Leica SL , 24MP FF Mirrorless Camera

[stevelmx5]

Just been looking at the Leica branded accessories at B&H. Ignoring the $255 lens hood that doesn't come with the $5k lens...



I assume even die hard Leica fans draw the line at these accessories when the exact same items (without the badge) are such wildly different prices;

Leica 4.9' HDMI cable - $205
Non-Leica 4.9' HDMI cable - £4.47



Leica 9.8' USB3 cable - $95
Non-Leica 9.8' USB3 cable - £6.99



I understand the argument that someone paying $12k isn't going to be bothered about another $205 for the cable but seriously, what planet are these people on?

 

[boliston]

But you're used to a rangefinder which by definition has no information in the viewfinder so you need a physical dial. With a DSLR or mirrorless you always have the rear screen to see your settings or the EVF which can display considerably more than any top lcd or shutter dial.

The only camera setting I would ever have any interest in viewing or adjusting would be the shutter speed so a more complex display showing a large array of settings would if anything be counter productive as I like to just see settings I need.

 

[stevelmx5]

In that case you have the best camera for yourself already. EVFs offer the photographer more options to view numerous settings on the fly without dropping the camera from their eye and that's only going to grow more and more.

 

[boliston]

Surprised they are not using the more up to date usb type c cable like the newer smartphones are starting to use - at least there is no risk of damaging the socket by trying to insert it upside down.

 

[woof woof]

The only camera setting I would ever have any interest in viewing or adjusting would be the shutter speed so a more complex display showing a large array of settings would if anything be counter productive as I like to just see settings I need.

In the world of 35mm equivalent and smaller format digital cameras I think you can probably count the number with a shutter dial on your fingers.... Leica, Fuji and the Panasonic LX100 and Nikon DF (I think) other than that I think they're few and far between the norm being that you set the shutter speed with a dial and view the setting in the OVF or EVF and/or on a top or back screen. Actually the same was true of the AF Nikon and Canon SLR's I owned. They didn't have dedicated numbered shutter speed dials either.

The Sony A7 series are quite customisable and you can set which dial alters the shutter speed and the setting is displayed on the back screen or in the EVF. If you set EVF/Screen to Auto all of the information is displayed on the back screen and you can see the various settings without lifting the camera to your eye. When you do lift it to your eye the back screen turns off and the EVF turns on. It works very well.

I don't know if you can actually turn everything off in the EVF and on the back screen as I've never been tempted to. Having information (for example aperture and shutter settings, ISO, exposure, number of shots left and battery level) displayed outside of the image to be taken doesn't worry me and indeed I find it helpful.

 

[frod]

It's an all right lens the 24-105 but the Leica lens is operating in a different league here. If Canon released a £3k L zoom of exotic construction nobody would be saying 'I bet that 16 year old 24-105 is much better'.

"This lens is not soft"

 

[Pookeyhead]

He seems to have the credentials and experience.

DxO just measure things and let the numbers do the talking. (shrug) They're also measuring the resolution of a resulting image, not a lens on a bench. There's a whole host of reasons why the resolution measured from a digital file will fall way short of a lens's performance on the test bench.

Looking at every D800E image I have, I start to see lack of lens resolution before I see aliasing. The lens is giving up before the sensor in other words. Sure.... I don't have £3k lenses like you, but if I need to spend at least £9000 on the three Otus lenses I'd need to even begin to cover the range I use regularly in order to see any marginal gain... and STILL not be anywhere near medium format quality, then what exactly is the point? That would be around £11k on cameras and lenses... on 35mm cameras and lenses... LOL. Clearly, someone who cares THAT much about sharpness is using the wrong tools if they invest that much in 35mm. For that money, you're in MF land... so why not fill your boots? Anyone who invests that much in 35mm to get sharpness is a complete idiot.

If you want resolution... go bigger. It was true pre digital, and it still is now.

