I’m not sure exactly when it first began. Nor do I know why the pattern continues. But for several years running, the winter solstice has signalled the arrival of ULTRAsomething’s “camera review season.”
Not that I’m complaining. Well… OK… I’m complaining a little.
Obviously, I rather enjoy having the opportunity to review camera products. But here in Vancouver, there are two absolute certainties for the weeks surrounding the winter solstice. One is that it will rain — biblically and mercilessly. Two is that it will be dark — a slow shutter; wide aperture; ISO 6400 caliber of darkness. Neither certainty offers ideal performance testing possibilities, yet these are precisely the conditions under which most demo cameras arrive at ULTRAsomething HQ.
So I wasn’t the least bit surprised to receive a mid-December email offering a week’s loan of the new Leica SL. I glanced at the weather forecast: extensive quantities of rainfall; tree-toppling wind storms; finger-numbing cold. I took a quick glance out the window. It was 3:00pm and dark as midnight.
Yessiree. Camera season had arrived, and so had the Leica SL.
Synopsis
Because of seasonal time and weather constraints, this is far from a full review of the Leica SL. It’s really just a few “impressions” combined with some field experiments using the SL as an alternative body for M-mount lenses.
So let me jump right to the conclusion: The Leica SL exudes quality. The handling is (surprisingly) exemplary and the image quality is stellar. From the built-in GPS to the dual SD-card slots; from the 4k Log gamma video capabilities to the state of the art 4.4MP electronic viewfinder — this is a professionally-spec’d camera, through and through. It has a seductive appeal that belies its utilitarian appearance in brochures. It’s feature rich, while being user-friendly. In baseball parlance, it’s a home run. In basketball parlance, it’s a slam dunk.
And yet, for all those things it is, there’s one thing it isn’t — a camera that I need.
Though capable of gallery worthy landscapes, Vogue quality portraits and client satisfying videography, the Leica SL seems designed to tick all the boxes that I, as a photographer, don’t. Frankly, as someone who wishes to take photos like the ones shown beside this paragraph (or at the top of the article), I certainly don’t need a Leica SL to do it. Heck, my early–1960’s half-frame Olympus Pen EE–2 is probably overkill. But need and want are two different things and, as such, I found myself wanting to manufacture shooting opportunities at which the SL would likely excel. Such are its temptations…
Details
The Leica SL is the centerpiece of an entirely new full-frame 35mm camera system — a “system” that presently contains but a single lens: the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24–90 f/2.8–4 ASPH. Anyone whose photographic interests would be better served by another type of lens will need to go the adapter route — at least until Leica expands their native lens lineup.
Because I believe zoom lenses to be the devil’s work, and because this new Vario lens is so massive that it comes with its own gravitational field, I declined Leica’s offer to borrow it — choosing, instead, to try out the SL using only adapted M-mount lenses.
The only way I can honestly evaluate a piece of equipment is to use it as if it were mine. Since I would never choose to own the 24–90 Vario lens, and since no adapters existed (yet) for any of my other lenses, that meant using the Leica SL as an M-glass body.
As expected, results were mixed.
Most of the wide lenses I tried exhibited quite a bit of smearing at the edges and in the corners (at least at the wider apertures dictated by camera season weather conditions). This is not a problem that’s unique to the SL — it exists any time you mount a rangefinder lens on a camera with a “standard” sensor. Because of their close proximity to the sensor surface, rangefinder lenses require a sensor designed specifically for their use. Rangefinder-specific sensors contain a series of tiny micro lenses that bend the light at the outer edges so that it strikes the sensor surface at a more perpendicular angle, which eliminates the smearing. To date, only Leica’s own M-series cameras and Ricoh’s A12 M-Mount module for the long-discontinued GXR have sensors designed specifically for rangefinder lenses.
In contrast to the wide angles I favor, longer focal lengths exhibited little (if any) edge smearing on the SL — making them a better match for the SL’s sensor. If you want to see actual bona-fide lab tests that illustrate the differences between various M-mount focal lengths on a Leica SL, I suggest subscribing to Sean Reid’s excellent review site.
