The refrigerator seems to be repaired now...
I spent yesterday investigating the mono imaging capabilities of a standard Lumix S5 when set to L.Monochrome.D; a higher contrast black and white setting. I also had the EVF set to show only monochrome. It was a fun experiment requiring me to ignore or disregard color in scenes. I allowed the camera to add a little bit of "grain" to the mix. Lumix S5 + Voigtlander 58mm f1.4.
I was writing a book about some aspect of lighting and I decided to shoot a bunch of variations for possible book covers. I asked an attractive friend to pose for me. Since it was work I paid a modeling fee. This was exactly the look I wanted for the book cover but there is a tradition/precedent/agreement in book publishing that while the author has editorial control over the contents of a book, because the cover image is part of marketing for the project, the publisher has authority over the front and back covers. I'm sure if you are a super-hotshot-legendary novelist currently residing in Santa Fe you can make your own rules with the publishers but we newbies don't have that kind of power.
The subject of the chapter I was going to use this image as an example of was about modifying sunlight by using translucent modifiers. A fancy way of saying those pop up reflectors that allow you to take the covers off and shoot through white diffusion material. Cheap to buy and easy to use.
I decided I should do this image exactly with the method I was writing about so I put up a 50 inch round diffusion disk on a stand between my model and a hazy sun. The image had everything I wanted to write about going on in it. Blonde hair for highlight detail. Jet black shirt for shadow detail. A great out of focus background.... just for the heck of it.
The image was shot with a Nikon D700 camera using a 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 lens and just the diffuser on a light stand. It's an image I was quite happy with. Nothing over the top. Nothing too dramatic and certainly an image that would be easy to replicate for a reader of my book.
I can't imagine that a current Leica or Sony camera, or a more prestigious lens would have given me better results. Sharper? Maybe but I think this one is sharp enough on the model's face; which is where I wanted the attention. More resolution? Sure. Maybe four+ times the resolution. But the original would fill a book cover with 300 dpi's of information so to what end?
Image created on December 19, 2008. At 3:15 in the afternoon. Can't believe that was almost 15 years ago!!!
Just reminiscing while other people discuss monochrome cameras. I'll get around to that as soon as my Q2 Monochrom gets here.... gotta test these weird and off the wall conceptions of preferences for myself...
And the fix doesn't just benefit Leica M lenses. There are numerous really good lenses that were designed before digital came along that have degraded performance when used on most cameras (because of the sensor stacks) but show huge "improvements" when used on an SL. Or an SL2 for that matter. This is why power users of legacy lenses and most M series lenses were interested in the first SL.
Added to that were the advantages inherent in a mirrorless design such as constant preview, fast frame rates, the ability to use a great EVF in conjunction with all different focal lengths and the ability to preview ones potential images right in the finder or on the screen. And the Leica color science.
The SL upped the ante with its build quality. It is one of the few modern cameras that can truly boast weather resistance and from one of the few camera makers to label the camera with an IP 52 rating. No guess work about reliability when it comes to dust and moisture intrusion resistance.
At the time of launch it was a damn expensive camera, retailing for $7450.00 without a lens. In today's dollars it would be closer to $9,000. A lot to pay at the time for a camera which had few workable, full frame, L mount lenses available for it. That was a tough sell. Now the L landscape has changed. Between Sigma, Panasonic and Leica there are dozens and dozens of really great lenses available for the system.
It's a great camera and, about a year and a half ago I bought two of them on the used market for about $1,800 each. Both cameras with all their boxes, packing materials and accessories. I wanted them originally as backup units for my then newly acquired Leica SL2 (current model). I didn't imagine that I would get much use out of them at the time but looking back the SL has been my most used and most enjoyed camera from 2022. The color is really beautiful and the files are sharp in a way that other cameras aren't.
But would I recommend the SL as a budget entry into the L mount system for people who, unlike me, aren't besotted by nostalgia for all things Leica? Nope. Not really.
If I tossed off my history with Leica products (many M series rangefinders, way too many R series cameras and lenses, and several compacts) and just wanted to concentrate on building a workable and productive system around the L mount I would, today, go in a different direction. And I'll tell you why. It would be all about image quality, budget and the fact that camera body performance and value are two things that rarely improve from generation to generation. Nor does resale value.
If I were to buy today I might eschew both the low cost option of the SL (no matter how cool it really does look and feel) nor would I make the same choice I did and buy the SL2. Without considering budget I would instead lock in like targeting radar on the middle ground. The Leica SL2-S. It's the same rugged body as the SL2, the same menu interface, the same beautiful EVF, and even better color science. But available for about $2,000 less than the SL2 when purchased brand new. I have seen used prices lately as low as $3600. It's also been bundled with several different Leica lens options at prices low enough that you can end up getting the included lens nearly free.
While the SL2 has 47.5 megapixels the SL2-S has only 24. But I see that as an advantage, not a detraction. In my experience too many pixels in a camera which does not have scalable raw file capability is mostly a burden. And since the SL2-S sensor is newer, and a BSI version, the high ISO performance is much better than its more expensive sibling. Finally, it's got great specs for video--- though I realize some of you think that video in a predominantly stills oriented camera is the Devil's Work. But all-in-all, if you are interesting in getting a Leica mirrorless, FF camera the SL2-S clicks every box.
