Official Talk Leica thread

I've been using the SL for a week or two now and have been really impressed with the image quality. I wasn't expecting anything special from the 24 mpixel sensor but it is quite remarkable. It's sharper than my D810 but that may be a function of the inherent blur caused by my old hands. The DR is excellent and the colour is very similar to that of the M9. The 24-90 is nothing special though. Just a decent lens. It does save me carrying 5 M lenses so from that point of view is quite a decent alternative.

So far, so good.
 
stickytape said:
I have no other words than.. utterly incredible. I take my hat off to you! This is with your new SL then?
Click to expand...

Thank you.

These 2 photos were taken about 50 metres from my front door so no real effort involved. They are numbers 2 and 3 of the new camera.
 
S Haworth said:
I've been using the SL for a week or two now and have been really impressed with the image quality. I wasn't expecting anything special from the 24 mpixel sensor but it is quite remarkable. It's sharper than my D810 but that may be a function of the inherent blur caused by my old hands. The DR is excellent and the colour is very similar to that of the M9. The 24-90 is nothing special though. Just a decent lens. It does save me carrying 5 M lenses so from that point of view is quite a decent alternative.

So far, so good.
Click to expand...

I have avoided the 24-90mm in favour of getting the 50mm 1.4 SL at some point this coming year.

The performance of the 90-280mm is pretty stellar :) I can agree the SL is a great camera!
 
dancook said:
I have avoided the 24-90mm in favour of getting the 50mm 1.4 SL at some point this coming year.

The performance of the 90-280mm is pretty stellar :) I can agree the SL is a great camera!
Click to expand...

I have the 50 Lux M version and it works perfectly on the SL but I can't help not wanting to change the lens. The SL and the 24-90 is a supreme walkaround solution but I keep messing with it. I must stop. I must stop. I must stop. I won't though.
 
S Haworth said:
I have the 50 Lux M version and it works perfectly on the SL but I can't help not wanting to change the lens. The SL and the 24-90 is a supreme walkaround solution but I keep messing with it. I must stop. I must stop. I must stop. I won't though.
Click to expand...

I have the same 50 lux M, and I do love the results from it. But I can't help it either :D also i feel like I could just take the 50SL anywhere!! rain or rain :D will i though? i don't know...but sure there's the option. The AF will be nice, and the 'look' they market as 'medium format' like sharpness and fall-off
 
S Haworth said:
I've been using the SL for a week or two now and have been really impressed with the image quality. I wasn't expecting anything special from the 24 mpixel sensor but it is quite remarkable. It's sharper than my D810 but that may be a function of the inherent blur caused by my old hands. The DR is excellent and the colour is very similar to that of the M9. The 24-90 is nothing special though. Just a decent lens. It does save me carrying 5 M lenses so from that point of view is quite a decent alternative.

So far, so good.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Other than AA filters and MP how does the sensor affect sharpness, perceived or otherwise?
 
snerkler said:
Interesting. Other than AA filters and MP how does the sensor affect sharpness, perceived or otherwise?
Click to expand...

You're talking to the wrong man. My view is simply perceptual. The images look sharper when compared in Capture One. I bet there are technical people on this forum who could baffle us all with good stuff, but none of it will alter the outcome. They'll still look sharper.
 
snerkler said:
Interesting. Other than AA filters and MP how does the sensor affect sharpness, perceived or otherwise?
Click to expand...

You could look at the thickness of the cover glass on the sensor. Leicas tend to have pretty think cover glass (especially on the M) which make wide angle lenses work more effectively. This is evidenced through the use of a wide (say 35mm or wider) Leica lens on a Sony A7x versus using one on an M. The Sony has thicker cover glass so has blurring and smearing off centre whereas the M doesn't.

Other than that, it could be to do with the orientation and use of microlenses on top of the pixels.

Could just be a better matched sensor/lens combo too.
 
stevelmx5 said:
That's a manually focussed Summilux-M versus the AF SL lens. Whoever focussed the M lens is either slightly blind or the people paying over £3k for it must be seriously disappointed!