Another factor to consider in the “M” vs “SL” debate is the viewing/focusing differences between the two camera bodies. The M uses an optical, “window” viewfinder and a rangefinder focusing patch. The SL uses an electronic “through the lens” viewfinder and contrast-detect focus peaking. The method you prefer likely depends on the subjects you shoot. If, like me, you tend to shoot reactively and candidly with wide angle lenses, you’ll probably find the M system more conducive to your shooting style. If, unlike me, you tend to shoot more methodically — such as portraits, scenics, architecture or products — and if you use longer focal lengths, you’ll probably prefer the SL’s viewing/focusing methodology.
So these differences likely explain why some people have proclaimed the SL to be “the death of the M system,” while others (like me) proclaim that the SL does nothing more than illustrate why the M system is so special. The camp in which you pitch your tent depends upon the type of photographer you are. But that’s true of every camera, isn’t it?
An Eye Toward the Future
Here’s the thing: If I were the sort of photographer that rarely shot wider than 50mm, and if I needed to shoot in color, and if owned an assortment of the latest and fastest long lenses, I would seriously consider the possibility of adding a Leica SL to my toolkit.
But that’s three ‘ifs’ I simply don’t possess. For my purposes, the Leica SL is positioned more as a “Swiss Army Camera” — a camera that might one day function admirably at all those photographic disciplines that are secondary to my true nature.
For example, if Leica were to create a flat-field macro system lens, I could use the SL as a negative “scanner.” If they added a few weather-sealed primes, it could become an autofocus “walk around” inclement weather camera. Toss in a few lens adapters for my Pentax, Olympus and Xpan lenses, and the SL becomes the center of an entirely new camera ecosystem — one that’s separate but complimentary to my Leica M system.
But that, too, is a whole lotta ‘ifs’ — all of which must be satisfied before the SL could replace my Olympus OM-D E-M1 micro four-thirds system in that “Swiss Army Camera” roll. That’s not to say that m43 is, in any way, comparable to the SL. Everything about the SL makes m43 look like a toy. But m43 is a “toy” that’s available right now, and at a price I can afford.
Because I’ve examined only one specific use of the Leica SL — as an alternative body for M-mount lenses — this article cannot be considered a “review” of the product. After all, the Leica SL is a fully realized autofocus camera system on which I have yet to mount an autofocus lens. It’s also a fully-spec’d videography machine — another feature that I failed to exercise in my week with the camera. But even though the camera doesn’t negate my need for a Leica M body, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t captivated by its build quality, handling and performance capabilities.
The SL product line will continue to grow. And as it does, I’ll keep a close eye on the progress. Because as the system matures, many of the hypotheticals that currently surround this camera will become reality. And when that happens, the SL’s allure will be much harder for me to ignore.
©2016 grEGORy simpson
ABOUT THE PHOTOS: Obviously, several of these photos look exactly like “my” photos, and not like anything that would ever appear in an SL brochure. That’s because I operate under the assumption that it’s the camera’s job to conform to my requirements, and not the other way around…
Naturally, with the single exception of the final product shot (which utilized my current “Swiss Army Camera” — the Olympus OM-D E-M1), every photo was taken with the Leica SL — albeit with different lenses. Specifically:
“Camera Season 1” and “Camera Season 2” were both photographed with the Leica 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar — a lens I rarely use on an M-body, but which becomes much less cumbersome on the Leica SL. “Hand to God”, besides being the sort of photo that has earned me a permanent place on the Photographer’s Hall of Fame blacklist, was shot with a Leica 28mm f/2 Summicron. “InstaGeodesic” was shot with a Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 Super Wide Heliar, while its partner photo, “Scrutiny” was shot with a… hmm… I don’t have a clue actually. I forgot to make note of my lens selections that particular afternoon.
“Between Two Squalls,” which was shot with a Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M (1996) and “Missing De Palma”, which used the Leica 28mm f/2 Summicron are both the sort of shots I only ever take when forced to review cameras. “Due North,” shot with the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Color Heliar, also qualifies as one of those “camera review only” shots, although I actually kinda like this one. And, in conclusion, there’s “Artist vs Architect,” which was shot with a Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron (v4).
