Leica Anyone here bought the SL

Whoa - Steve is getting very jumpy lately. The resolution differences should be beyond challenge on two high-end cameras like that, so someone should step in and provide some clarification.
 
Dale, I can clarify. In his wave of excitement about why this new camera is the bestest camera ever, Steve made a false claim. That's all there is to it. If you want to hear it from someone who has spent time shooting the SL, here is what Ming Thein had to say (source):

the SL is both expensive and will be resolution limited for printing compared to the rest – there is a signifiant [sic] difference between 24 and 36 MP – let alone 50 – under ideal conditions... It would have been nice to see more resolution, but I suspect this might have eaten uncomfortably into S system sales.
 
Dale, I can clarify. In his wave of excitement about why this new camera is the bestest camera ever, Steve made a false claim. That's all there is to it. If you want to hear it from someone who has spent time shooting the SL, here is what Ming Thein had to say (source):

Oooh .... "eaten into S system sales" .... my ears are burning - heh.
 
wow amin, i cant believe that reaction by huff. i think it must be caused by the excess vitamins he needs to take to carry that SL rig around! but seriously your post seemed very reasoned, and certainly didnt 'hate on the brand' at all, just made some objective observations.

more generally, i do repeatedly observe that when a user is invested in equipment they refuse to acknowledge 'objective observations'. i try to keep the frame of mine where these are 'tools', and there is no 'all-in-one'. i believe its much more effective to just admit the obvious, like my rd1 has no burst ability, my x100 is a little slow to focus, the SL rig is huge for mirrorless and fuji raw files are a pita than to try to convince people what theyre seeing or experiencing is incorrect. all of this is a subjective balancing test of pros and cons that each person resolves differently.
 
Something tells me my reply is going to be awaiting moderation for a long time.

huffmod.png
 
Personally, I think Leica should have updated the M series before coming out with this thing. The M-262 should have received a new generation Sensor rather than just the old CMOSIS sensor used in the M240. While I'm on it: The M246 deserved better than having a 12-bit pixel. That was a stupid move. I hope Leica gets their act together, At this point, the last Leica that I've been excited about was introduced over 3 years ago. There have been some real gains made in CCD technology since then, 32MPixel CCD available in color and monochrome with better performance than what Leica is putting in the SL, M240, and M246. There is a reason why Phase 1 built their new monochrome camera back around a CCD: sensor uniformity. Of course you would give up Video and Liveview. Maybe Leica can revive Leicina line for that.

The 24x36 version of the CCD used by Phase 1:

FTF7046M 32 MP Mono CCD

Greater than 72dB linear dynamic range, 74dB dynamic range total, 32MPixel. Color and Monochrome.

http://info.teledynedalsa.com/acton/attachment/14932/f-031f/1/-/-/-/-/FTF7046M Datasheet_20130903.pdf

I just bought two more batteries for the M8, M9, and M Monochrom with a charger for $31. I'll report on how well they do- I should be set for a few years.

As far as Steve Huff- the Leica Q sensor is making the M240 and M246 sensor look old; you can read his review where he agrees to my statement to that effect. He's not pushing the M246 as he did the M Monochrom. He's not pushing the M262 as it is basically an M240 with the same CMOS sensor in it. All he's got left to be enthusiastic for Leica is the SL and Q.

Having 75 or so Leica mount RF-coupled lenses- does that classify me as an enthusiast? I'll be enthusiastic for a next Leica digital camera when it uses the Dalsa sensors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what anyone would use it for. For me it would have to be convenient to carry around, just camera and one lens. I don't expect to ever see one, and I'm in a primary photo city.


I love the idea that I can carry one lens and cover 85% of what I need. Sure, there are many from all the different companies out there but the image quality is not as good as that from the SL. The other thing I read somewhere is that the AF of the SL is quite fast and accurate.
Lol, Steve Huff just characterized me as an anti-Leica troll because I countered an obviously false claim he was making.

23582655230_2047e03c9c_o.png

Boy, Leica must be paying him big time to be that defensive.
 