Edit - It looks even more ridiculously poor when I see that the M is stopped down to 2.4 apparently! However, according to the details, that's at 1/125th whereas the SL lens is at 1.4 yet still only 1/180th?
Click to expand...

I've got a pre-ASPH 50 Summilux M and it's better than those shots! Someone has a duffer.
 
50mm 1.4 ASPH Leica-M @ f1.4

L1150842.JPG

And just because sharpness can be hard to see without relative comparison, because some people are just in denial, 50mm 1.4 ASPH Leica-M @ f2.8

L1150865.JPG

at 1.4 it has a much softer look just as in the article comparison

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vuUyVLPsGOE/WFhKMo_tYMI/AAAAAAAAgSY/Q-2t96hCOCMhjavC5c0wuYQkVbx1qj3QgCLcB/s1600/Screenshot+2016-12-19+21.44.45.png

By comparison the 50mm 1.4 SL will produce near sharpest results even at 1.4 - which is to be expected for what the lens is all about..

It is their Zeiss Otus ..
 
Last edited:
Other half wants some headshots done over the weekend so I'll have a look. Maybe the SL is just that much better and the side by side makes the M look poor by comparison, but I've never thought it looks that soft.
 
mid_gen said:
Other half wants some headshots done over the weekend so I'll have a look. Maybe the SL is just that much better and the side by side makes the M look poor by comparison, but I've never thought it looks that soft.
Click to expand...

SL 90-280mm @ 90mm 2.8 is sharper still, but it's not exactly apples for apples :D

L1150847.JPG

sharpness is not everything either, the leica-m lux renders lurrrveeelly :)
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
50mm 1.4 ASPH Leica-M @ f1.4

View attachment 93047

And just because sharpness can be hard to see without relative comparison, because some people are just in denial, 50mm 1.4 ASPH Leica-M @ f2.8

View attachment 93051

at 1.4 it has a much softer look just as in the article comparison

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vuUyVLPsGOE/WFhKMo_tYMI/AAAAAAAAgSY/Q-2t96hCOCMhjavC5c0wuYQkVbx1qj3QgCLcB/s1600/Screenshot+2016-12-19+21.44.45.png

By comparison the 50mm 1.4 SL will produce near sharpest results even at 1.4 - which is to be expected for what the lens is all about..

It is their Zeiss Otus ..
Click to expand...
1st doesn't look overly soft to me, just very shallow DOF. Some of the bottom eyelashes and eyelid look sharp at f1.4 imo, at least as sharp as at f2.8.
 
snerkler said:
1st doesn't look overly soft to me, just very shallow DOF. Some of the bottom eyelashes and eyelid look sharp at f1.4 imo, at least as sharp as at f2.8.
Click to expand...

It's as sharp as the eyeball will get at 1.4, I tried a lot of photos.. and i have four crops equally as 'sharp'
 
snerkler said:
1st doesn't look overly soft to me, just very shallow DOF. Some of the bottom eyelashes and eyelid look sharp at f1.4 imo, at least as sharp as at f2.8.
Click to expand...

You saw the SL 50mm 1.4 in comparison? that's the SAME dof.. and you can see the sharpness difference.
 
dancook said:
You saw the SL 50mm 1.4 in comparison? that's the SAME dof.. and you can see the sharpness difference.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see it's sharper (assuming there's no user error) I was just saying that the M doesn't look terrible, imo of course ;)
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, I can see it's sharper (assuming there's no user error) I was just saying that the M doesn't look terrible, imo of course ;)
Click to expand...

no one said it looked terrible, people are just being blatantly obtuse about there being a difference in sharpness.
 
snerkler said:
1st doesn't look overly soft to me, just very shallow DOF. Some of the bottom eyelashes and eyelid look sharp at f1.4 imo, at least as sharp as at f2.8.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing much, if any difference on the eye lashes either. It's on the skin under the eye where the difference is, and more noticeable than I expected at f2.8 over f1.4. I should pay more attention to these things.:D
 
Swanseajack said:
I'm not seeing much, if any difference on the eye lashes either. It's on the skin under the eye where the difference is, and more noticeable than I expected at f2.8 over f1.4. I should pay more attention to these things.:D
Click to expand...
It's 2 stops, and when you're starting with wafer thin DOF the difference is quite considerable. Even stopping down from f1.8 to f2.8 there's a marked difference if doing close up portraits.
 
