Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rollsman44 on August 30, 2017, 12:39:54 pm
-
Looking at Used Prices on both they are relatively close in price and so are the lenses. I shoot mainly Portraits and Social groups, family groups. Or is there another suggestion for me that will keep the cost down. Thank you
-
A D850 is so much more camera than the SL at half the price that I surprised Leica still keeps the SL on sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was trying to stay with Medium format but will look into this and see what its all about. Thank you kindly
-
I wonder if you meant to say the Leica S instead of the SL. The Leica SL is small format, and the Leica S medium format. The GFX will give a more medium format look over the SL with its larger sensor. I've been looking into getting a GFX instead of a X1D even though I like the appearance of the X1D.
-
I wonder if you meant to say the Leica S instead of the SL. The Leica SL is small format, and the Leica S medium format. The GFX will give a more medium format look over the SL with its larger sensor. I've been looking into getting a GFX instead of a X1D even though I like the appearance of the X1D.
Leica S lenses aren't priced like the Fuji G lenses, so I'm thinking the OP was talking about the SL. I'm not sure why a 24 MP FF camera is being cross-shopped with a 51 MP 33x44 mm one, though.
By the way, when I looked up current S lens pricing to make sure there hadn't been a sudden drop in S lens retail, I noticed that a new copy of the 120 macro was selling for $8200 at B&H, and they were selling a used one for $3800. I suspect that the disparity may have to do with the introduction of the GFX.
BTW, a new Fuji 120 macro for the GFX is $2700.
And, I just checked: even Leica SL lenses are a lot more expensive than G lenses, so now I'm confused as to what the OP meant.
Jim
-
It is sad Leica does not have a camera that can show the real quality of the S line lenses.
Can they be used on the Fuji?
-
It is sad Leica does not have a camera that can show the real quality of the S line lenses.
Can they be used on the Fuji?
Looks like they can:
https://fotodioxpro.com/products/leicas-gfx-pro
Jim
-
For the cost difference, (unless the photographer already owns the S mount glass), I just can't see the S mount glass being any sharper than what Fuji has already produced. SL (35mm) will have the same issues that other 35mm lenses have, due to much smaller IC unless for some reason Lecia has a larger IC than Canon or Nikon.
Paul Caldwell
-
For the cost difference, (unless the photographer already owns the S mount glass), I just can't see the S mount glass being any sharper than what Fuji has already produced.
But they do have focal lengths available that you can't yet get from Fuji...
Jim
-
Looks like they can:
https://fotodioxpro.com/products/leicas-gfx-pro
Jim
Is that link just for the 35mm lenses? It is confusing as the ad states "S (LS)" lenses? What does that even mean? Those two cameras surely do not share the same lens mount right?
-
Is that link just for the 35mm lenses? It is confusing as the ad states "S (LS)" lenses? What does that even mean? Those two cameras surely do not share the same lens mount right?
Hi Jim.
Besides the 180mm what other focal lengths? I count the 32-64 for its full range at least for my work.
Now with the 23mm and 110mm out Fuji should be close.
Paul Caldwe
-
Hi Jim.
Besides the 180mm what other focal lengths? I count the 32-64 for its full range at least for my work.
Now with the 23mm and 110mm out Fuji should be close.
If you consider the 32-64 a prime replacement -- and I can see why you would -- then just that one.
Jim
-
Let me correct my statement. I meant I would like the Leica SL or the GFX 50. My issue is the Price of the Leica Glass vs Fuji GFX glass
Then my next thought was just to buy a Pentax 645D and a few of their lenses and Cheaper yet. I know the IQ on the Pentax lenses are very good and maybe Not as good as the Fuji or Leica glass But for the Price and IQ It will be ok for me. Its more now for my personal use and NOT for business. I appreciate any suggestions from the forum. Thank you everyone for sharing your ideas and knowledge
-
Let me correct my statement. I meant I would like the Leica SL or the GFX 50. My issue is the Price of the Leica Glass vs Fuji GFX glass
Then my next thought was just to buy a Pentax 645D and a few of their lenses and Cheaper yet. I know the IQ on the Pentax lenses are very good and maybe Not as good as the Fuji or Leica glass But for the Price and IQ It will be ok for me. Its more now for my personal use and NOT for business. I appreciate any suggestions from the forum. Thank you everyone for sharing your ideas and knowledge
What is attractive to you about the Leica SL? It's a FF camera. Would that be OK for what you want to do? If the answer is yes, then there are many other FF cameras you might want to consider. Is 24 MP enough for what you want to do?
