Leica SL2 pre-production sample gallery (DPReview TV)

Hi,
there were only 3 shots wider than 2,8 an none of them was fully open. I'm a M user since 1976 mostly with Summilux and Summicron (90mm) and with the anlog SL-2 and the 80mm. The "Leicamagic" was to use them wide open.
A digital SL2 with their huge pixel count and the stellar lenses I want to see full open and what you can make with low ISO, IBIS and f/1,4 (or 2.0) and no flash. That is "Leicaphotographie" for me.

That image was "processed to taste" from the raw. I downloaded the raw and processed it myself. My version does not look like that. The raw is well-exposed and there is plenty of detail in the shadows. It's ISO 6400 so there's a fair amount of noise. It's pretty easy to work on.

My recommendation is to ignore that sample jpeg image made from the raw and and evaluate the raw yourself in a raw processor. That "greenish" look is an aesthetic decision by the person doing the processing and not caused by the camera. There's no reason the image needs to look like that. I really like that shot so I made it my desktop background. :-)

eidrag:

Many, in fact most, of Olympus' best m4/3 (and 4/3) lenses are optically better than m4/3 PanaLeica lenses.

No mostly Zuiko and assorted. These images remind me of my em5. And the Silver Black Em5 looks nicer.

I still <3 my E-M5 but it can't do 47 megapixels.. although using the loupe function on image #40 reveals that yeah, it's not as sharp and clear and noiseless-especially in daylight-as one would expect from this high end of a full frame setup at an ISO that my Fuji can handle quite well.

But having looked at all the images in the gallery.. yeah, the color reproduction and look does kinda remind me of my Olympus gear. That's not meant as a sleight to either system, BTW :-)

That type of comparison would be difficult to do. These cameras are released at different times of the year. The comparison images for all cameras would have to be redone with every new release. That's not feasible.

Also, there's the practical fact that DPR doesn't own and keep one copy of every camera in some big stash of inventory, for them to pull out to reshoot comparison images every time a new camera comes out.

Hence, for side by side comparisons, we are left with the studio targets.

Finally, there's the lenses. Lenses have a big impact on IQ, to say the least. And there's just no way to test every camera with the same lens. So there would always be that variable as well.

Bottom line: there's no perfect way to compare cameras and the images from them. But that's OK, because we have a lot of info to use and we have our intellect and judgement.

Yes, all cameras are excellent these days. Here's a great quote from Steve Huff which captures it nicely I think:

"Any photo one can find online today can be taken with any camera made today, any photo. There is no superior camera quality these days, just a different flavor of color. A photo is not about perfection and using and enjoying a camera is not about perfection. It is about personal enjoyment for the majority who buy camera like this, and if the one who owns the camera is getting enjoyment from it, then that is all that matters."

I think that is so true; most people should just choose the camera they enjoy using the most and not go down the rabbit hole of obsessing about the specs and pixel peeping.

Agree. These days any modern camera is capable of great IQ, so in my case is more important if I enjoy using the camera or not.

It is human nature to obsess over specs and the instruments used (the camera/lens) to achieve the end (image capture). This works for everything. A tennis player obsessing over a new high tech racket. A cyclist obsessing over a new carbon fiber titanium bike. Then you’re beat by the guy with a 50 year old warped wooden racket he bought in a garage sale for $2, and the guy who passes you riding a rusty Schwinn Varsity he bought at the same garage sale for $5. You need to admit to yourself if you’re really interested in photography or not.

Don't speak for everyone.

For me a camera is a tool and I want the tool that delivers the best results, or the most efficient results, or a compromise between both.

I don't have any emotional attachment to any brand and I buy what I need for the output because that's what matters to me and my clients.

They don't see any of my gear, just the invoice and the work.

This tool has nothing for me in the output that I couldn't just as easily produce with dozens of significantly cheaper cameras.

The video was nice, 4K60p is definitely a bonus, but again, the price point and the fact a dozen other cheaper cameras offer it and some of those do it better (e.g. Blackmagic P4K and 6K).