REMINDER: If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.
I’m so glad you didn’t tell me that the SL didn’t quite match the industry standard of 11fps of sharp autofocus. But after buying several Leica digital cameras and four M digitals, I will now stick with my remaining M for film.
Thanks for another thoughtful Leica review which answers questions your readers would not find addressed in any other Leica SL review. The reason I feel compelled to comment today is your photo “Artist vs Architect”. It’s a great shot and deserving of praise for so many reasons, not least of which is that it does justice to the artist – something which I find very rare in photographs of artwork. It’s also such a soothing composition, and one which I would enjoy looking at every day. Thank you for brightening up my New Year’s Day.
greycoopers:
Soothing composition? Really? That’d odd — that photo has exactly the opposite effect on me. Every time I look at it, I feel as if I just drank a pot of coffee laced with Red Bull. But then, I’m finally beginning to realize that most in-focus photos have a tendency to irritate me.
Still, I’m happy to accept praise wherever I can get it, so I’m glad you liked the photo! 😉
I enjoyed reading your perspective on the SL.
I bought one as soon as it was available, including the SL 24-90 zoom, but primarily for use with Leica R lenses. I have a nice kit of these lenses and was most interested to obtain a digital body that was better suited to them than the ones I’d tried.
So far, the 24-90 has been mostly unused and I haven’t done anything with M lenses on the SL other than snap a few test shots. The SL sings with R lenses fitted, it works beautifully with them. The dedicated R Adapter SL isn’t available yet, so I just piggyback the R Adapter M onto the M Adapter T—it works well.
To me, this camera is the complement to the M-P that I wanted … a suitable TTL viewing body for my ‘other’ Leica lenses. I’m very pleased with it.
Hi Godfrey:
Well, you can add another hypothetical to my list of things that would make me buy an SL — IF I had a collection of R lenses, I would most assuredly be looking to get an SL. The two seem like an ideal match. Glad to hear that’s working out to be the case…
It’s true, the SL and R lenses are very well matched.
I had most of my R lenses before I bought the SL, but since I bought it I’ve added a couple more and a Focusing Bellows R to my kit.
The SL used with bellows and a Summicron-R 50mm makes for an exceptionally nice high magnification macro setup. I tested capturing Minox 8×11 subminiature negatives with it today … it’s the best digital capture of Minox negatives I’ve achieved yet. Very pleasing!
(See http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/57279-leica-sl-minox-negative-copy.html#post675856 if you’re interested…)
Thanks for sharing this: The prime #1 use of my existing “swiss army camera” is to photograph negatives — a task that the E-M1 handles quite well with the Olympus 60mm macro.
That being said, I keep thinking it MUST be possible to extract even more info from a negative than I am now. I’ve made all sorts of attempts to coerce the M246 into performing this task, but none of Leica’s M-mount lenses have a flat field of focus. Consequently, while they’re sharp in the middle, they do get soft in the corners (when “scanning” a flat negative). I asked Leica about this, and they said that “no, we don’t make any flat field M lenses.” This is particularly problematic for all my panoramic (Xpan and Widelux) work, since I have to stitch two “scans” together — meaning corner-to-corner resolution is critical. I’ve also tried several brands of high-end enlarging lenses mounted to the M and, even though they’re flat of field, they aren’t as high-res as that Olympus 60…
… so I’m quite interested in hearing more about your scanning successes and/or failures with the Leica SL. Thanks for the link! I’ll be following along…
Egor,
The Olympus M.Zuiko 60 Macro is a very good lens and the E-M1 produces very good resolution (I have one too… although I chose the shorter, PL Macro-Elmarit-DG 45/2.8 lens). Trying to better that kit takes some effort!