What is attractive to you about the 645D besides the price? It's a CCD camera, with all that implies about DR.
Jim
-
Dennis has had the 645D and the H3DII-39 - http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=119231.msg991245#msg991245
I'm not sure if his 5K budget went up, but the hem and haw seems to be indecisiveness.
-
If the price issue (Leica is expensive it must be great, Fuji is moderately expensive so it must just be OK), is holding you up, I would try the either of the following, either rent a GFX and 1 lens or buy and try. The QA on the Fuji lenses is outstanding. Just amazing. Will they hold up to 100MP, when that comes next year, anyones guess. But the 5 lenses that are shipping are all excellent. Jim's blog has some great reviews.
www.lensrentals.com is a great place to look for rentals if you are in the US.
The Hasselblad X1D lenses albeit more expensive than the similar GFX glass have also shown to be excellent optics.
Both systems were well thought out.
Paul Caldwell
-
I was trying to stay with Medium format but will look into this and see what its all about. Thank you kindly
I answered along these lines because the SL is not an MF camera, it is a 35mm sensor and a pretty average sensor in my view.
To me the only possible appeal of the SL is the M lenses, because the native SL lenses seem to be good but not amazingly so. On the other hand they are both very bulky and very pricey.
I believe it looses compared to the D850 and Nikon lenses on pretty much all accounts in absolute performance... while being twice more expensive.
If you think that small MF is required, I would most definitely go the GFX way. It is slightly better than the D850 in image quality, while being much worse in various usability aspects. Your applications will decide which is the preferred option.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Using Leica lenses on GFX is very popular, but not the other around.
So the best bet is to get Leica lenses, thenit does not matter which camera body.
-
I appreciate all the Great feedback. I had the 645D and The Hassy MF and sold them for Financial reasons. Now on back on the trail
Now its for MY Personal use. So I am trying to stay within a budget. I just might wait till Photo Expo in NYC in Oct and see what happens with either NEW equipment or MF camera systems coming down in price. Thank you
-
I assume OP is comparing the two because they're mirrorless.
The SL seems okay as an action camera, but there are other systems like Nikon or Canon that do that better. And with the new Sony A9 it's harder to justify the SL.
If you don't print large, I guess 24MP is enough.
-
the SL is no competition for a fuji XT-2....
-
the SL is no competition for a fuji XT-2....
In what way? If you’re saying the SL sensor and lenses are better than the XT2 equivalents then absolutely. They should be at 5 times the price. I have both. I can compare them directly.
Gordon
-
In what way? If you’re saying the SL sensor and lenses are better than the XT2 equivalents then absolutely. They should be at 5 times the price. I have both. I can compare them directly.
Gordon
the SL is let down by a mediocre sensor, if one can get over the APC size sensor, the XT2 is probably equal in IQ, the lenses are amazing and with the wider apertures available, they can make up for the difference in sensor size, i am not even taking AF, video,....into consideration....
the crazy thing is that one can get the same IQ with the XT20 and now the XE3 as well....
i tested the SL when it came out, had one on order, loved the zoom but its just a completely overpriced camera, even with the price drop....IQ just does not justify the price at all, the GFX is in a completely different galaxy in terms of IQ......
