Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Member Title
    Neuer Benutzer
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don’t know what you mean by that. The 24-90 is great on any camera.
  2. I don’t see those attributes as equally weighted. I would choose the 24-90.
  3. MP would have little to do with it for me. The 24-90 is said to be slightly better optically. Range, weight, size, and price are the differentiators.
  4. Shoot a few photos and compare the results to the zebras and histogram. You’ll learn how accurate they are for your PP results. Also try highlight weighted metering to see if that helps. Try adjusting JPG settings, which may affect what you see in the EVF even when shooting raw. I don’t have much issue with highlight clipping but I don’t use zebras in the EVF. I do think the matrix metering errors on the side of clipping highlights and that’s why highlight weighted metering was just introduced.
  5. I’d you’re editing on site with an iPad and only sending small jpg files, I would absolutely not choose the SL2 over the SL2-S.
  6. That friend should not need legislation to understand a Panasonic lens should be considered a Panasonic lens. I assume you’re referring to the S pro lenses that are “certified by Leica.” I can’t see what’s confusing about that. Even if Leica built the lens, it would still be branded Panasonic and carry the value of that branding.
  7. The question is not clear to me. With SL before and now SL2-S I use autofocus most of the time. I typically have used MF mode with the joystick button set to AFs or AFc. When I need to manual focus I do so. I shut off automatic zoom upon manual focusing and I activate the zoom myself with a front button as needed. I use peaking sometimes as well. With SL2-S and the new FW I’ve been using AF tracking and face detection more often.
  8. D500 has a better AF system for action.
  9. Of course it’s an extra compromise. That doesn’t mean the optical results are worse. It might just mean the lenses are larger and heavier than they might be for the format. It might mean the price is higher because different material choices had to be made.
  10. I’m also referring to working with the files, which leads to the end result. If you didn’t read the bit depth on a spec sheet I can guarantee you’d have no idea its significance. You also mentioned the S lenses are older, what’s that have to do with working with the files? Phase One uses a larger sensor than the Fuji so I’m not sure how that’s related.
  11. If you shot with an S3 and the S lenses and someone told you it was 16 bit and the lenses were all new, would the IQ leave you believing they were wrong? I don’t think those specs are relevant when comparing to the GFX when the quality of the S system is as high as it is. I have not shot with the S3 but have briefly tested the S007. The price is the only thing that kept me from buying at the time. If I were to get into the S system today it would need to be lower priced and include an EVF. If handed an opportunity to shoot with Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, and Canon with no spec sheets at all and no prices, just a similar set of lenses from each, I wonder what the choices would be. I bet the resolution, the bit depth, a lot of specs would be far less important than they are now.
  12. There are a lot of good options above $200. Rather than shopping by price, look for the features you want. Really Right Stuff makes great tripods. I use one.
  13. I don’t think there is any chance Leica or anyone else will offer two versions of a camera, one with fixed screen and one without.
  • Create New...