Leica Unleashes a Monster

[Mike Farley]

It's mirrorless full frame but somehow Leica has managed to bypass all the size advantages of non DSLR cameras. Discrete it isn't.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/744820 ... sl-typ-601

[davidc]

Sony has already done that with the A7 series, they're about the same size & weight as a 6D. Size/weight of the body is irrelevant when you mount proper glass on it anyway.

[Mike Farley]

Sony has already done that with the A7 series, they're about the same size & weight as a 6D. Size/weight of the body is irrelevant when you mount proper glass on it anyway.

The Leica is a bit taller and wider than the Sony, 147 x 104 x 39 mm compared to 127 x 96 x 60 mm, but is a lot heavier at 847 g to the Sony's 599 g. Overall is a bit smaller than the 6D which is 145 x 111 x 71 mm. Where it really bulks up is with the 24-90 zoom attached, which does not have a constant f/2.8 aperture despite its size.

I am not sure that I understand the second part of your comment. It would be a total surprise if the image quality is anything less than excellent, but the body and lens combo sure has heft. Given that the lens has image stabilisation, it is obviously intended to be used away from the studio or a tripod, but I can imagine it could be tiring to use over an extended period. Mind you, that will be academic consideration for most people.

[Mike Farley]

Thom Hogan weighs (sorry) in.

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/lei ... orles.html

When I received advance notice of Leica's announcement yesterday evening, I thought it was going to be the latest M update, not a totally new camera line. As Hogan notes, it has a wide range of different models for what is a relatively small company.

[Mike Farley]

There are probably a number of similar posts all around the Internet, but I found this tongue in cheek post at The Online Photographer. At least it shows a comparison between the SL and Sony A7. Those extra millimetres really do make a difference.



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... -sony.html

[davidc]

The Leica is a bit taller and wider than the Sony, 147 x 104 x 39 mm compared to 127 x 96 x 60 mm, but is a lot heavier at 847 g to the Sony's 599 g. Overall is a bit smaller than the 6D which is 145 x 111 x 71 mm. Where it really bulks up is with the 24-90 zoom attached, which does not have a constant f/2.8 aperture despite its size.

The A7R2 and A7SII are both over 600g and the 6D is 770g - regardless, we're talking about the weight of a Snickers between them. For cameras that are in the same broad capability bracket, weight & size stopped being a factor a while back. That Leica have gone even larger/heavier is still not a big deal in relative terms but the fact it's mirrorless shows they are going BACKWARDS in the class rather than leveraging what little advantage mirrorless had in that regard. The photo of the guy holding it looks like a small child holding an exaggeration of a toy camera, not a cutting edge "masterpiece"

I am not sure that I understand the second part of your comment. It would be a total surprise if the image quality is anything less than excellent, but the body and lens combo sure has heft. Given that the lens has image stabilisation, it is obviously intended to be used away from the studio or a tripod, but I can imagine it could be tiring to use over an extended period. Mind you, that will be academic consideration for most people.

The main point people have been making about mirrorless for years is that they are smaller, though that always glossed over the fact m43 sensitivity/quality is lower than full frame and the mirrorles cameras don't go much past f/4. When you do add pro glass to a mirrorless camera the size/weight/heft is basically the same as an SLR, negating that most common of proclaimed benefits. Size & weight were never really a selling point for me anyway, it was always that the smaller systems didn't offer me anything new that my existing kit can offer. Only now with some of the newer Sonys is that happening and it's not because they are mirrorless (and even then it's not yet good enough to make me switch). It's just a better sensor

Leicas have so far fallen into the same category - they don't offer something I can't get with other cameras. I understand the emotional bond some photographers have but so far it's not been strong enough for me to buy one. I think the closest I've come was the M Monochrom

[davidc]

There are probably a number of similar posts all around the Internet, but I found this tongue in cheek post at The Online Photographer. At least it shows a comparison between the SL and Sony A7. Those extra millimetres really do make a difference.