-
the SL is let down by a mediocre sensor, if one can get over the APC size sensor, the XT2 is probably equal in IQ, the lenses are amazing and with the wider apertures available, they can make up for the difference in sensor size, i am not even taking AF, video,....into consideration....
the crazy thing is that one can get the same IQ with the XT20 and now the XE3 as well....
i tested the SL when it came out, had one on order, loved the zoom but its just a completely overpriced camera, even with the price drop....IQ just does not justify the price at all, the GFX is in a completely different galaxy in terms of IQ......
As I said I have both. The SL with current firmware is measurably and noticeably better than the XT2 sensor in both high ISO noise and DR. The Fujifilm 24MP sensor is a great sensor. Just a bit below the SL. The high ISO banding and AF performance of the longer end of the standard zoom were both addressed in firmware long ago. SInce the SL f.w. 2.0 my Reasonably comprehensive Fuji kit has been collecting dust.
Trying one 18 months ago doesn't give an indication of it's final performance, I'm afraid. I'd happily put the SL IQ up against any 24MP sensor on the market. It's a small step behind the M10. That's about it.
Gordon
-
the SL is no competition for a fuji XT-2....
With all due respect but you have no idea what you are talking about...
-
With all due respect but you have no idea what you are talking about...
the 24mpix Fuji APC sensor is a very nice and capable sensor, the sensor in the SL is pretty mediocre.....the SL has a slight advantage in terms of IQ, any of the fuji's with that sensor have functional advantages....in terms of pure image quality, the SL wins, in terms of pretty much everything else, the fujis win (by probably a bigger margin ) all at a fraction of the price....
the GFX is lightyears ahead of the SL in terms of IQ and only lags behind the SL in AF.....other then that it probably even beats it in functionality....(yes, the SL has 10bit video out which can be nice but the small XT2 has that as well and beats it there as well)....
i just don't see how the SL can be compared to the GFX.....and the only camera that i could think of that does compare somewhat was the fuji line up......the sony A7RII beats the pants off it and IMO the fuji line up is a pretty sensible choice below the top sony in mirrorless.....
and afaik both sony and fuji systems can accept leica M so there is that as well for those who really want and need it....
-
the 24mpix Fuji APC sensor is a very nice and capable sensor, the sensor in the SL is pretty mediocre.....
Respectfully but no... if that is what you want to believe though please go ahead...
-
the 24mpix Fuji APC sensor is a very nice and capable sensor, the sensor in the SL is pretty mediocre.....the SL has a slight advantage in terms of IQ, any of the fuji's with that sensor have functional advantages....in terms of pure image quality, the SL wins, in terms of pretty much everything else, the fujis win (by probably a bigger margin ) all at a fraction of the price....
the GFX is lightyears ahead of the SL in terms of IQ and only lags behind the SL in AF.....other then that it probably even beats it in functionality....(yes, the SL has 10bit video out which can be nice but the small XT2 has that as well and beats it there as well)....
i just don't see how the SL can be compared to the GFX.....and the only camera that i could think of that does compare somewhat was the fuji line up......the sony A7RII beats the pants off it and IMO the fuji line up is a pretty sensible choice below the top sony in mirrorless.....
and afaik both sony and fuji systems can accept leica M so there is that as well for those who really want and need it....
I agree that comparing the SL and GFX is an interesting one. Apart from price range there's zero they have in common.
However the rest of what you said is just plain wrong. I have shot the SL and XPro 2 (same sensor and lenses) side by side. Direct shot comparisons. The Fuji is a fantastic system but doesn't better the SL in any metrics except for size/weight, price and native lens selection. The EVF is vastly better, the battery life is vastly better, importing into Lightroom is many times faster and the build quality is much higher, amoung other things. The 16-55 Fuji lens doesn't have IS (the 24-90 does). The SL has a vastly superior menu layout. M lenses act like natives on the SL. They're cropped on the Fuji and some don't play nice at all on the Sony.
The Fuji's are great cameras. I like mine and use them regularly. However I think you need to actually use an SL for more than a few minutes in a camera shop because right now the ascertains you make are false.
