All Activity

I hope some of you will humor me because I have not found this question asked. This is pretty long-winded for what I think is a rhetorical question in the end. I have seen so many replies on the forum from people much smarter than me so I want to make sure I am not missing something. I know these Sigma lenses can be a bit decisive and maybe there's a better place to ask this question but this is literally the only forum I am a member of and I have no social media accounts to appeal to. I shoot an SL2s, an SL3 and a Q2. I enjoy a wide variety of photography and do a little bit for pay and as such I own a variety of lenses of which some have value, either sentimental or earnings related. I'm going to break it down just a little in hopes in may help inform a more thoughtful reply. I switched from Canon to Leica two years ago and the one thing I took for granted was that every lens I owned previously was weather sealed. Right off the bat I'll say my focus is landscape photography. That said, I have a Sigma Art lens for Astro, another one for my very occasional dabble in wildlife photography and long lens landscape, a Lumix zoom for the paid stuff, and an adapted Canon lens for Macro. But for pleasure, I AM a prime shooter. It's just how my brain is wired. For that I own the Sigma Contemporary 35 and 50 and it mostly comes down to size, feel and performance. While I really do like these lenses quite a bit, they are only weather sealed at the mount and they just so happen to be the two lenses I have no sentimental attachment to and they don't earn me money. I recently purchased an M adapter and a couple of M lenses but that is a moot point because they're not weather sealed at all. That leads me to my question. If I go out and shoot in the rain or snow for an extended period of time with a lens that is not weather sealed internally, but is at the mount where it marries the camera, is it safe to assume that even if the lens is compromised, the camera will be protected? I tend to believe so, and why else would a lens be sealed at the mount and not elsewhere if it wasn't intended to be the failsafe. I have no idea how these things are built but doesn't stand to reason that the lens could take on an extreme amount of moisture before it made its way backwards into the camera body itself? Thanks for any input.

Portra 800, scanned on my SL2 with Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro & Negative Supply setup, conversion in Negative Lab Pro. Compare to the lab scan above

Portra 800, scanned on my SL2 with Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro & Negative Supply setup, conversion in Negative Lab Pro. WAY better than the affordable lab scans above.

SL3 & 24-90mm

gorilla gorilla apo-summicron 75

Only if the light meter uses a semi- transparent mirror like a DSLR. When measured off the sensor like on a mirrorless linear suffices.

I agree. I'm not really concerned with the colours presented on the EVF or LCD. Neither is a colour calibrated monitor and are primarily there to aid composition and exposure. Most times the picture viewed on a calibrated monitor screen will look different to what is seen on the camera as the monitor is showing more accurate colours.

+1. Still a little early for the Pied flycatcher to arrive in the garden at 60 deg N (W Norway), but good to see it is on the way!

Small cluster of tulips in our garden that the rabbits have so far overlooked. M10-R/90 Elmarit

M10 - Summilux 50asph

M10 - Summilux 50asph

M10 - Summilux 50asph

Agreed this is an absolute no no. Should NEVER happen. So it looks like it’s when the camera is *sleeping* that’s when it all goes south. And because there’s no visual indicator it’s easy to pop a battery thinking the camera is off. Bad. Very, vert bad…. Gordon

Thank you very much, Wilson, for such a fascinating relpy. So much detail to mull over! Philip.

That’s where I got mine a few weeks ago after getting on the wait list a month ago.

Thanks!! I did not know the part number and had been searching for the wrong thing and had not spotted them.

Jan im Rheinland, sehr schön!

A friend of mine pre-ordered an SL3 in-person less than a month ago at the NYC Leica Meatpacking boutique and they called to say that it was now in. The SL3’s are certainly out there and as presumed… the boutiques seem to get a favorable allocation and reduced wait times.

Agreed.

Philip, Other than the Maserati 250F, which you eliminated early in the thread, I think that the DBR4 was the only other DOHC straight six GP car in the 2.5L era other than a few no hopers/non qualifiers, using for example a short stroke Jaguar XKC engine and I think there was one using a 6 cylinder version of the Alta engine. Unlike what many believe, Ferrari did make a couple of straight sixes which were six cylinder versions of either the 500 Monza or the larger 750 Monza 4 cylinder engines, resulting in a three and four and and a half litre sixes. However they were only used very briefly and unsuccessfully in sports racing cars. I have been told they suffered very severe crankshaft torsional flutter which rapidly destroyed the centre main bearings. They seem to never be mentioned in most Ferrari books. Wilson

HP5, M4 with 35mm pre-ASPH Lux wide open Barkeeper & Chef; Norway (probably Oslo)

Amsterdam, Q3

I called up a photo page and actually got two images today. I guess that counts as improvement but all the other images on that page did not show up.

Here you go. Native L mount for the video peeps. https://www.dpreview.com/news/2735107119/blackmagic-design-pyxis-usd3000-6k-full-frame-camera Gordon