I’ve tried enlarging lenses in the past and not had such great success with them for negative copying either. My needs for Minox film capture push me to the bellows solution for FF cameras because that requires close to 3:1 magnification for the results I’m looking for. If your need is to capture just 35mm sized or larger film onto a 35mm format sensor, there are a couple of dedicated tools that might prove suitable and would work with the M246 as well as the SL:
A Spiratone Vario Dupliscope II with Dupli-Strip negative carrier is a dedicated, flat-field macro lens in a slide copying mount. They’re inexpensive (typically around US$60-80) but reputedly quite good quality. There’s one of these setups on Ebay at present (see http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spiratone-Vario-Dupliscope-II-Color-Filter-Set-Dupli-strip-Carrier-T-Mount-Adapt-/221983432794?hash=item33af3e605a:g:kyIAAOSwGotWhaeM ). You need a T-mount adapter to fit it to the M (usually T-mount to Nikon F to Leica M or some arrangement like that). I have not used one of these since 1970s, but I remember it being a very competent slide/negative copying setup.
A Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 Pre-AI lens with its dedicated extension tube is a superb flat-field macro lens that can achieve up to 1:1 magnification. Add the Nikon ES-1 slide duplicating stage made for it and you have a very high quality, general purpose macro lens with excellent capability for 35mm film capture. These lenses go for US$60-$150 in vg+ to exc condition, and the slide stage typically runs US$50-$75. Add a Nikon F to Leica M mount adapter and your M246 will do excellent captures with it.
The Leitz Focusing Bellows R is also usable with the M246, of course, as is the superb Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 lens and the Macro Adapter R (to achieve 1:1). The bellows and an older Summicron-R 50mm like mine can be quite reasonably priced (mine were about US$75 for the bellows and about US$225 for the lens), although I’m not sure just how flat-field the ‘Cron-R 50 is for the kind of negative stitching you’re interested in. The ME60 tends to be a bit pricey (around US$500-700) and the macro adapter around another US$90 or so; that lens is flat-field corrected to the best of my knowledge.
Lots of options to experiment with. All it take is time and money.. sigh.
Forgive me for not mentioning it, but your photos in this article are excellent!
Interesting, although it is a shame you didn’t take the “zoom” I think you would have been impressed. As for weather proofing, I have seen an SL with the zoom have water poured over them from a jug, yes it is weather sealed,at least for the 24-90 🙂
Hi Tony:
Well, in the words of Dirty Harry, “a man’s gotta know his limitations.” And my limitations definitely involve shooting with variable focal length lenses.
It’s a mental thing. With a zoom mounted to a camera, I think “Oh boy, everything is now a potential photo subject — I can frame anything perfectly, ’cause I’ve got a zoom lens!” But in fact, I’ll spot more photo opportunities using a single fixed focal length — that’s because I’m free to disregard any shots that wouldn’t work with my chosen focal length. By limiting myself, I can narrow my search, which actually puts me in a more visually aware shooting “zone.” Sure, I could simply take some gaffer’s tape and “glue” a zoom lens to a single focal length, but I just don’t have enough self-discipline for that. So, while I have no doubt that the new SL zoom is a stellar performer, I’d probably still be standing in one spot, zooming in-and-out, trying to get “just the right framing.”
I didn’t make much mention of it in the article, but I took FULL advantage of the SL’s weather sealing. Also, even though M lenses aren’t “officially” weather sealed, they’re supposedly built to such a high tolerance that rubber seals are not needed with them. At least that’s the “myth” that I’ve heard propagated from numerous sources (including some within Leica). The camera (and a couple of lenses) got absolutely drenched on several of my outings. On occasion, I would wipe it all down with a chamois, then keep on walking and shooting. I’m not sure I’d have the guts to do this with my M246 Monochrom…
Egor,
I wonder if you can give a brief description on how you currently “scan” your B&W negatives. Do you use a masked light table? Mount camera on tripod?
Hi
You did mention that wide angle lenses seem to exhibit the same smearing that happens when M lenses are mounted on a Sony camera with adaptor.
– is the smearing as extreme as in the Sony’s case?
– were the lenses used 6-bit coded so that the SL recognized them for what they are and still was unable to “fix” the edges based on the lens type?
Thank you!