Gordon
-
As I said I have both. The SL with current firmware is measurably and noticeably better than the XT2 sensor in both high ISO noise and DR. The Fujifilm 24MP sensor is a great sensor. Just a bit below the SL. The high ISO banding and AF performance of the longer end of the standard zoom were both addressed in firmware long ago. SInce the SL f.w. 2.0 my Reasonably comprehensive Fuji kit has been collecting dust.
Trying one 18 months ago doesn't give an indication of it's final performance, I'm afraid. I'd happily put the SL IQ up against any 24MP sensor on the market. It's a small step behind the M10. That's about it.
Gordon
Hi Flash, can you upload raw comparison files from the SL vs. the X-Pro2?
From what I see comparing the dpreview SL raw files with the files from the Fuji XT-2 (same sensor as X-Pro2, de-mosaicing with Iridient X-developer), Sony A7RII (downscaled to 4000 pixel height) and Fuji GFX 50s (downscaled to 4000 pixel height) is:
- at ISO 100 the Leica SL is the softest (even using the SL 50f1.4 lens) of the four
- at ISO 6400 the Leica SL has most color noise
And reg. lenses, if you read Lloyd Chambers' conclusion about the SL 24-90f2.8-4 (fisheye-like distortion at 24mm which leads to distinctive reduction of corner sharpness after software correction, no really sharp corners at any aperture at any focal length, at mid to long focal lengths significant focus shift to the foreground) I am wondering how you come to the conclusion that the SL lenses and the picture quality of the SL is superior to the Fuji APS-C 24 MP cameras with the really excellent XT lenses.
Actually I never understood Leica's approach with the SL: IMO on one hand for 24 MP resolution today an APS-C camera is sufficient (smaller and fraction of price, the X-T2 is also as fast as the SL), on the other, in the size and for the money of the SL you get the GFX which delivers a far superior IQ and gives you the opportunity for much larger prints, not to mention the upcoming 100 MP version of the camera which will compete with everything up to the PhaseOne IQ3100, the GF lenses are definetely prepared to that resolution.
-
it would be the first time that firmware increased DR on a sensor....
i have had several leica M digital cameras, so the SL would have been a logical step for me....
the problem of the SL is not the sensor or functions, it is the price....there is just no way to justify it....and even if it was half the price, i would still have to recommend several other cameras instead of it....
i just brought the fuji X 24mpix series bodies into this because they are the closest competition in terms of IQ and fashion statement....of course the 16-55 kit lens does not compare to the 24-90 leica.....but it is also literally 10% of the price....the 18-55 fuji kit lens is IMO (far from perfect) but might just be the best kit lens i have ever seen and used....and the fuji primes are spectacular....
all this without ever getting into real discussion about functions or what is arguably the best AF in mirrorless on the fuji (even sony said they are behind fuji, mentioned them by name....a rare thing for a competitor)....
i do up to a point understand the urge to buy leica lenses but everything else is just bling at this point.....
-
the problem of the SL is not the sensor or functions, it is the price....
First you say that the sensor is mediocre... now you say that the sensor is not the problem... can you perhaps make up your mind?
-
Hi Flash, can you upload raw comparison files from the SL vs. the X-Pro2?
From what I see comparing the dpreview SL raw files with the files from the Fuji XT-2 (same sensor as X-Pro2, de-mosaicing with Iridient X-developer), Sony A7RII (downscaled to 4000 pixel height) and Fuji GFX 50s (downscaled to 4000 pixel height) is:
- at ISO 100 the Leica SL is the softest (even using the SL 50f1.4 lens) of the four
- at ISO 6400 the Leica SL has most color noise
And reg. lenses, if you read Lloyd Chambers' conclusion about the SL 24-90f2.8-4 (fisheye-like distortion at 24mm which leads to distinctive reduction of corner sharpness after software correction, no really sharp corners at any aperture at any focal length, at mid to long focal lengths significant focus shift to the foreground) I am wondering how you come to the conclusion that the SL lenses and the picture quality of the SL is superior to the Fuji APS-C 24 MP cameras with the really excellent XT lenses.