 

[crofter]

Get some of these and upgrade all your gear,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/..._rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=577048407&pf_rd_i=desktop

 

[Laudrup]

DxO just measure things and let the numbers do the talking. (shrug) They're also measuring the resolution of a resulting image, not a lens on a bench. There's a whole host of reasons why the resolution measured from a digital file will fall way short of a lens's performance on the test bench.

Looking at every D800E image I have, I start to see lack of lens resolution before I see aliasing. The lens is giving up before the sensor in other words. Sure.... I don't have £3k lenses like you, but if I need to spend at least £9000 on the three Otus lenses I'd need to even begin to cover the range I use regularly in order to see any marginal gain... and STILL not be anywhere near medium format quality, then what exactly is the point? That would be around £11k on cameras and lenses... on 35mm cameras and lenses... LOL. Clearly, someone who cares THAT much about sharpness is using the wrong tools if they invest that much in 35mm. For that money, you're in MF land... so why not fill your boots? Anyone who invests that much in 35mm to get sharpness is a complete idiot.

If you want resolution... go bigger. It was true pre digital, and it still is now.

But you don't need the best lenses:

A 16-megapixel 35mm-sized Bayer array sensor is going to resolve around 50 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). A 36-megapixel sensor will resolve around 75 lp/mm. Even mediocre 35mm lenses will hit 75 lp/mm at some aperture over some portion of their field of view. This is true of both fixed focal length and zoom lenses.

If you want top end lenses:

For top end superteles like the 500mm L II and 600mm L II, given the stunning near-perfect MTF charts, I would effectively consider them "perfect", diffraction limited lenses at all apertures, and therefore capable of about 173 lp/mm at f/4. Thats enough resolution for a 103mp FF sensor, or a 40mp APS-C sensor.

That backs up this:

Really good lenses (not necessarily expensive ones) will be able to exceed 75 line pair per millimeter without even trying hard over most/all of the field of view and will have peak resolutions three or more times that.

So if they are capable of that then a 36mp or 50mp sensor should be no sweat. If Nikon release a 42mp or 50mp camera sensor and the lenses are all tested again are their marks going to improve? This says yes:

Furthermore, until the lens resolution drops to only half that of the sensor, improving sensor resolution will produce an observable improvement in image resolution.

So it looks like there is still life in the mega pixel arms race.

As for larger format I already use 5x4 and 10x8 so that is covered.

 

[Laudrup]

"This lens is not soft"

A Canon 24-105 being better than a £3k Leica zoom is hilarious. The 'I hit lens correction in Lightroom' is another rib tickler. The most ironic thing is Canon shooters go on about the 'red ring' and the coveted L designation far more than Leica shooter would about a red dot.

 

[Pookeyhead]

As for larger format I already use 5x4 and 10x8 so that is covered.

So why spend so much on 35mm lenses. Why not just use your large format gear?

 

[odd jim]

It's an all right lens the 24-105 but the Leica lens is operating in a different league here. If Canon released a £3k L zoom of exotic construction nobody would be saying 'I bet that 16 year old 24-105 is much better'.

If Canon released an "exotically constructed" 3k L zoom I doubt it would go soft when the zoom ring is used...

 

[odd jim]

A Canon 24-105 being better than a £3k Leica zoom is hilarious. The 'I hit lens correction in Lightroom' is another rib tickler. The most ironic thing is Canon shooters go on about the 'red ring' and the coveted L designation far more than Leica shooter would about a red dot.

A red dot over a Nissin logo. That's worth discussing though.

 

[odd jim]

A Canon 24-105 being better than a £3k Leica zoom is hilarious. The 'I hit lens correction in Lightroom' is another rib tickler. The most ironic thing is Canon shooters go on about the 'red ring' and the coveted L designation far more than Leica shooter would about a red dot.

I have no doubt the 24-105L is better at 90mm.

You seem to fail to see how the softness at longer FLs is an issue with a 3k lens?

 

[frod]

A Canon 24-105 being better than a £3k Leica zoom is hilarious. The 'I hit lens correction in Lightroom' is another rib tickler. The most ironic thing is Canon shooters go on about the 'red ring' and the coveted L designation far more than Leica shooter would about a red dot.

