Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Sony'.
Found 4 results
Hallo, Welcher nicht Leica digitale Kamera Body empfiehlt sich besonders zur Verwendung mit M-Objektiven. Hier wird immer wieder die Sony Alpha 7 Reihe in allen möglichen Varianten 7 II, 7IIS, 7II R und neuerdings ja auch 7III R erwähnt. Gibt es hier im Objekt Bereich 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 und 90mm f/2.0 Empfehlungen??? Prinzipiell bin ich für alle Varianten offen. Reportage und eine universelle Allroundanwendung wären mein Wunsch Einsatzbereich der den M9 Body ergänzen soll. Auf der Suche nach einem passenden Forumsbeitrag bin ich leider bisher nicht fündig geworden... Vielen Dank für eure Unterstützung Gruß patrick
I’m not one for spending a lot of time pixel peeping but, last Sunday, I noticed that, over the last couple of years, by coincidence, I had taken a photo of the same subject (a ruined temple with lots of fine details), at the same place, from roughly the same distance, at roughly the same time of day, with three cameras: Hasselblad H4D50 - prime lens 100mm (~60mm) (4.5x6cm sensor @ 50 Mpxl) Sony A7Rii - prime lens 55mm (35mm sensor @ 42 Mpxl) Leica SL - zoom lens at about 50mm (35mm sensor @ 24 Mpxl) Coincidentally, I had used roughly the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture all 3 times. So I started doing some comparisons in LR, zoomed in on the TIF files at 100%. Nothing scientific at all, just looking around the images: centre, corners, details, colours, sky, etc. From a pure resolution point of view, I could not see any difference, either in the centre or in the corners. This means that: there’s no penalty from the lesser number of pixels; that the Leica SL zoom performed as well as the two prime lenses, and; in the 3 years since the H4D-50 sensor was built, sensor technology has advanced such that a CMOS 35mm sensor is equivalent to the older 4.5x6cm CCD sensor. From a colour point of view, the SL was discernibly better - against the 'blad, not by much, but better. Much more realistic than the Sony colours. Other noticeable differences: skies are definitely better rendered by the SL sensor, better gradation, smoother, less colour grains. From a usability point of view, the SL is way ahead of the other two. The hit ratio of quality images (focus, exposure) has been much higher than the other two cameras. After 40 years of knowing that "zoom = quality loss", with this SL, I need have no more concerns about using a zoom. With an additional bonus from this weather-sealed camera: one lens on the camera all day long, never have to expose the sensor to dust. No more juggling lens swaps. But kudos to the Sony too for keeping up with the two more expensive systems. But, it suffers greatly in usability and a lot of the lenses, by comparison, are poor, especially the zooms. The Zeiss 55mm that I mentioned above stands out in the Sony range as an exceptional lens. In my experience, none of the Sony zoom lens come close to the image quality of the Leica SL 24-90mm. And I wouldn't have the strength to lug around the Hasselblad zoom... Regards Peter
Watching these conversations about the Leica SL have been instructive and entertaining. How a product launch can release so much passion is beyond me. It's a product. It might succeed. It might fail. The company made its bet and now will see how it fairs in the market. Being a brand new product, the company owes no allegiance to existing customers of any of their other product ranges. So there's no need for the passion. You either like it or you don't. A lot of the discussions seem to revolve around one Question: who are the target customers for this new range? Answer: Me. And, hopefully, a few others... Why me? Foremost, I have always enjoyed quality. It inspires me. Outside of family and work, I only have two passions: photography and scuba diving (and the combination of the two). I've worked hard all my life and achieved some level of success. So, spending some money on quality products to support my passion does not seem unreasonable. For the last 25 years, I have been a Hasselblad user, but, in that whole time, I have only ever used two of their cameras and five lenses. I believe in buying a system and using it for years so that I become familiar with its every nuance and can know how it'll respond in every circumstance. (I realise that in today's world that's not so easy anymore, as product cycles are significantly shorter). But, recently two things changed as I become older. I struggle to carry a huge backpack of camera gear. And my eyes do not focus as well as they used to, taking longer to determine if an image in the viewfinder is sharp or not. For a couple of years, I left the Hasselblad in the dehumidifier and I used the Leica M9 but never did get comfortable with RF focusing - nothing wrong with the system - just took me too long to find the focus. I recently tried the Sony A7Rii. I was very excited at first. Almost there! Light weight, AF, EVF, 42 Mp, almost as many as the 'blad. But the Sony zoom lenses do not match that sensor. Possibly some good prime lenses coming - if Zeiss ever sort out their production issues. But, the Sony cameras just feel wrong. Too much clutter. Too many useless functions (e.g. detect a smile then automatically take a photo). Scene modes, yuk! Buttons all over the place. Symbols that flashes at you in the viewfinder for no good reason. Seems like they are trying to be all things to all people. Yes, you can try to ignore the clutter but that does not appeal to my love of quality and simple design. The Sony A7Rii is not a bad camera and I have taken some great images with it - but it's not a camera you could ever fall in love with - it feels like the camera you own for a year or two until the Sony A7Riii comes along. Then, just as I was stocking-up on Sony lenses and accessories, I heard about the SL. Sounded like it fit most of my criteria. Quality, AF, Weight1, Size2, Lenses3,... 