"Tested "the new Leica SL out yesterday.

x-ray said:
Please post some images taken with it.

Judging on the LCD isnt a very good way to judge a camera. The images from the M9 I had (when it worked) were light years ahead of how they appeared on the LCD. The screen on th M9 was about the same quality as the nikon D1 LCD which wasn't good at all.

Proof is in the images and how it holds up over time. Everyone has a different standard by how we judge images.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot everybody for the comments and the kind words. Sorry that I didn't post any photos to go along with this thread, but I don't have any. All of the SD cards are Kristian's and he is busy taking photos for a "write up" on the camera.

To be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable posting any images that I shot with the camera because they probably won't show what the camera is capable of and I doubt that I would even know how to properly test a digital camera.

I can say this, from what we shot yesterday and from what I know Kristian shot today, he is going to have some very interesting images in his "write up".

cheers, michael
 
Hi Everybody,

I have been lucky enough to have spent some more time with SL, this time with my 35mm 1.2 lens attached to it, and I absolutely love it. The viewfinder is amazing and the package is quite small.

23456780721_435098f62a_b.jpg
[/url]



cheers, michael
 
I like your no-nonsense review, Michael. It looks to me that "old stuff" will go one day, and "new stuff" will replace it. This is a fact of life.
 
Leica seems to be coming out with one winner after another. Hope they can make a buck or two with those stratospheric prices. The SL looks awesome but not the size of those native lenses. I guess I'll stay an M guy.
 
thanks for giving us your experience with the SL . The body seems to be ok , but as Akiva says the lens is huge . But with a few M lenses it would be nice I guess , and faster to operate than a M-262 ?? Just curious , I cannot afford one anyway .
 
When I first read about the parameters of the SL, I thought: "Who on earth needs that?"
When I saw the first pictures of the cam, I thought: "Argh, an ugly Sony copy!"

But when I had the chance to hold one in my hand and play with it a little in Wetzlar, I totally changed my mind. This camera looks much nicer in real life than on photos, it feels great and the viewfinder is simply amazing! The best EVF I have looked through (including all Sonys, such as the NEX 7 or the A7II and Fujis, like the X-T1)!

Still, with that price tag it will never be my cam (unless I win some millions in the lottery, that is). :(
 
I love small size cameras and I only saw the SL in a Leica Store, even I din't get it in my hands but...from an aesthetic point of view the body itself is beautiful!
But the 24-90 is large, very large...
robert
PS: of course it's only my idea...
 
had the pleasure to play with one quickly last Friday too and was impressed with the SL.
it's a more refined and luxurious version of the Sony A7x series.

the viewfinder is huge and clear, manual focus is a joy.. like shooting SLR but electronic.
The camera is not inundated by too many buttons although it may pose challenges when you want quick access to the 3 core settings, Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO.

The body has some nice weight to hit and felt better in my hands than the A7 although for some it might be too heavy for its size.
AF with the 24-90 was impressive, no problem focusing in low light or low contrast objects however it is big, i would say as big as Canon 70-300L lens.


Overall, I was impressed, if I had 16,000 CAD$ to waste (10k body and 6k lens) this would be a contender, especially if you want to use multiple different 35mm lenses.
However for its price range I cant but ask why not go Pentax 645Z instead?
 
taemo said:
had the pleasure to play with one quickly last Friday too and was impressed with the SL.
it's a more refined and luxurious version of the Sony A7x series.

the viewfinder is huge and clear, manual focus is a joy.. like shooting SLR but electronic.
The camera is not inundated by too many buttons although it may pose challenges when you want quick access to the 3 core settings, Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO.

The body has some nice weight to hit and felt better in my hands than the A7 although for some it might be too heavy for its size.
AF with the 24-90 was impressive, no problem focusing in low light or low contrast objects however it is big, i would say as big as Canon 70-300L lens.


Overall, I was impressed, if I had 16,000 CAD$ to waste (10k body and 6k lens) this would be a contender, especially if you want to use multiple different 35mm lenses.
However for its price range I cant but ask why not go Pentax 645Z instead?
Click to expand...

Is there anything special about Leica's secret sauce when it comes to their CMOS releases? I saw Steve Huff comparing the SL to the A7R2, and his pictures painted a pretty unbelievable picture: that the SL was so amazingly far beyond the A7R2 in terms of secret sauce.

I'm wary. Is the 645Z amazing?
 
Samouraï said:
Is there anything special about Leica's secret sauce when it comes to their CMOS releases? I saw Steve Huff comparing the SL to the A7R2, and his pictures painted a pretty unbelievable picture: that the SL was so amazingly far beyond the A7R2 in terms of secret sauce.

I'm wary. Is the 645Z amazing?
Click to expand...

There is no fairy dust in this world. Mr. Steve Huff may disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, shooting RAW negates any brand-specific advantages with regard to JPEG rendering. Leica does seem to have a pretty nice JPEG profile - the same can be said for Fuji - but that is easily accessible to any camera via a color profile. Lens rendering is, of course, a different issue...but I see nothing about the 24-90 that suggests that it performs substantially better than the best Canikon standard zooms.

As for the 645Z, I've used the 645D for about 1.5 years before selling my Pentax kit. The 645Z is indeed a great camera. IQ is notably above even the A7R2, at both low and high ISOs. The two issues that made me not go for the 645Z are weight and price. The camera body is heavier than the A7RII plus a fair-sized zoom. Not delightful to hold for extended periods. You're also stuck with a lens collection only slightly less constraining than FE: used 645AF lenses with inconsistent quality, or uber-expensive modern AF lenses (3 zooms and 4 primes I think?).

If money is not an issue, I would probably add a 645Z kit (or Phase One IQ with the same sensor, if money really is not an issue). But I can't quite justify $6.5k in a single body and maybe $10k in lenses for extra image quality that I won't notice unless making massive prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top