rbelyell
Well-known
couldnt agree more. 'cartoonish' was the very word that first crossed my mind when i saw it with kit lens attached. and then again when i saw a zoom in of that grip! and then again when i saw someone using it with M lenses. yikes! if i had a dime for every time the leica mantra of either 'simplicity' or 'small camera, small lenses' was quoted on this forum with biblical enthusiasm i'd be able to afford the private island necessary to house this kit. i guess the new mantra is 'big camera, big lenses', or for M lens guys like me, 'huge camera, small lenses'. reminds me of the old connundrum: do times make the man or does man make the times? often here i think its 'leica makes the man'. ):
35photo
Well-known
Review from a person who actually used it for more than an hour... Its not at big as you might think compared to an M...
http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2015/10/18/the-leica-sl-first-impressions-sample-images
http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2015/10/18/the-leica-sl-first-impressions-sample-images
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hi Marko,
Sadly, you're not going to convince people like rbelyell with any such sane articles. This article and others describing the size of the SL have been ignored by him repeatedly.
The camera is the size of a Leicaflex SL, give or take a few mm and grams, which is only a little larger than a Leica M-P. The SL's 24-90mm zoom lens is in the size range of most pro-grade zoom lenses for DSLRs in this category as well.
G
uhoh7
Mentor
Thanks so much for that link.
Now I finally know who took some shots I have referenced in the past showing the camera size, and can credit him.Gorgeous imagery there, both of the camera and by the camera.
MaxElmar
Well-known
Willie - Thom and others are reporting that the focussing is contrast-detect only no PDAF. Is he incorrect?
Because no PDAF is kind of a big omission for a mirrorless AF camera in 2015.... But it makes sense as Leica T is CD only, yes?
The M is already rather big and heavy. But the SL is the same size and weight as a DSLR...so they gave away much of the advantage of mirrorless and have none of the advantages of DSLR. Well I guess one can use RF lenses on it, so there's that...
35photo
Well-known
I'm just putting it out there, certainly not trying to convince anyone... If they want to read it or not...If your going to sit here and just bash the thing, your a close minded fool forget about price and what not.. I thought it was big when I first saw it with that zoom... taking that lens off and using something else all of a sudden its not as big.. I use a D800E, M9, and Ricoh GR while I prefer using the M9 most of the time I wish the D800 was a bit smaller but I deal with it cause the image quality is awesome and the GR is great when you just want to throw something in your pocket and run... wish it was full frame, still nice though..
I personally prefer smaller cameras and lenses I don't understand why even new prime lenses these days are getting bigger and bigger.. I understand they are complex designs, but come on!
Huss
Mentor
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm curious as to what you mean. What advantages of a DSLR are you going to miss?
I have both a Nikon D750 and an Olympus E-M1. Both are excellent performers. The Olympus could stand to be a little bigger when I fit my 50-200mm or 11-22mm lenses to it, for best ergonomics; I fit the battery grip and that mostly makes up for that. The Nikon is comfortable with my larger lenses, but I really wish I had the viewfinder tools available in the Olympus when I use it. I don't find the focusing to be any different between the two of them, except that it's easier to focus manually with the E-M1 with its peaking and magnification assists when needed.
So what advantages are you referring to?
G
Huss
Mentor
In your mind the only advantage of mirrorless is size/weight?
That's not even on my radar.
For me, the advantage of mirrorless is less vibration (no mirror mechanism slapping around) so I can hand hold lower speeds, real time exposure view in the VF, real time depth of field in the VF w/o losing image brightness i.e. showing correct exposure, and completely accurate manual focussing as the focussed image is from the sensor plane, not from a poorly contrived mirror/focus screen combination. No DSLR can accurately and consistently focus manual lenses wide open - I've tried. There is a reason that companies like Zacuto make magnifiers to enhance the live view reading of DSLRs' LCD panels.
MCTuomey
Mentor
So, at the end of the day let's take some images, go down to the pub, drink beer and talk sh*t about whatever cameras we have, and throw the wank factor out the window.
I'm in. Fact is some folks look at gear to see what it can do for them. Others look at gear to see what it can't.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Excellent perspective.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well said.
Time to lever some shoes on and try a short walk around the block. I'll carry the Leicaflex SL with the 90mm fitted, in case I see something along the way.
G
Read my post again, as I didn't state it was the only advantage, I said they gave away much of the advantage.
What quickly comes to mind -- PDAF and all that goes along with it; the advantages of optical VF such as no lag and no power draw; much longer battery life, just to name a few.
A smaller/lighter SL is certainly achievable, I'm curious why they went full DSLR size. And the 24-90 is a behemoth...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Interesting ... Given that I'm a fairly dedicated manual focus user, I don't know what goes along with PDAF other than quick, accurate focusing. And it's not been proven one way or another that the SL will have any better or worse behavior there to me so far.
