Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on November 22, 2015, 06:29:59 am
-
Saw yesterday the new Leica SL in a store in Europe. Unfortunately the store was closed, but I still got the brochure.
The camera is easily 25% larger than the Sony, but the most shocking was the size of the new SL lenses (3). They are bigger than the Leica S line. We are talking Otus sizes on a slim mirror-less body.
Funny part was that this seem the only camera I have seen where the Noctilux looks small when it is mounted.
Performance data look impressive on paper (AF, EVF, 11i/s; ..), why put it in such an oversized package. :(
-
Here are the pictures.
-
I think this is a good thing actually. For too long mirrorless has been obsessing about being a compromise and smaller than a dslr rather than being about a serious tool with the advantages ditching the mirror gives. Smaller cameras have a place but for many, a true ‘first camera’ dslr replacement needs to be large enough to handle well and cope with large zooms and fast full-frame lenses. Like it or not the fast lenses pros and serious photographers often demand along with strong optical performance means large lenses (see Zeiss, Sigma art etc.)
I think in the future as the slr gets left behind we’ll have both large and small mirrorless cameras. Whether with improving sensor performance the smaller ones will be aps-c or m4/3 and the larger ones 35mm or whether Sony will making small 35mm frame bodies remains to be seen. Personally I wouldn’t mind an A7 sized body with very high performing small f/2.8 lenses as well as a larger camera.
-
I think this is a good thing actually. For too long mirrorless has been obsessing about being a compromise and smaller than a dslr rather than being about a serious tool with the advantages ditching the mirror gives. Smaller cameras have a place but for many, a true ‘first camera’ dslr replacement needs to be large enough to handle well and cope with large zooms and fast full-frame lenses. Like it or not the fast lenses pros and serious photographers often demand along with strong optical performance means large lenses (see Zeiss, Sigma art etc.)
I think in the future as the slr gets left behind we’ll have both large and small mirrorless cameras. Whether with improving sensor performance the smaller ones will be aps-c or m4/3 and the larger ones 35mm or whether Sony will making small 35mm frame bodies remains to be seen. Personally I wouldn’t mind an A7 sized body with very high performing small f/2.8 lenses as well as a larger camera.
That does beg the question of course is a new lens mount even needed? it makes sense for Leica to go this route as they don't have an existing AF mount(besides the T of course) and using both M and R mount lenses is likely to be a significant appeal but Canon and Nikon don't have those issues.
-
I had a chance to handle SL and S2 at the same time. While S2 is a pleasure to look at and handle, SL is anything but. Unbalanced and clunky.
On a side note, while EVF might be state-of-the-art on SL, it is still jerky when either subject or camera moves even a little. The pleasure of looking through S2's OVF is incomparable. And before someone starts touting all the advantages of an EVF, I am not getting into that, just commenting on one single aspect: a direct and almost intimate connection with the subject, when looking through a large and uncluttered optical viewfinder. When shooting landscape, still life, or architecture, it does not really matter much. But shooting people and grabbing that split-second glance or micro facial expression, becoming immersed in the subject, you can hardly beat an OVF.
In my opinion, of course.
-
Pic #1 is misleading, no, as the page is curved and thus the image distorted.
For me the camera is a meh. No interest. But I hope it does well.
-Dave-
-
I would have gone for it had it not been for the weight, for use with wide angle M lenses, which are compact. As it is, the Sony A7r II is a better compromise for me.
-
Pic #1 is misleading, no, as the page is curved and thus the image distorted.
-Dave-
Yes, the pic IS misleading, in real life the body comes across as shallower and the lens even larger. I mean it, I handled one a few weeks ago, the size of that 90mm zoom is frightening. Look at the image it's a wide angle, the lens is further away==> image smaller than reality. And on top of that I seem to remember that lens has an extending front. Maybe it screams "pro", to me me it shouts "NO".
Edmund
-
I think this is a good thing actually. For too long mirrorless has been obsessing about being a compromise and smaller than a dslr rather than being about a serious tool with the advantages ditching the mirror gives. Smaller cameras have a place but for many, a true ‘first camera’ dslr replacement needs to be large enough to handle well and cope with large zooms and fast full-frame lenses. Like it or not the fast lenses pros and serious photographers often demand along with strong optical performance means large lenses (see Zeiss, Sigma art etc.)
IMO my mirrorless cameras, Sony A7 and Panasonic G1 and GX7 aren't small, they're just more in line with the 35mm film cameras I had but the digital ones are heavier. For me it's my DSLR's that were too big, much bigger and heavier than the 35mm cameras I had.
-
IMO my mirrorless cameras, Sony A7 and Panasonic G1 and GX7 aren't small, they're just more in line with the 35mm film cameras I had but the digital ones are heavier. For me it's my DSLR's that were too big, much bigger and heavier than the 35mm cameras I had.