DPR is fully owned by Amazon.com which sells a lot of Sony and Fuji cameras. They don't sell a lot of Leica cameras. They have a vested interested in making Sony and Fuji look better.
That being said, the review of the Leica SL on DPR was actually quite positive (in as far as a Leica review on DPR will ever be positive...).
The Lloyd Chambers issue is a non-issue. A few posts from the Leica Forum summarizing:
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255186-24-90mm-focus-shift-diglloyd/page-12#entry3085820
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255186-24-90mm-focus-shift-diglloyd/page-13#entry3085993
-
First you say that the sensor is mediocre... now you say that the sensor is not the problem... can you perhaps make up your mind?
the sensor in the SL is a mediocre FF 24 mpix sensor....that alone is not really a huge problem, but if you put a mediocre sensor in a body priced completely out of competition, that is a problem....there are mirror less systems costing a fraction that are just better in every way, resolution, DR, functionality,....there are several DSLRs costing a fraction that are better in every way....there are now 2 DMF systems going head to head in price that completely blow it out of the water in terms of IQ....
i am sorry but even hasselblad figured out that you can’t just overcharge customers forever....i am not a big fan of the X1D but they did a lot right with that camera and price is definitely one of them....
there are many tools out there and many reasons to choose what you want to work and play with but digital is rough because the results are right there and often pretty obvious...but if anyone wants to run around and use a leica SL, that is wonderful and great....
-
the sensor in the SL is a mediocre FF 24 mpix sensor....that alone is not really a huge problem, but if you put a mediocre sensor in a body priced completely out of competition, that is a problem....there are mirror less systems costing a fraction that are just better in every way, resolution, DR, functionality,....there are several DSLRs costing a fraction that are better in every way....there are now 2 DMF systems going head to head in price that completely blow it out of the water in terms of IQ....
i am sorry but even hasselblad figured out that you can’t just overcharge customers forever....i am not a big fan of the X1D but they did a lot right with that camera and price is definitely one of them....
there are many tools out there and many reasons to choose what you want to work and play with but digital is rough because the results are right there and often pretty obvious...but if anyone wants to run around and use a leica SL, that is wonderful and great....
There's something else about the SL. Compared to other 24MP FF mirrorless cameras, it weighs a quite a bit more (173 g more than the a9, 222 g more than the a7RII, for example). A couple of months ago my camera dealer came by my house to take a bunch of gear off my hands. He brought two cameras to tempt me, and both I excluded from consideration when I hefted them. One was the SL. To the fair, it did have the 50/0.95 on it, but still...
The SL finder was gorgeous, though.
There is one so-far-unmentioned reason to buy a camera like the SL that applies to some. It feels like a camera built with a certain seriousness of purpose. If you enjoy the tactile experience of using it, and if that makes your attitude towards your photography in turn more serious, and makes you wan tto use the camera more, that's all to the good.
Any camera feature that makes you want to use it more is, IMHO, a good thing.
Jim
-
Any camera feature that makes you want to use it more is, IMHO, a good thing.
Jim
Portability wants me to use a camera more, in my old age ;)
Edmund
-
There's something else about the SL. Compared to other 24MP FF mirrorless cameras, it weighs a quite a bit more (173 g more than the a9, 222 g more than the a7RII, for example). A couple of months ago my camera dealer came by my house to take a bunch of gear off my hands. He brought two cameras to tempt me, and both I excluded from consideration when I hefted them. One was the SL. To the fair, it did have the 50/0.95 on it, but still...
The SL finder was gorgeous, though.
There is one so-far-unmentioned reason to buy a camera like the SL that applies to some. It feels like a camera built with a certain seriousness of purpose. If you enjoy the tactile experience of using it, and if that makes your attitude towards your photography in turn more serious, and makes you wan tto use the camera more, that's all to the good.
Any camera feature that makes you want to use it more is, IMHO, a good thing.