Tony-

My guess is they are used in the scientific market, but from the Dalsa literature: they would like to see it in a hand-held camera. The performance of the CCD with light coming in off-nadir is impressive. This sensor would be perfect in a CCD based M-Mount camera. Maybe Voigtlander....
 
btw, i dont think thats the only af 50 available for nikon

No, but it's the consensus best performing AF 50mm f/1.4 for Nikon. I assume the Leica 50/1.4 is going to perform very well.

'mirrorless isnt about small size' is an interesting pov from the creator of 'serious compacts'

The SL is not huge by any standards other than that of mirrorless system cameras. Compared to an M240, the size difference is entirely attributable to the EVF (best in class) and the grip. When you take into account that the battery life is - in contrast to any other mirrorless camera - in a similar league to DSLRs, you can see that Leica had different design compromises in mind for this camera than Sony had for the A7 line.
 
Tony-

My guess is they are used in the scientific market, but from the Dalsa literature: they would like to see it in a hand-held camera. The performance of the CCD with light coming in off-nadir is impressive. This sensor would be perfect in a CCD based M-Mount camera. Maybe Voigtlander....

thanks brian. i'm one of those who sees a difference in, and much prefers, ccd sensors. imo, the only cmos that came close was the 7mp panny L1 (which i think was a hybrid) and the bayer x100 fuji foolishly gave up on. i would be very disposed to wanting my 'modern' interchangeable lens cam to be ccd.
 
Looks like he deleted it without posting. Just as I expected.
Well, now that's a bad mark on him. There was absolutely nothing abusive or insulting in that post. BTW, I read comments elsewhere to the effect that Huff has been making changes to generate more traffic to his sites, but this seems like a step backward for him.
 
The SL is not huge by any standards other than that of mirrorless system cameras.

well that is the standard i am using; thats why i made referrence to 'mirrorless' a couple of times. plus, i always referred to the 'SL rig'--rig consisting of the SL and the humongous 'kit' zoom. its ok if you dont consider that rig 'huge', but thats as much your subjective opinion as mine considering it ridiculously huge. finally, i mentioned a couple of times i was posting a mixture of my opinion and trying to be humorous in my metaphors and characterizations. as i said when defending you against steve huff, people need to calm down about gear, address what is actually being said, and differentiate what is subjective and objective. its ok to disagree without having to try to prove wrong others subjective feelings.

its obvious the size of this rig doesnt bother you nor does it inhibit your excitement about it. thats great. imo, better to just say that than try to convince its no bigger than other mirrorless offerings.

merry christmas!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, I think Leica should have updated the M series before coming out with this thing. The M-262 should have received a new generation Sensor rather than just the old CMOSIS sensor used in the M240. While I'm on it: The M246 deserved better than having a 12-bit pixel. That was a stupid move. I hope Leica gets their act together, At this point, the last Leica that I've been excited about was introduced over 3 years ago. There have been some real gains made in CCD technology since then, 32MPixel CCD available in color and monochrome with better performance than what Leica is putting in the SL, M240, and M246. There is a reason why Phase 1 built their new monochrome camera back around a CCD: sensor uniformity. Of course you would give up Video and Liveview. Maybe Leica can revive Leicina line for that.

The 24x36 version of the CCD used by Phase 1:

FTF7046M 32 MP Mono CCD

Greater than 72dB linear dynamic range, 74dB dynamic range total, 32MPixel. Color and Monochrome.

http://info.teledynedalsa.com/acton/attachment/14932/f-031f/1/-/-/-/-/FTF7046M Datasheet_20130903.pdf

I just bought two more batteries for the M8, M9, and M Monochrom with a charger for $31. I'll report on how well they do- I should be set for a few years.

As far as Steve Huff- the Leica Q sensor is making the M240 and M246 sensor look old; you can read his review where he agrees to my statement to that effect. He's not pushing the M246 as he did the M Monochrom. He's not pushing the M262 as it is basically an M240 with the same CMOS sensor in it. All he's got left to be enthusiastic for Leica is the SL and Q.

Having 75 or so Leica mount RF-coupled lenses- does that classify me as an enthusiast? I'll be enthusiastic for a next Leica digital camera when it uses the Dalsa sensors.

