New Leica full frame mirrorless, first image sample

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>Can this combo really be this BIG? It has to be seen to be believed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good God, that is truly ridiculous!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If they keep the M mount then the SL can't be AF.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you explain why? I really don't understand.<br /> <br /> <br /> After thinking about the SL for the last few days I really cannot imagine what on earth Leica were thinking when they dreamed this one up. I will eat my own hair if this new camera proves to be anything like a success.<br /> <br /> My reasons for it's likely demise:</p>

<ol>

<li>The price is stupid.</li>

<li>Leica have had the M39 mount, M mount, R mount, T mount, compact M-mount, S mount and now the L mount. People are surely getting sick to the back teeth of buying into very expensive lens systems that can quickly turn out redundant or require fiddly adapters. Pick a lens mount and bloody well stick to it.</li>

<li>The SL is absolutely enormous, especially with the "kit" lens. Add the forthcoming telephoto zoom lens and the camera is the same size as a small church: http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7448206943/Leica-SL_Leica-APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL_90-280_ASPH_top.jpeg</li>

<li>The price is stupid.</li>

<li>The resolution, although technically adequate for most applications, is far lower than the obvious competition.</li>

<li>No in-body stabilisation, unlike much cheaper competitors.</li>

<li>It doesn't even look sexy.</li>

<li>The price is stupid.</li>

<li>Too large to be a street shooter and not enough resolution for a studio camera.</li>

<li>11fps is pretty useless without phase detect tracking autofocus.</li>

<li>Early reports indicate the SL is not a stellar performer in low light.</li>

<li>The price is stupid.</li>

</ol>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The M mount doesn't have sufficient electronic interface to do auto focus.<br>

You keep saying the price is stupid because if you said so then all Leica prices are stupid.<br>

I can't afford Leica and that's the fact but I could see why one would want to pay the high price for the Leica M or even the M-60 special edition. Because all those cameras for better or worse they are all clearly Leica. The SL to me doesn't seem like a Leica product.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>The M mount doesn't have sufficient electronic interface to do auto focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still don't understand. The Nikon F mount was in the same boat until they added electronics for autofocus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You keep saying the price is stupid because if you said so then all Leica prices are stupid.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All Leica prices are <strong>not</strong> stupid, that's my point. For example, the Leica Q price is actually quite reasonable. You get a complete full frame camera including a 35mm Summilux lens for LESS than the price of a 35mm Summilux on its own. In comparison, the SL price really is stupid.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>After thinking about the SL for the last few days I really cannot imagine what on earth Leica were thinking when they dreamed this one up</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Leica are aiming this at professionals, or so thay say. Having seen and held it, it is a beautiful piece of equipment and the EVF is the best there is. A most wonderful shooting experience. It is big - a usual large DSLR size, but flatter and really good in the hand. It also seems very heavy, but it gives a feeling of solidity. It is really very very similar to the S series. This is why they have priced it like a Nikon D4 or Canon 1Dx, because it is that kind of camera in their eyes. Leica have never really been very up to the minute with zooms (I am reminded of the massive, but superb, 35-70/2.8 they put out 15 years ago). The lenses I guess, as per their usual pricing scheme, are roughly 2-3X equivalent Canikon prices. I think it really is too soon to say whether it will work in the market: certainly there was a lot of interest in it at PhotoExpo NYC.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>I could only envisage it being a moderate success if it had a very high resolution sensor, circa 50MP. Pros might then be tempted as the resolution would take max advantage of the Leica glass. Anyway, that's just my opinion. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I expect there will be some pro users (not all sponsored by Leica), but I don't think the vast majority of working professionals currently using Nikon or Canon would even consider this camera. If ultimate image quality is the primary consideration (it often isn't) there are plenty of very high quality prime lenses from the camera manufacturers and third parties like Zeiss that can be put in front of a 36MP or 50MP sensor. The primary market, as with other expensive Leica gear, is probably still the 'retired dentist' hobby photographer, with plenty of disposable income and an affinity for the brand. Of course, this is also true for much of the high end gear that Canon and Nikon sell. I remember browsing at a London dealer that caters for this market, when a well-groomed middle aged customer came into the shop and asked for the top of the range Nikon, without even knowing the model name.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have revisited my Leica M9-P using Leica glass along with a couple of Zeiss ZM lenses, 28/2.8 and 35/2.8. The corner sharpness is definitely better than the same lenses on a Sony A7Rii. It is not perfect, but the corners look somewhat unsharp rather than smeared. As I understand it, the cover glass was originally 0.5 mm on the M8. To save space, the protective glass and IR filter are combined in the Leica digital M cameras. The M8 was unreasonably sensitive to IR. To correct this issue, the M8-2 and M9 were made with a 0.8 mm cover glass/filter. 1.0 mm was considered "ideal" for IR absorption, and 0.8 was the compromise value for optical performance. This is far thinner than the reported 2 mm thickness of the glass covering the A7 sensors (someone measured it at 1.5 mm).</p>

<p>It is fairly safe to assume that the new Leica SL (601) will have a cover glass similar to that of the M9, if not thinner. If the IR absorbance were greater, the glass could be thinner. The new SL is also said to be fully weather sealed, if not actually waterproof. That's all they say about the top end Nikons too, and I've used them in some pretty nasty weather without adverse results.</p>

<p>Is 24 MP enough? Probably. A lot of images are being published from 12-18 MP cameras, and 24 MP gives some margin for serious cropping. Even $7200 for the body is not far off from what a D4s or 1Diii will set you back. The issue is lenses and whether or not there are good zooms and autofocus. Consequently the SL might not be the camera of choice for photo ops and press conferences, much less football. It might be a good choice for other events, including those in the boonies or where medium format might be applicable if you could keep the sand out of the gears.</p>

<p>Time will tell.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"It is not perfect, but the corners look somewhat unsharp rather than smeared."</p>

<p>I found with my 21mm f2.8 asph that it is necessary to focus on the distance of the corner subjects in order for the lens to display its full resolution in that area. With a landscape that is often infinity or very near to that marking. In some photos where an intermediate focussed distance and a small f number (to be well within the DOF) were used the edges were not as sharp. This may not be what you were seeing with the M9 and the optics tested but it is something to keep in mind as well as that of the possible effect of the cover glass.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sebastian-vettel-is-the-first-leica-sl-owner/-</p>

<p>Geeze it still looks big. </p>