If I decided that I just liked the L mount system and the chance to use some of the great Leica SL lenses but didn't want to chase camera specs and obsolescence I'd make different different choices in 2023. If it came right down to it I'd be hard pressed to choose an SL over the Panasonic S5 or S5mkii unless I really needed the advantages provided to hard core M lens users.
The S5 wasn't on the market yet when I started plunging into Leica L compatible cameras like the SL, the SL2 and the CL cameras. The Lumix S5 came along just a bit later and the S5ii really just hit the consumer space last Fall.
I did end up buying the original S5 at launch and, with the exception of the mid-level EVF resolution I've found the camera to be without many flaws, and none of the flaws rise to the worn and stupid phrase: Deal Killer.
If budgets were tight, or if I didn't give an armadillo's butt about the Leica Legend and the brand allure I'd skip the Germanic camera sculpture garden and go straight to a brace of S5ii cameras. On a tighter budget? Right now you can order the previous model, the S5, and get it bundled with a Panasonic 85mm f1.8 lens for the lofty low price of just $1497, new in a box with a USA warranty.
The one disadvantage besides the loss of snob appeal of the S5 cameras is the lower res finder. But other than that, and maybe the depth of the sensor stack, there is nothing to complain about with the S5 cameras.
It's a camera that's got the same basic sensor as the newest Leica SL2-S, the same general high ISO performance and it's smaller, lighter and, for most people, more comfortable to handle (size and weight+grip). You can also buy inexpensive generic batteries for the Lumix instead of having to splash out $285 each for Leica SL/Q2 batteries. And no generics are available for those pricy cameras.
The S5 has a couple of other advantages over the Leicas but they are mostly features in the video space. The audio adapter for the S5 will allow the use of several XLR terminated microphones and will provide phantom power for professional mikes that need it. It's an amazingly good device for videographers. Especially the "one man crews." Oh, an if you get the newer model, the S5ii, you'll also get faster AF because ..... PDAF.
The other advantage comes from the camera's more parsimonious use of electrical power. Since it's not powering up a nearly 6 million dot EVF it doesn't suck battery power at the same rate. So the cheaper batteries also last a longer time. Bonus, bonus.
Choosing the right camera seems tough but if you are logical about decision making it's really not so hard. Once you get over the idea that you "need" a nearly 50 megapixel sensor you've won half the cost savings battle. Once you decide that you probably are never going to buy and use manual focusing M series lenses you can let go of the idea that you "need" a certain sensor stack of filters and color pattern arrays to get the best from your camera. Now you are free to choose the Lumix instead.
Your rich Leica friends may tease you but your even wealthier banker friends will applaud your financial restraint over a piece of gear destined mostly to be used as a hobby device. In case you haven't heard, commercial photography is in the process of being cancelled altogether by our robot overlords.
Doing it all over again? Two S5ii cameras. A smattering of the f1.8 Lumix prime lenses. The 24-105mm zoom and a hard stop. The reality? I'm not pressed to economize so I can buy with my emotions instead of my brain. With that being the case I think you can count on me to keep chasing the ever elusive "value" of the Leica brand. It's more fun for me. But that's probably material for my therapist (if I had one...).
Bottom line? Buy what you can afford AND what makes you happy. Always good when those two parameters intersect where you want them to.
Happy times.
Modern, fly-by-wire lenses have a uniform fault. From my Leica 24-90mm zoom lens to my 35mm f2.0 Sigma, and just about all of the other AF lenses put on the market since AF became de rigueur all share the same fault, regardless of brand. They have no hard infinity stops, no depth of field scales and (most grievous of all) they lack distance scales. You literally can't "zone" focus them without having to pay a lot more attention to the process than you should have to. There are a few modern lenses such as the Pro S series from Panasonic and the Pro series from Olympus that have auto focus to manual focus clutches. Pull back on the focusing ring and voila, you are bequeathed both hard stops and also a distance scale. A big and accurate one. But modern lenses with this capability are rare. And not always in the focal length range you might desire.
One of the things that draws me to want the Voigtlander lenses I have been buying is just this thing. A repeatable and knowable distance setting feature for all of the manual focusing lenses. It's a godsend.
I made the photograph above on a shooting trip to Rome. I was using a Mamiya 6 camera which makes photographs on 6x6 cm film. As with any larger format camera the depth of field is less than what we are used to when using lenses with the same angles of view on smaller format cameras. But even with a slight telephoto lens on the camera I was able to select a focus distance and understand what kind of depth of field I would have before even lifting the camera to my eye. In the days of zone focusing we were generally pretty good as estimating distances.
I can't remember whether or not I just took one frame of this scene on the Spanish Steps or if I had time to tweak focus with a second frame but I was able to work quickly, nonchalantly and without the intercession of AF. And once you've focused well the lens maintains your setting whether you keep your finger on the shutter button or not. Once focused you are ever-ready...until the distance changes.
When I take one of the 40 or 50 or 58mm lenses out with me on a digital camera I always feel more in control over the entire frame when the lens I've selected is an "old school" prime with a great depth of field scale on it. If you haven't tried this way of shooting you might want to put an older, manual focusing lenses on the camera of your preference and give it a go. It could be a perfect way of working for you.
Disregard if you are shooting football with long lenses...