I wonder, about the M246 Monochrom mainly. The original had fantastic resolution I thought, for a small handheld camera. The new Monochrom is 24 mp, and if it's significantly better than the original, is there something still better in that physical size (ignoring price)?
 
well that is the standard i am using; thats why i made referrence to 'mirrorless' a couple of times. plus, i always referred to the 'SL rig'--rig consisting of the SL and the humongous 'kit' zoom. its ok if you dont consider that rig 'huge', but thats as much your subjective opinion as mine considering it ridiculously huge. finally, i mentioned a couple of times i was posting a mixture of my opinion and trying to be humorous in my metaphors and characterizations. as i said when defending you against steve huff, people need to calm down about gear, understand what is subjective and objective, and not conflate tools with our self worth. its ok to disagree without having to try to prove wrong others subjective feelings. merry christmas!

I think the SL is large enough, with that first-edition short-zoom lens, to qualify as *empirically* huge. I see a lot of people using DSLR's with zoom lenses that are much smaller, but then if we were comparing to a full-frame Nikon or Canon with same zoom reach, they'd be comparable. From my POV it suffers from being different, from being different even for Leica, and needing a raison d'etre.

I scrutinize all new Leicas for something I can relate to and use every day. I rejected the S because of the mirror. I bought the Monochrom with Noctilux because it was different, and had some amazing properties (super-fast lens, high b&w resolution ....), but ultimately that fizzled for a few reasons.

Taking a long look at the SL, the only thing I could think of as a reason to buy, *even if* I decided to play pro photographer for a few months, was the size - to impress the local photographers who use Nikons and Canons. Charleston is one of the top tourist destinations in the U.S., yet I never see anyone with a Leica - a Leica that's obvious to me, like the Nikons and Canons. So I could be the first obvious big-Leica shooter here.

Now if some ranking Leica official whose name I'd recognize called me on the phone and said "Dale, we want you to have the SL camera, and just tell us what you need to make the decision." I would describe my need in carrying it for an extended time - a few hours at most, and voila! I would have the SL and the short-zoom lens. But what would I do with it? I don't like viewfinders, which is one of the reasons I dumped the Monochrom. So I'd need to remove that huge plug that houses the VF.

I had a Panasonic GM1 with the 24-64mm effective zoom lens, and it made beautiful images. Given the tiny size and the under-$1000 USD price, the SL image quality should trounce the GM1. The SL with the 24-90 lens weighs 4.4 lbs, compared to the Monochrom/Noctilux combination of exactly 3 lbs. The Q weighs exactly 1.5 lbs. Now it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone from Leica would ever call me to sell me on the SL, but if they did, knowing my carry requirement, I could help them sell a thousand of these cameras, bizarre as that sounds.
 
its ok to disagree without having to try to prove wrong others subjective feelings.

???

Far be it from me to argue with what is huge to you :confused:.

I'm just saying it's not huge to me, nor to the many people happily using 5Ds, D810s and the like. Not sure how my expression of my perspective constitutes an attack on yours :hmmm:.


people need to calm down about gear, address what is actually being said.

This part we can agree on :drinks:.
 
SL-part1 | LEICAgraphy

Erwin chose an interesting lead-in for his Leica SL article with size being first-up. The SL is larger than the M series rangefinders, and larger than Sony full-frame mirrorless cameras. Compared with a D810 or Canon 5Ds for size, those cameras have to accommodate the reflex viewfinder- but more importantly, size was not a concern to designers.

The SL is not a rangefinder camera. Size of the camera is not a concern to the designers. This is not a camera for someone that shoots with a Leica rangefinder camera because of the compact size of the body and lenses. Wait for the next M series camera to come out, see what it has to offer. If Leica screws that one up, prices of lightly used cameras will drop as Steve herds their owners to buy the next great thing.
 
It could be that some reviewers of cameras and lenses want the cash flow to continue somehow, and they need to support new products. Steve Huff's reply to the comments is unacceptably rude and it turns people off from even thinking of buying or using an SL camera.
 
Back
Top