The 2005 AF system is a major drawback.

So again, having the admittedly beautiful images is nice, but unfortunately kinda useless too.

Bob: thank you for pointing out one fact: that for pro's the calculus changes. The practical realities of your professional needs have to win out.

But for everyone else, I would say just to choose the camera they enjoy the most.

Of course some pro's will use Leica for their work depending on their needs. Also, some pro's may choose Leica as a camera for their personal enjoyment. I know one wedding pro who uses Canon but who also has a Leica M for personal enjoyment. Now to have a Leica for the fun of it is not cheap, but then again, people spend all types of money on things like cars, motorcycles, clothes, jewelry, etc for the fun of it.

I hope I wasn't rude before, my first sentence sounded very abrasive.

I can see some older photographers shooting Leica for personal use for emotive reasons.
I can't find any logical reasoning for purchasing Leica products for a business though.

Again, these sample galleries need a change, not sure what, but something needs to be done to help make them useful.

The images are beautiful in this particular gallery though, very well done most of them.

@ BobSac

"I can't find any logical reasoning for purchasing Leica products for a business though"

Why not? The consumer/prosumer/pro chooses the equipment that meets their needs both ergonomically, from a $$ standpoint, lens availability, IQ, capabilities well as ability to withstand potential damage. This camera will push the button of many pros, depending upon their industry and use. I don't think you will see this or any similar type camera replacing DSLR with long teles at the olympics BUT not sure why you wouldn't see this camera in a studio?

I'm not buying it but like the S1R is built like a tank and will provide great IQ with great features.

'The consumer/prosumer/pro chooses the equipment that meets their needs both ergonomically, from a $$ standpoint, lens availability, IQ, capabilities well as ability to withstand potential damage.'

You just made the business case not to buy the SL2;
It's expensive, lens availability is below par, IQ could be as good as the other (cheaper) cameras it's sharing a sensor with, but AF is poor etc. so it'll always produce less keepers as a result of the subject moves.

Even if it did what its peers do, it's more expensive for no good reason. Ergonomically it's poor.

So, as.i said, there's no justification for a business to purchase this tool.

Obviously you are not this camera target audience. There are fashion photographers who can pay for a whole SL2 system with one single job paycheck, so if they like it why not?

A friend of mine is a watch collector, he can easily spend 20k in one watch but he thinks 500 USD for a digital camera is too much... what makes “sense” for you might not make sense to others, are they wrong?

Even if I made a million dollars a month I wouldn't cripple my business using a tool that isn't as.useful as another.

It's not the money as much as it is that this tool isn't as useful as other options.

Again, listen to the comments about the AF system, it sounds like it's from 2007.

@BobSac

YUP a fool and his money. I wish I was such a "fool" with all the "money" some of these fashion (and other) photographers have that easily lay out over 100K for cameras like Leica, Hasselblad, etc.

Stop being absurd. You aren't in the business for a camera like this others are and IT MAKES SENSE to them.

Guess what? There are people who probably think you're a fool for having anything more than a phone to take pictures.

No. Bugatti's are overrated imo and Ronaldo couldn't hope to use all that performance available anyway because he's not an elite Motorsport athlete.

Bad analogy buddy.

You're missing the point.
Write a pros and cons list comparing this camera to, say, a Panasonic S1 and show me where the Leica justifies its price tag.

Nice.
So what if I told you I own a few Ferrari's?

Would that make my opinion on the pricing of this Leica suddenly credible?

Please note I've lured you both into a trap.

Speaking of pro use of Leica equipment: the photo for the poster for the upcoming James Bond Movie "No Time To Die" was shot by a photographer named Greg Williams. Greg uses Leica. That poster was shot with the Leica SL.

Here is a link to his IG post on this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B3PArNgAcha/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

You can see some of his other work photographing the A-list stars, all with Leica.

Here's a writeup on him, if you are interested:
https://www.mrporter.com/en-gb/journal/my-space/mr-greg-williams-shows-us-the-good-life/4723?setupsession=false