Leica Anyone here bought the SL

Yes, it was all about Huff.
Yeah, my understanding at the time was that Huff was pushing the latest in the SL line, but not giving necessary consideration to the range of existing Leica lenses. When you price a SL system with SL lenses, as they become available, it's incredibly expensive, and yet the sensor is much smaller than what's in the 'S' series.
 
I meant Huff and not you, Amin!
I appreciate older lenses, and if there are some people pushing only for new lenses, then this is not what I like. It was about Huff.

Thanks, @raid - I thought it was about Steve but wasn't sure what you meant, exactly. I see what you mean, now. Steve basically earns his living by convincing (or enabling) people to continually buy the latest - and in his opinion, greatest - stuff.

Seems like every review of his says something like "I'm not rich and can't afford X but I'm going to find a way to get the funds because it's the bestest camera that I will keep forever and you can bury me with and photography is my one true passion so it's worth it. Only he says it with a lot more CAPS.
 
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):

Do you think they could have stuck 36MP chip in it? How? I think they buy them from elsewhere like most makers do.
 
Yes Amin. Agreed. But I think when Leica bought 24MP sensor it was probably new and most recent. I suppose they probably bought 36MP also which might be two to three years away and who knows we will still be saying same thing as we are doing now!
Most people think(rightly) that Leica prices are on hight side,but lets look at from a different angle.
1) Leica is a small company compared to other major competitors.
2)If they lower price,meaning more demand.They cant meet the demand right now, so with lower price the demand could be many fold which they will not be able to
meet because they are not ready for that.
3) At present they dont have to sell as many to keep it running.
PS: Bytheway, is Sony becaoming new digital Kodak and Agfa!
 
24 mp is a sweet spot, but I never saw an SL file I liked better than a M240 one, and I usually like the M9 18mp files better yet.

I would like 42 mp for wildlife since you can crop more. Sony's BSI has solved some issues, vignetting and noise we saw with the A7r, and gives better color. But I could not stand one without the Kolari. The native glass is good IF you find a decent copy. Manufacturing consistency is atrocious as documented by Lensrentals. The 90 and that enormous 35/1.4 are particularly bad. But Ming had to try 6 55/1.8s to get a good one, the 35/2.8 and 1635 are both notorious for decentering, etc. Non-withstanding the large profit margins, or perhaps because of them. Then there is the basically horrible use experience of shooting a Sony, which I do all the time with my A7.mod

The SL is way better in every way but two...OK three. Size, pixel count, and AF lens choice. The pixels don't matter except everyone thinks they will make some masterpiece that needs that extra rez for the huge prints. I fell for that once with the A7r. The M9 kills that camera for landscapes, in my personal experience, because pixels are not the only factor when you shoot alot of landscapes. Worse the high pixel counts choke your system and steal precious time on the planet.

All that said, Steve was sleep deprived when he attacked Amin: though to be fair Amin was quite adamant in his first paragraph. "No Way" etc. Might be true, but it's pretty direct. Steve does have a ton of experience with all the A7 cameras now, so he is talking about "something".

What's funny is he has long dismissed the M240, and it's making even nicer files with M lenses than the SL ;)

I think the SL is a tour de force of camera design, taken as a whole, like the Q. These are modern digital masterpieces. Sony makes franken cameras with little thought about how photgraphers work. They have some very strong points and many stupid ones. At least that's how i see them, as a long time user, and somebody who tries to keep up.

The RX1 is a case in point. Fantastic form factor and image quality, terrible AF and MF. The Q marries AF and MF better than any camera to date.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i agree with everything uhoh said except for 24mp being a sweet spot. for me, i actively do not want 24 mp--too much of a PITA to download, too sterile/clinical looking for my taste. i would consider it were i ansel adams, or if my livliehood depended on my work for national geographic. for the remaining 99% of hobbyists it adds nothing to their 'work'--it just amounts to mechanical masturbation, imo. looking at sonys offerings--many of which are both inventive and state of the art--only the 7s series interests me because it solves a real life problem--good quality low light photography--and does it with more DR and the lower pixel count i personally find more appealing. if this new techart af M adapter can be made to work with the s series, i can actually see that as the last camera i would be interested in.

the sl for m lenses is a full blown absurdity and stands on its head the longstanding constantly quoted leica mantra of 'small camera, big pictures'. to me its just another example of leica not knowing what it wants to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone know for sure that the lenses Leica was preparing for the SL would yield optimum results with the 36/42 mp sensors? I just assume it isn't as simple as swapping a sensor.
 
All that said, Steve was sleep deprived when he attacked Amin: though to be fair Amin was quite adamant in his first paragraph. "No Way" etc. Might be true, but it's pretty direct. Steve does have a ton of experience with all the A7 cameras now, so he is talking about "something".

Steve did the RX1RII review after the Q review, and in the RX1II review he cited the higher resolution and performance of the Sony sensor compared to the Q. He then says in the SL review that the SL sensor (same as Q) captures more detail than the A7RII sensor (same as RX1RII). That in itself is strange.

And then look at this crop he posts as "evidence" of the relative lack of detail from the A7RII sensor (click it twice for full size):

http://i0.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sonya7riired.jpg

I mean, that is just inexplicable. For someone who has so much experience as you say, how do you present that crop as part of your analysis of the A7RII sensor?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
at some point does anyone feel increased resolution becomes irrelevent? how much beyond identifying every single eyebrow hair do we need to be? i dont know if there is 'an' answer, but for me we are well past the point where this has any real world meaning. over the last couple years i have reached satisfaction with my 'pixel peeping' and have therefore become much more concerned with the overall look a sensor provides. to my utter surprise i find i actively do not enjoy the look of ultra rez sensors like the new wave of 24-36mp sensors. i am much more drawn to the look achieved by the lower mp offerings like the nikon df and the sony a7s. the only exception is the leica Q, whose look i find extremely appealing. but in the main, i believe that on an IQ basis, i could be very happy for many many years with these lower mp sensors. this reignited megapixel 'arms race' leaves me quite bored. my wish is that these companies focus their efforts on user experience instead.
 
