New Leica SL

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Aha! The SL has built-in GPS !!

[Erik Lund]

Here it is with the grip

[Erik Lund]

There are pictures on www.leicarumors.com directly comparing the SL with various other Leicas, a Fujifilm X-T1 and the Nikon Df. Weight-wise the SL is heavier than a Df (847g vs 765g including battery).

Nice comparison of the size. I would say the weight is way is very similar
Note that the Leica M has the big bottom GPS grip on it.

To me it looks like the SL has a very nice grip even for large hands, especially with the extra grip...

[Eddie Draaisma]

There are sample shots (jpg and dng) at www.preview.com; the huge 24-90 lens seems nicely sharp over the full frame on scenics and the noise at very high iso's is of the very nice "film-like" kind.

[Erik Lund]

Review by Jay Cassario
http://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2015/10/18/the-leica-sl-first-impressions-sample-images

Here is the size; With a Leica M 50mm 1.4 Asph on the SL

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well the f/1.4 35mm, 58mm and 85mm have no play in the manual focus ring, and I find those rings easier to use. I suspect the f/1.4 24/35/58/85 are built to withstand rough use which they f/1.8's may not be quite as durable. My 24/1.4 and 20/1.8 unfortunately have this slight play in manual focusing (when reversing the direction of turn there is a "gap" during which the focus is not being adjusted even when the ring moves). I find there is a special "look" to the images from the nano-coated f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors, whether it is worth the price is anyone's personal decision but I do like the consistency and look, very well suited to the use of shallow depth of field in documentary photos and portraits. I guess they also fit into landscape photography for a shallow depth of field effect (not that you can't stop them down of course you can).

I suspect the main differences between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 Nikon lines is that the former is expected to interest a smaller group of customers with special needs, and the highest expectation of durability and a distinct look (well, it is arguable, but ...) to the images, whereas the f/1.8's are expected to appeal to the more price concious buyer who wants high quality images, chooses primes for portability, smaller size (than f/2.8 zooms) and is interested in best value. I personally find the 20/1.8 very sharp and high quality but something about the 24/1.4 makes the images look more "delightful" for lack of a better word. It is as if it wasn't quite meant to render reality in 2D but transform it into something slightly different.  I think the higher price of the f/1.4's mostly reflects hand made elements and a small volume of lenses manufactured leading to higher research and development cost per lens. Also it may be partly due to cost of workers in Japan / China / Thailand. Of course the size of elements is greater also for the larger aperture variants.

Leica is a bit too expensive for my budget, and I like Nikon lenses and the image quality and viewfinders. I do appreciate each brand has their advantages and disadvantages. EVFs, however, are not for me, and if if I were somehow to buy a Leica it would be a rangefinder.

[Erik Lund]

Spot on regarding to the 1.4 - 1.8 series Ilkka.

The Leica SL specifications looks like something that could have come from Canon or Nikon,  it is a full size DSL version of a DSLR type camera - not a Sony or Fuji thing.
I really think this is a bold and serious product from Leica will be interesting to see the next version of their Leica M cameras!

[Almass]

It seems there is more under the hood than what meets the eye:

1- 3 color modes Adobe RGB -- sRGB -- ECI-RGB

2- In camera, Focus Limit Macro ie Focus Range Limitation (Micheal.E will like this)

3- In camera, Optical Image Stabilization !!!!!!!!!

4- Visual Focus Depth display (numeral) in Manual Focus mode (depth of Field)






5- Sony: Eat your heart out 

[Jørgen Ramskov]

Wow, it's heavier than my D750.

[Jan Anne]

Here it is with the grip

Awesome looking grip, makes it fit for giant hands

Most camera manufacturers seem to prioritise adding a second battery in their grip design over good ergonomics. I remember the D700 and D300 with the grip mounted becoming taller than the D3 series while I only wanted a little more grip when holding camera with longer lenses in the normal shooting position.

The Leica grip seems high quality and flat in design, so me like 

[Roland Vink]

3- In camera, Optical Image Stabilization !!!!!!!!!

From dpreview: Unlike the Q, and Sony's a7 II-series, there's no onboard image stabilization, so it's up to the lens to provide it. The 24-90mm lens has IS built-in, though unusually, it lacks a physical switch on the barrel. Instead, stabilization is turned on and off from within the camera's menu.

[Roland Vink]

... and the designing of small lenses imposes a lot of compromise in terms of the optical quality.  That's why the newer lenses of higher performances tend to be large.  I wonder if it is the law of physics?

Any time you put a constraint on a lens (barrel size, resolution, distortion, field curvature, control of CA and coma, vignetting, resistance to flare and ghosting, fast aperture, image format, AF, VR, zooming, SLR/Mirrorless, price ...) it imposes a compromise on the optical quality or the lens as a whole. For example you could design a lens to be more compact but it may come at the cost of higher vignetting or distortions. These could be corrected  by using aspherics, which pushes up the price. Or you could allow the lens to be bigger with the same optical quality at a lower price etc. The new Otis 28 is a good example. The constraints here are 28mm lens for SLR cameras with fast aperture highly corrected for optical properties - sharpness, CA etc - at the expense of everything else. The result is a huge lens - even without AF or VR. You could make the lens smaller by accepting lesser optical quality such as the Nikon AFD 28/1.4. And you could make it smaller for a mirrorless design like the new Leica 28/1.4, and it could be even smaller if it were for DX format etc etc.

Still, I am somewhat dismayed by the trend for lenses to become increasingly bigger - the AFS 85/1.8 is as big as the AIS 85/1.4 (even though it's only half the weight), and much bigger than the old manual focus 85/1.8. That's one of the main reasons I'm still using my AI and AIS lenses. It would be nice if those old designs (especially the wides) were updated with improved coatings, ED glass and aspherics to bring the optical quality up with the same size and handling as before. Zeiss started along this line with the original ZF series but they have increasingly been moving towards bigger more exotic designs.

[John Geerts]

I just need high ISO sometimes. Not really there on my current cameras that is why I'm looking

But with prices on used D3S dropping to about 1000 € that could well be it...

Let's see ...

Is it better than the Df as I see similar prices for Df and D3S on the marketplace?

[Jan Anne]

Lots of size comparisons with the Sony a7RII:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/leica_sl_vs_sony_a7r_ii_side_by_side_comparison/

[Erik Lund]

Df doesn't do well with Leica M lenses... 

Roland, you know you need to turn to Leica land to get small lenses that are perfectly corrected, you should go get the Leica M 50mm f/2 summicron Apo