My entire point is that this is a valid comparison of the M vs the SL - since my shots are close to that on the left

both shot at 1.4, both have same DOF, any softness is the lens

Screenshot%2B2016-12-19%2B21.44.45.png
 
snerkler said:
It's 2 stops, and when you're starting with wafer thin DOF the difference is quite considerable. Even stopping down from f1.8 to f2.8 there's a marked difference if doing close up portraits.
Click to expand...

I shoot to much wildlife, as you can be seen by my comment. I have never bothered, or paid much attention to compare two photos side by side like Dan has posted. I just didn't expect that much difference, as f2.8 is still a fast lens so to speak. Interesting(y)
 
dancook said:
My entire point is that this is a valid comparison of the M vs the SL - since my shots are close to that on the left

both shot at 1.4, both have same DOF, any softness is the lens

Screenshot%2B2016-12-19%2B21.44.45.png
Click to expand...
Yep markedly sharper. What's the rendering and bokeh like?
 
dancook said:
Probably not as nice as the M :D but then I haven't seen any decent portrait samples to look at, but here's a few other

post-21603-0-29528300-1483632813.jpg


post-21603-0-72027500-1483378224.jpg


15002402_10150741042244984_5260696498794797946_o.jpg
Click to expand...
Dog looks a bit weird, but the last one is nice enough (y)
 
dancook said:
My entire point is that this is a valid comparison of the M vs the SL - since my shots are close to that on the left

both shot at 1.4, both have same DOF, any softness is the lens

Screenshot%2B2016-12-19%2B21.44.45.png
Click to expand...

Dan are these your photos?.........For clarification when I look at the EXIF, the one on the left is taken at f2.4 and the one on the right is f1.4. I'm reading the EXIF for the left photo as, 1/125, f2.4, ISO 100, 50mm and in brackets the lens make/type ( Summilux M or SL 1.4, 50 ASPH)

Is LR or whatever software reading the lens data wrong due to a manual lens????????????
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Dan are these your photos?.........For clarification when I look at the EXIF, the one on the left is taken at f2.4 and the one on the right is f1.4. I'm reading the EXIF for the left photo as, 1/125, f2.4, ISO 100, 50mm and in brackets the lens make/type ( Summilux M or SL 1.4, 50 ASPH)

Is LR or whatever software reading the lens data wrong due to a manual lens????????????
Click to expand...

No they aren't, I don't have the 50mm SL lens

The SL camera cannot read the aperture of the M lens.
 
Latest M10 "spy shots" are looking interesting. I love the ISO dial. I want to see ISO, shutter speed and aperture all in a glance without needing to turn the camera on, press any buttons or look at a screen. We'll find out what sensor it has next week, plus more details at the official launch. I suspect it won't have any sort of hybrid viewfinder which is unfortunate but understandable as you can add an EVF on top.
 
Got a great deal on a 'used' M-E with 113 on the shutter. Took it for a spin around Bangkok. Cracking camera that made the process as fun as I'd have hoped. Exactly what I wanted - complete control over every part of the exposure. Yes, other cameras have manual mode, but none have that rangefinder patch and most are overloaded with 'features'.

Happy I went CCD over CMOS, personally I like the high ISO performance.

Anyway, here's a few of the snaps:

Tuk Tuk Dreams by _Jo Gray, on Flickr


BTS Siam by _Jo Gray, on Flickr


Sharks @ Siam by _Jo Gray, on Flickr


Bee by _Jo Gray, on Flickr


View from our hotel overlooking the Chao Phraya River by _Jo Gray, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top