Much longer battery life is a question mark too. My E-M1 nets a typical 600-800 exposures out of the same amp-hours that my D750 does for the same typical number of exposures; I don't know that there's really much different given quality design and good components. My D750's viewfinder is not very usable without the power on, of course whether it is or not is a moot question since the camera isn't usable with the power off either.
No viewfinder lag is the biggest thing that an SLR has over a modern EVF, and that remains to be seen how different it is with the SL vs the E-M1 EVF. The E-M1 EVF is already such that I often forget it is an EVF. But the dynamics of the viewfinder are definitely different: with an SLR if you are capturing a sequence, you get a split second, freeze frame image just slightly ahead of the subject's motion, where with any EVF that freeze frame is going to be, at best, slightly behind it. So that's a difference.
I'm not concerned with the size of the lens ... I'll likely never own it anyway as I don't like zooms.
But the worst part of using the Sony A7 was fitting any practical, faster, lens to it: the lens overwhelmed the body's ergonomics instantly. The SL body is about the same weight and size as the Leicaflex SL body, which is beautifully balanced with even long, heavy lenses like the 180/2.8 and 250/4. Surely there's a place in the world for larger cameras like this just as there is for more compact cameras. It's those ergonomics that make the Leica M-P a bit of a pain to work with using the longer lenses where the R8 and Leicaflex sing with longer lenses.
So ... we shall see how it all works out. The more I read in the SL instruction manual, the more impressed I am with the design. It really does seem very thoughtfully laid out, and even if my intended use is only going to use about 40-50% of everything it has. I'll likely sell my D750 after I get it.
G
gustavoAvila
Established
Large aperture, highly corrected, full frame lenses are very large.
(A few examples are the new Nikkor 24-70, all the Sigma Art full frames lenses, the Canon 35mm F1.4 II, any of the Zeiss Otti.)
Leica can no more circumvent the laws of physics than other manufacturer. As such, the size of the 24-90 is simply the nature of the beast, and is not a legitimate shortcoming in my opinion.
It's highly doubtful the SL will be able to match even an entry level DSLR in terms of autofocus and tracking due to the nature of CDAF vs PDAF, this is why later mirrorless cameras have hybrid designs with phase detect pixels, except for the SL, which is curious in camera in this market segment.
If AF doesn't matter (i.e., using adapted lenses) this is moot of course.
Battery life of D750 is rated at over 1200 (CIPA.) Mirrorless cameras will always have shorter battery life as the sensor is drawing power constantly, not to mention the EVF.
As for the 24-90, thats the real head scratcher. Over twice the weight of the equivalent Nikon, it's gargantuan....two and a half pounds?? That's insane...
If AF doesn't matter (i.e., using adapted lenses) this is moot of course.
Battery life of D750 is rated at over 1200 (CIPA.) Mirrorless cameras will always have shorter battery life as the sensor is drawing power constantly, not to mention the EVF.
As for the 24-90, thats the real head scratcher. Over twice the weight of the equivalent Nikon, it's gargantuan....two and a half pounds?? That's insane...
Taipei-metro
Mentor
All these empty talks about SL,
Look! our man Mike w a real SL and king of kit 24-90
image by Michael Bialecki, on Flickr
please click for original
Look! our man Mike w a real SL and king of kit 24-90
image by Michael Bialecki, on Flickrplease click for original
Godfrey
somewhat colored
But the evidence sitting right next to me here shows that my Olympus E-PL7 focuses its Summilux-DG 25mm f1.4 ASPH just as fast and accurately as my Nikon D750 focuses its Nikon 50mm f1.8G AF-S.
So why does my E-M1 and my D750 net virtually the identical number of exposures per charge, with batteries of equal capacity?
Because it's made of brass, steel, and aluminum rather than 90% Polycarbonates...? (Looking at the Leica 24-90, it seems no bigger than the Canon EF 24-75/2.8L that I had in the early 2000s. Hated it, a big heavy soulless lump of a lens with only so-so performance. Sold it for a trio of primes that actually had some character and sparkle to them. And were lighter, all together.
I expect the SL's 24-90 is similarly big and heavy, but likely not a soulless lump.
Most of these things are conjecture with respect to the SL since there's too little ground truth on this camera yet. But in all honesty, none of them bother me at all anyway. I'm buying one with specific things in mind to start with, will be using my manual focus R lenses on it, and if it makes even 200 shots on a charge that will do me just fine—I only rarely shoot more than 100 exposures in a given session and I always have at least one spare battery just in case. I suspect it will do fine for me.
For others, well, before they plunk down their money, I'd suggest they do their analysis properly and understand what of its performance will affect them both positively and negatively. And then make the right decision for them. A camera the price of a used car deserves at least the same amount of careful thought and understanding before buying. That just makes sense...
G