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... -sony.html

They definitely do - they make the camera hard to hold, especially with big glass. Carpal tunnel inducing. SLRs aren't big to fit in a slappy mirror, nor are they chock-full of electronics. A significant element is ergonomic. I bet the Leica is more comfortable camera to use than the Sony!

[davidc]

The Leica is a bit taller and wider than the Sony, 147 x 104 x 39 mm compared to 127 x 96 x 60 mm, but is a lot heavier at 847 g to the Sony's 599 g. Overall is a bit smaller than the 6D which is 145 x 111 x 71 mm. Where it really bulks up is with the 24-90 zoom attached, which does not have a constant f/2.8 aperture despite its size.

The A7R2 and A7SII are both over 600g and the 6D is 770g - regardless, we're talking about the weight of a Snickers between them. For cameras that are in the same broad capability bracket, weight & size stopped being a factor a while back. That Leica have gone even larger/heavier is still not a big deal in relative terms but the fact it's mirrorless shows they are going BACKWARDS in the class rather than leveraging what little advantage mirrorless had in that regard. The photo of the guy holding it looks like a small child holding an exaggeration of a toy camera, not a cutting edge "masterpiece"

I am not sure that I understand the second part of your comment. It would be a total surprise if the image quality is anything less than excellent, but the body and lens combo sure has heft. Given that the lens has image stabilisation, it is obviously intended to be used away from the studio or a tripod, but I can imagine it could be tiring to use over an extended period. Mind you, that will be academic consideration for most people.

The main point people have been making about mirrorless for years is that they are smaller, though that always glossed over the fact m43 sensitivity/quality is lower than full frame and the good glass didn't often go past f/4, also contributing to smaller sizes. When you do add pro glass to a mirrorless camera the size/weight/heft is basically the same as an SLR, negating that most common of proclaimed benefits. Size & weight were never really a selling point for me anyway, it was always that the smaller systems didn't offer me anything new that my existing kit can offer. Only now with some of the newer Sonys is that happening and it's not because they are mirrorless (and even then it's not yet good enough to make me switch). It's just a better sensor

Leicas have so far fallen into the same category - they don't offer something I can't get with other cameras. I understand the emotional bond some photographers have but so far it's not been strong enough for me to buy one. I think the closest I've come was the M Monochrom

[Mike Farley]

Jono Slack has produced a comprehensive report about the SL which is worth a read even for the majority who will never own the camera. He refers to it as being substantial, but says it is comfortable to hold. One interesting fact which emerges early in the article is that Leica was researching autofocus for 20 years before deciding that it had no future and selling the technology to Minolta. The rest is history and Minolta went on to introduce the world's first camera with AF in 1985.

http://www.getdpi.com/wp/2015/10/the-leica-sl/

The SL is clearly designed for professional use and build quality is high, so additional bulk and weight is inevitable. Together, the body and zoom lens weigh around 5 lbs. Clearly some people have less concerns about this than others.

Most mirrorless cameras rely on a combination of smaller sensors and shorter distance from the rear lens element to reduce size and weight. Yes, that involves some compromises in respect of image quality, but not to the extent that it becomes unacceptable for most. In the real world, the differences are not as significant as has been suggested here. Very little of my work has been taken with a full frame sensor and any criticism has solely concerned aesthetics.

[Mike Farley]

Ming Thein has published his thoughts on the SL and he confirms that is a large and heavy camera. In his review there is a shot* which shows the comparison with a D810 with 24-120 f/4 lens** and a Leica Q, with the SL being the largest of the three. Thein reported that he did not find that the ergonomics worked well, the grip not allowing him to hold the camera and "kit" zoom comfortably for a day of shooting. According to Thein, the 24-90 lens is "solid", good results at the wide end, some issues when zoomed in. Not quite what I would hope for if I were spending north of £3k.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/10/21/pr ... ca-sl-601/

* I tried embedding a link to the image, but it fell foul of the forum's size restrictions. Doh!

** That Nikon body and lens probably costs much the same as the SL's one available lens .....