Totally agree! Here is the Minolta XD-11 vs the a7R:
-
Do you shoot it without a lens on?
(http://sonyalphalab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DSC8225-625x415.jpg)
-
Do you shoot it without a lens on?
(http://sonyalphalab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/DSC8225-625x415.jpg)
The 24-90 alone weights more than that pack, and closed measures as much as the 24-70 full extended.
-
I saw and tried the SL at the Leica booth at the Toronto Profusion show earlier this month. I am not planning to buy this camera (I am happy enough with my M9) but was curious. The camera at first appeared largish, but it is no larger than an M body with a handgrip and a evf attachment. I imagine that buying an M plus the grip and evf would add up to about the same as the SL. I was impressed by the viewfinder. I may be wrong but it looked larger than my Canon 5d2 finder, and in fact easier to use by an eyeglass wearer; and way better that the finder of our Lumix GH2. I am not buying any new cameras soon but if someone was to send me an SL I would certainly be happy to use it!
Jean-Michel
-
The 24-90 alone weights more than that pack, and closed measures as much as the 24-70 full extended.
Showing the obvious problems with making FF mirrorless very small, what if you want more than the Sony's rather limited specs/performance?
-
Do you shoot it without a lens on?
Er, no. I use the 35mm f2.8, 55mm f1.8 and old film lenses mounted with Novoflex adapters and when using any of these my A7 is still nearer to a 35mm SLR than any of my Canon DSLR's plus lens.
It's just my opinion but I think that the whole CSC's are too small and the lenses are too big argument is overdone and that it's DSLR's that have been at the fridge binge eating and ballooned way beyond their slimmer 35mm days.
Here's a couple of quick shots of my 5D, A7 and G1. The A7 isn't exactly massive even when fitted with an adapter. The 55mm f1.8 is about the same bulk as the Novoflex + Minolta pictured.
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn313/alans70/cameras/Cameras%201_zpsbvugtlet.jpg) (http://s307.photobucket.com/user/alans70/media/cameras/Cameras%201_zpsbvugtlet.jpg.html)
(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn313/alans70/cameras/Cameras%202_zpslttxne4s.jpg) (http://s307.photobucket.com/user/alans70/media/cameras/Cameras%202_zpslttxne4s.jpg.html)
And here's the A7 with 24-70mm f4 and a 5D with 24-70mm f4 on Camerasize.com...
http://camerasize.com/compact/#487.393,328.367,ha,t
-
Definitely interested in the SL but given that there is only one native lens yet not too much in a hurry...
I don't believe the body is oversized but the zoom certainly does look that way. Haven't handled it yet though...
In the meanwhile very happy with the Leica Q, a camera that does not seem to get much love on these pages...
-
Totally agree! Here is the Minolta XD-11 vs the a7R:
Wow, how soon we forget huh ?
I don't mind a bit of heft in a camera and think the ergonomics of things like the D810 and 5dIII are pretty spot-on.
That said, I've been toying with the idea of of mirrorless system and did a weight comparison between my basic Nikon kit and roughly the same kit with Fuji. The difference was pretty amazing at half.
-
Oh, and back on topic, the Leica is a bit expensive.. ;)
-
Oh, and back on topic, the Leica is a bit expensive.. ;)
I'm sorry, mentioning price in a Leica topic is considered ungentlemanly.
:)
Edmund
-
I'm sorry, mentioning price in a Leica topic is considered ungentlemanly.
Yes, you think I would have learned that all those time I bought a new Roll Royce.. ;D
-
I would not call it oversized. Oversized compared to what? I handled one today at my local shop just for fun, it is a big camera, but then it is supposed to compete with other pro cameras out there.
To me it looks like a Leica T on steroids, same sort of approach, and with the EVF included. It is also very angular, for lack of better word. The grip sort of abuts the thin body of the camera at a sharp 90 degree angle. I much prefer the more ergonomic type of grips from other cameras.
The 24-90 zoom lens is indeed huge, and for no apparent reason.
The camera was 7100 EUR, and the lens 4200 EUR, so I think they will sell slowly:)
-
The lack of a moulded grip does seem a bit of a strange choice I'd agree although besides that it looks one of the best mirrorless options I'v seen with enough height to it to get all your fingers on and enough size and space for your palm on the back that you should be able to get a good strong grip with even pressure all around rather than clawing with your fingers.
-
My comments were not so much about the body. The lenses are the problem. Why make them so large? Even the upcoming 50mm/1.4 is like a cannon. They are probably double the size of comparable R lenses.
Let's wait to see some results. It should be fabulous to justify the investment / weight disadvantage.