Canon made a 150MPixel APS-C camera a few years ago, did it ever make it to the market?

Megapixels are easy. More of the Same. Dynamic Range is Hard, need to come up with better materials with higher saturation count.

You don't ask an "Evangelist" to perform a critical review of a camera, you look at them just to generate excitement about a product- whether it is good or bad, the "Evangelist" just wants to get everyone onboard with the newest, latest, greatest that can be preached from a soapbox or the Internet.
 
As to resolution: I like enough resolution to:

1) Blow-up a photo for printing or display if desired. (Mostly, sharp optics but it's somewhat resolution too.)
2) Allow for considerable cropping to effect a completely different shot than what I snapped.

I find the second especially useful when going for a shot with a subject that you don't want to alert that they're the subject ...

Having said that, I have to weigh heavily on the quality and character of a sensor's pixels versus how many of them there are. Which is why I'll never part with the Oly E-1 (5MP) or the M9 (18MP). Both with beautiful Kodak CCD sensors. And thinking of grabbing an old Ricoh "Digital" GR II (the old one with the 1/1.7" CCD sensor) - the pics just look so rich from that.

Now, about the SL ... Maybe if I get one in-the-hand. But just looking at images of it, it's tough for me to get really excited about it.

And about Steve: that's a great way to think about what he does: evangelize the gear he likes. I do think he's sincere in only getting really fired-up about stuff he really likes. I don't look to him to get all the details correct, but more for his experience of the gestalt with the gear.

Plus, if you've already convinced yourself to get "x" camera, it's fun reading Steve for getting fired-up during the shipping wait. "Ooh! It's the bestest camera that I will keep forever and you can bury me with and photography is my one true passion so it's worth it." Although it was probably too expensive, if I was really being honest with myself. Oh, forget that - I hit "Buy," so woo-hoo! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
as usual you make alot of sense. my 6mp rd1 has plenty enough rez for both purposes you mentioned; my x100 even more. i crop the heck out of 25% of my photos, never an issue.

as to the SL, i will never understand its reason for being. i am fully put off by its size and literally repulsed by the size of its lenses. but thats just me. i dont need whatever it is theyre selling with that one. to those who feel differently, use it in good health!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
as usual you make alot of sense. my 6mp rd1 has plenty enough rez for both purposes you mentioned; my x100 even more. i crop the heck out of 25% of my photos, never an issue. as to the SL, i will never understand its reason for being. i am fully put off by its size and literally repulsed by the size of its lenses. but thats just me. i dont need whatever it is theyre selling with that one. to those who feel differently, use it in good health!

I've never seen anyone walking around with a Leica 'S', even though with a reasonable lens it's more like a Nikon D800. I don't think I'll ever see anyone with a Leica SL. Were there example customers suggested for the SL? Like those slick brochures that show someone using it with a copy stand, or a mount for astrophotography, or a mount for taking ID photos for various ID cards? Maybe I could get re-interested if I could see myself in one of those applications.
 
I'm going to expand a bit on what I think is off about the SL.

For Leica to sell a decent quantity of a really expensive camera/system, they need to have our "want-one!" responses to conquer our "too-expensive!" responses.

But Leica does not have retail outlets in many states or even countries. Most camera stores won't carry their mid-to-top-end gear because of the large investment versus their relatively low volume sales.

So, to get that "want-one!" response, Leica must rely on the look of the camera, and how we think it will feel in-hand, to go along with its specs. There has to be a significant "this is a unique camera system that gets it so right where no one else is," to make us consider a camera system purchase that's in the top 1% for cost.

That just isn't there with the SL. The only people who will excessively want an SL will be those wanting an auto-focus FF system, but who somehow think that Sony's A7rII or Nikon's Df are just so wrong as to warrant a much larger, much more expensive SL system. Not many will do this based upon looks:
full?lightbox=1.png


SL vs. Df vs. A7r II, each with representative FF 50mm auto-focus lenses.

Yes, I'd prefer Leica's menu system. And I'm reading that when enthusiasts get the SL in-hand, they really, really, really like it.

But I'll never likely get an SL in-hand, there are no shops near me where I can go play with one. So I'll likely never overcome the "WTH?" response I get when I look at the above comparison. And I'm guessing not many "M" or "Q" owners (or others) will either.

So, my best prediction: the SL just won't sell all that well.

Nothing controversial for most about this prediction, but I hope I nailed the "well, why is that?"

What new Leica would sell? Well, any camera system that you can just look at, read the specs, and go, "they got it right - while other companies have missed the mark."

Look at the "Q:" competes with the Sony RX1 series, but gets the user interface, haptics, and gestalt so "right" - while the Sony is so "meh" or "pbpblth" in these areas. So, the "Q" is selling even though it's a more expensive camera.

"What's right" is going to vary from enthusiast to enthusiast. But I'll bet enough commonality exists that there are at least two to three other candidate Leica possibilities (right now) that would "nail-it" like the "Q" has. But the "SL" hasn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow - I never realized the SL's 50mm lens was so huge. I was contemplating the SL with the 28-90 lens they offered first, which of course was very large, but looking at this picture and comparing to a 50mm for the 'M' cameras, it looks ridiculous.
 
Back
Top