Fortunately my Fujis correct this kind of thing in the camera anyway (and we don't know that this Leica boondoggle isn't doing the same thing).

It's all a bit pointless if the lens is soft when you zoom anyway, there is no correction for detail loss (I guess other than use a better lens lol).

 

[Pookeyhead]

A Canon 24-105 being better than a £3k Leica zoom is hilarious.

Why, because of the price? Wow.. I never knew... All I have to do is spend a lot of money for a guarantee of excellence? Thank you for your wisdom. I don't know where I'd be without such sage advice. I'll start right away... maybe I'll get rid of this PC and get a Mac Pro... oh.. hang on... LOL

 

[ianp5a]

I bet the Leica flash is better than the Nissin original, because of the price.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I bet the Leica flash is better than the Nissin original, because of the price.

Of course! Didn't you know? Everything expensive is brilliant!

 

[frod]

I bet the Leica flash is better than the Nissin original, because of the price.

Subjects see the red dot on the flash and it changes their mood making them far more photogenic.

 

[ianp5a]

Of course! Didn't you know? Everything expensive is brilliant!

Yes. That's the whole point. But some people just don't get it. The poor usually.

 

[odd jim]

I bet the Leica flash is better than the Nissin original, because of the price.

What about the dot? That in itself is priceless.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yes. That's the whole point. But some people just don't get it. The poor usually.

I know... despite my education, upbringing, and cultural engagement... I'm just held back by my lack of money. If only I had more money, I'd be better. I'd clearly be a better person if only I had another nought at the end of my bank balance. Oh well... I'll just have to continue being less of a person than those with more money. Shame I was fooled into thinking intelligence, education and upbringing were what matters. All these years wasted. If only I had devoted my life to earning more money, I'd be so much more superior as a human being. It's a regret I shall carry to my grave.

What about the dot? That in itself is priceless.

Can't afford the dot... I'm not worthy

 

[Laudrup]

So why spend so much on 35mm lenses. Why not just use your large format gear?

The 35mm is much more versatile and at f/1.4 the Otus is already impressive. As 4K video and 50 or 60mp sensors come in it is only going to get better.

 

[Laudrup]

If Canon released an "exotically constructed" 3k L zoom I doubt it would go soft when the zoom ring is used...

Except it doesn't.

A red dot over a Nissin logo. That's worth discussing though.

Metz used to make their other flashes. Nobody is forcing you to buy a Leica one.

I have no doubt the 24-105L is better at 90mm.

You seem to fail to see how the softness at longer FLs is an issue with a 3k lens?

A preproduction model of a lens isn't the definitive review. The resolution numbers look good and the lens is from a company with a long pedigree of making top lenses and pricing them accordingly. I don't think you'd need to worry much about the lens not keeping up with you.

 

[odd jim]

Except it doesn't.



Metz used to make their other flashes. Nobody is forcing you to buy a Leica one.



A preproduction model of a lens isn't the definitive review. The resolution numbers look good and the lens is from a company with a long pedigree of making top lenses and pricing them accordingly. I don't think you'd need to worry much about the lens not keeping up with you.

It does. According to one of the few people who've used it.

If Leica were not happy that the pre-production version wasn't a fully sorted lens, representative of the factory lens they wouldn't have released it into the wilds and given it to a reviewer surely?

If not, that's a marketing fail of the highest degree.

A bit like putting a red dot on a Nissin flash and pretending it's special, and thinking no one would notice.

 

[Laudrup]

Fortunately my Fujis correct this kind of thing in the camera anyway (and we don't know that this Leica boondoggle isn't doing the same thing).

It's all a bit pointless if the lens is soft when you zoom anyway, there is no correction for detail loss (I guess other than use a better lens lol).

You can't write a lens off because a preproduciton model was out for testing. The Fuji isn't competing in the same league as a full frame camera with giant exotic zooms.