Jim
i completely agree about the tactile factor and the importance of wanting to pick up a camera.....
which is why i brought up the X1D....if hasselblad can put a competitive sensor in a luxury body and create that experience and still keep the price competitive, so should leica.....
the Q shows that they can do it....
is the SL body (without sensor AND leica lens) really worth so much extra?
i love the size of the SL finder but found it terribly contrasty (maybe that has changed in firmware?)
-
If I had the money to spend I'd get the Fuji. Seems to be the most advanced tech and IQ for the buck with lots of adaptability to other lenses.
I'm pretty cheap so instead what I have is the Pentax 645D and I still really like it. The price is right and if you don't mind older lenses you can find some good stuff for not a lot of money.
What it misses is stuff like live view and general responsiveness. It's not a fast camera to use. I use mine mostly for landscapes but also do the occasional portrait with it too. I often like a faster camera for some portraits but that depends on the setting too.
It's CCD as mentioned but dynamic range is still pretty impressive (12.6 Evs) as long as you do not blow out the highlights. Tons of shadow detail in those files and the color is rich and looks more like film than more modern sensors.
I might upgrade to a 645Z one day to continue using my lenses when they get cheap or get the Fuji if I'm feeling flush but the D is still in regular rotation in my collection and for now I still like what I get from it.
-
I would get the Fujifilm GFX, but that's because Leica has terrible customer service.
-
Hi,
Leica SL is not medium format, it is a fast shooting 24 MP 24x36 camera.
The GFX has twice the number of pixels, so it can resolve around 40% more linear detail. If you need the resolution and want medium format, the GFX is a good option. If you don't need the resolution the SL may be a good option.
Best regards
Erik
Looking at Used Prices on both they are relatively close in price and so are the lenses. I shoot mainly Portraits and Social groups, family groups. Or is there another suggestion for me that will keep the cost down. Thank you
-
The GFX has twice the resolution.
Uh, twice the pixel count. Sorry to be such a stickler.
Jim
-
I handled a GFX yesterday just briefly didn't shoot just held it and looked thru the EVF. It belonged to Laurent Martres who came to see my solo show at the 29 Palms Gallery in California. Seemed pretty solid and well made. A lot of reviewers claim it's ugly but I didn't think it was.
He said he has no problem with 36x48 canvas prints from this camera. Plenty of resulution.
Virtual tour of my solo show:
http://www.douglasdolde.com/-/galleries/29-palms-solo-show
-
Hi Jim,
It is quite OK to be a stickler. I need to correct my terminology.
If I would say that it can resolve twice the amount of detail, meaning over the area of the sensor, what would you say?
Best regards
Erik
Uh, twice the pixel count. Sorry to be such a stickler.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
It is quite OK to be a stickler. I need to correct my terminology.
If I would say that it can resolve twice the amount of detail, meaning over the area of the sensor, what would you say?
Best regards
Erik
I would say that is confusing.
What would you say if someone took a pair of 7x50 binoculars and advertised them as 49x50?
Jim
-
I would say that is confusing.
What would you say if someone took a pair of 7x50 binoculars and advertised them as 49x50?
Jim
I think that castle bravo did 15MT instead of predicted 5MT because of a minor mistake. I wonder what you would say to those engineers ...
Edmund
-
Hi Jim,
I don't disagree, and have changed the wording of the original posting.
At the time of the original posting I paid some consideration to the issue, and I felt that the simplification was OK. I have changed my mind.
BTW, I just made a small experiment:
- Take a decently sharp 42 MP image
- Downsize it to 50%
- upsize it to 200%
- Print both the images at A2 or 16"x23" size
I have done that, using Photoshop CS. The results were interesting. The downscaled and upscaled image was actually looking sharper, but it had a lot of "grittyness" to it. The original image was more smooth.
In an experiment like this there would be a lot of variables. Eyesight, experience in viewing prints, etc. But, it is quite interesting...
Best regards
Erik
I would say that is confusing.
What would you say if someone took a pair of 7x50 binoculars and advertised them as 49x50?
Jim