefinder mechanism. Leica has to get that right. It has to be something special. It has to wow, it has to be easy and effective to use.
Now one would assume that Leica would know that, and design accordingly.
johnvanr wrote:
I’m not sure Leica can produce FF AF lenses that are up to their standards but not enormous. The Q lenses are large, even though they’re integrated into the body.
Some of the the Zooms Leica produces for the SL system are very large and heavy for sure. They perform very well, but I think other manufacturers have achieved optical parity, AF superiority, in smaller lighter form factors. Leica's does also sell some smaller form factor zoom lenses but they are optically average in my experience.
But I think Leica has made a deliberate choice with the APO-SL primes to accept sizes that are larger than required opticaly in order to produce a cohesive camera "system". The APO-SL lenses are all exactly the same size. In fact, they all use exactly the same parts to a significant extent. That means that all but one are larger than they have to be to acheive Leica's performance goals. I suspect that Leica choose this approach for reasons of both manufacturing efficiency and system cohesion. But, clearly all but one could have been made smaller to some extent.
I still think the SL APO lenses are Leica's ethos to take medium format optic (and abandon the S series) and mount it on an L mount. Thus the designator S (from the S series) and the L from the L mount. They clearly accept the larger optic for the performance it brings to the table in the SL APO lineup. Karbe himself has simplified it in a statement of (paraphrase) ... you get two options ... small = M, superior (larger) optic = SL.
You wanna split the diff ... mount M on SL (effectively ML).
That provides product offerings for three tiers of customers (of sorts).
M
ML
SL
Having mounted many M645 lenses on FF rigs, I get the payoff for the expense of the size / weight for the larger glass in the quid pro quo of optical choices for size vs. performance. The native SL APO provides an integrated solution set.