 

[Laudrup]

Why, because of the price? Wow.. I never knew... All I have to do is spend a lot of money for a guarantee of excellence? Thank you for your wisdom. I don't know where I'd be without such sage advice. I'll start right away... maybe I'll get rid of this PC and get a Mac Pro... oh.. hang on... LOL

You generally do get what you pay for with optics I've always found. What lenses isn't that the case with?

 

[odd jim]

:/

(...and yes, I need to charge my battery. It's an iPhone and it's been switched on for more than an hour...)

 

[odd jim]

You generally do get what you pay for with optics I've always found. What lenses isn't that the case with?

...and flashes of course.

You get twice as much flash with a red badge on it. Hang on a sec...

 

[ianp5a]

Or £125.90 here
www.photospecialist.co.uk/nissin-i40-canon?dfw_tracker=2726-17376

Which is proof the value of the red dot, £155, is more than the value of the hardware itself.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You generally do get what you pay for with optics I've always found. What lenses isn't that the case with?

Nikkor 50mm 1.8G - superb and cheap as chips.
Samyang 35mm f1.4 AS - dirt cheap and fantastic.
Nikkor 28mm f1.8G - Brilliant lens.. around £350.
Mamiya Sekor Z 110mm f2.8. Astounding lens... was cheap when new, and even cheaper now used.

There are actually lots of brilliant lenses that don't cost a fortune.

 

[ianp5a]

Best to avoid those then. If people found out one was using cheap lenses, one would get drummed out of ones gentleman's club.

 

[Laudrup]

It does. According to one of the few people who've used it.

If Leica were not happy that the pre-production version wasn't a fully sorted lens, representative of the factory lens they wouldn't have released it into the wilds and given it to a reviewer surely?

If not, that's a marketing fail of the highest degree.

A bit like putting a red dot on a Nissin flash and pretending it's special, and thinking no one would notice.

I wouldn't read too much into preproduction models. A lot of D800s had major problems even when released but these can be tweaked and fixed, if you went by the reviews of people who got one with a problem you'd miss out on a great camera or form a wrong conclusion.

As for the flash isn't it rumoured Panasonic make most of them for the Japanese brands? I don't particularly care, I'll buy a Nikon flash, Nikon grip and Nikon batteries. The same way Leica owners will probably buy Leica branded gear.

 

[Pookeyhead]

As for the flash isn't it rumoured Panasonic make most of them for the Japanese brands? I don't particularly care, I'll buy a Nikon flash, Nikon grip and Nikon batteries. The same way Leica owners will probably buy Leica branded gear.

Even if the exact same flashgun without a red dot can be had for less than half the price? Then they're idiots.

 

[ianp5a]

If you can afford it, what's wrong with being an idiot?

 

[Pookeyhead]

If you can afford it, what's wrong with being an idiot?

Nothing.... so long as you just freely admit that you're an idiot, and stop crying like a girl when you're called an idiot... for being an idiot.

It's the SAME flashgun... LOL You're paying for a red dot!

 

[Laudrup]

Nikkor 50mm 1.8G - superb and cheap as chips.
Samyang 35mm f1.4 AS - dirt cheap and fantastic.
Nikkor 28mm f1.8G - Brilliant lens.. around £350.
Mamiya Sekor Z 110mm f2.8. Astounding lens... was cheap when new, and even cheaper now used.

There are actually lots of brilliant lenses that don't cost a fortune.

But pay more and you can get better, which was the point.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But pay more and you can get better, which was the point.

There are some seriously lack lustre Ziess lenses too, You only asked me to list cheap good lenses, not rubbish expensive ones.

 

[ianp5a]

Nothing.... so long as you just freely admit that you're an idiot, and stop crying like a girl when you're called an idiot... for being an idiot.

I wanted to avoid calling anyone that, on this thread. The mods are watching.

 

[boliston]

Even if the exact same flashgun without a red dot can be had for less than half the price? Then they're idiots.

So which i40 version would SL owners buy as they do not do a leica version?