1Yes, you read it right, weight. For me, its weight is a positive. Anyone who has schlepped a backpack with a Hasselblad and 3 lenses around all day will see the SL weight as "reasonable", even with the initial SL lens on-board. 850 grams for a camera body is about right. 2kg for a whole camera system is fine. Solid enough to be stable. Light enough to carry all day. 2The size is right. The Hasselblad was big, really big. But, as it was well designed, I could walk for hours with it in my hand - although it did get a bit heavy with one of the larger lenses on. For me, the Sony A7Rii is too small. My little finger slips off the bottom. The SL is a comfortable size. 3And, what a lens, for 95% of my photographs, that one lens will fit the bill. One body, one lens, one extra battery - total of 2kg - lovely - and light (by comparison to my equipment of the last 25 years). Will I hanker for some primes, especially for portraits? Maybe. Time will tell. So, last week, I went into Leica Store Singapore and touched a Leica SL. That touch was the tipping point. The minute I had it in my hands, I knew that I had to have this camera. Not optional. Slapped down the card and got myself onto the pre-order list. Will this be my main camera for the next few years? I hope so. But, if not, I can always sell it and try something else. I am not all starry-eyed about the SL. But I am excited about the next few months of using this new Leica product to see if will become my new camera system for the next few years. I'll let you know how it works out. Final thought: My advice to anyone who wants to stay angry at Leica for not producing the camera that they wanted, is this: Do not touch one of these SLs. You'll be sorely tempted to ignore all the grumbling, forget about its affordability and slap down your plastic too. Regards Peter http://www.peterwalker.com Quote MultiQuote Edit
(Following up my post in the Iceland thread with this separate thread since the discussion has moved away from Iceland): JTLeica asked: "I dont mean this as a dig, but I would love to know what you do with your A7RIII images that you cannot do with your Leica images... Being someone that shot an A7RII for two years." First, to reiterate what I posted above and many times before in the forum, I love my Leica, the plurality of my disposable income goes to Leica, and I shoot more often with my M10 or my CL than with any other camera (including my phone). In fact I brought my M10 with me into work today, like I do most days, whether or not I expect to run into any apparent photogenic subject matter. But I am also objective enough to call it like I see it, and from my perspective—consistent with many other observations and data, including some postings in LUF—the A7rIII offers some real *imaging* advantages. That doesn't mean that the a7rIII is overall a "better" camera (I carry the M10 daily, not the A7rIII, after all), as it's not so black and white. Size, fun factor, and other considerations weigh in as well. But since you asked about imaging, here are some advantages I've seen with the A7rIII over the M10, which includes many comparisons using the best native lenses for each system, as well as using the same M lenses on both the M10 and the A7rIII: 1) Cropping capability and detail. As you might expect, having 42 MP vs. 24 MP means you have significantly more cropping flexibility and can show more detail. Here are two photos taken with the A7rIII that are a 10 MP crop and a 16 MP crop out of the 42 MP original: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8hfrphgligas10s/Sony%20a7riii%2010.3%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdnqbuf3yboik1d/Sony%20a7riii%2016%20MP%20crop.jpg?dl=0 There's not much else in the original frames that I liked. If I had taken the same photos with a 24 MP camera, even ignoring the other imaging advantages listed below, the same crops would have been 5.9 MP (6" wide printed at 300 dpi), and 9 MP (10" wide @ 300 dpi). I appreciate that for some viewing or printing formats, even a 5.9 MP image is fine. But for printing beyond small size, or viewing on a 15 MP display like the 5K monitor that I'm using now, it's not ideal. As a related point, 42 MP also helps when capturing details is important. Here's a comparison of a test subject: A7rIII + 85 GM @ f/5.6: https://www.dropbox.com/s/inb8frdf7hkf8we/85%20GM%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0 M10 + 75 Noctilux @ f/5.6 (about the sharpest a Leica M lens gets): https://www.dropbox.com/s/oru79iyb5alqbrt/75%20Noct%20at%205.6%20on%20M10%20center.jpg?dl=0 A7rIII + 75 Noctilux @ f/5.6: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrcdu83gcs7fi9o/75%20Noct%20at%205.6%20on%20a7riii%20center.jpg?dl=0 To my eye, the A7rIII shots capture much more detail, either using the native Sony lens, or using the 75 Noctilux. 2) Noise and ISO performance. Consistent with other reports, at higher ISOs (>5000), the combination of a brighter frame for the A7rIII even at the same ISO setting as the M10 (see other LUF posts that have extensively discussed this topic), and an inherently less noisy sensor, I get about 1.5 stops more ISO latitude with the A7rIII than with the M10. What might be less publicized is that even at lower ISOs I see substantially less noise with the A7rIII. Here are two images of the same subject using the 75 noctilux. The M10 photo was taken at ISO 800, and the A7rIII photo was taken at ISO 1000. Yet the sensor noise in the out-of-focus wall areas is actually lower for the A7rIII photo than the M10 photo: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wa65iut21uoslcc/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20M10%20center.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/rp6y0x4unk0hs1t/75%20Noct%20at%201.25%20on%20Sony%20a7riii%20center.JPG?dl=0 3) Color. The M10 photos using AWB generally come out more yellow than real life, while the A7rIII photos using AWB are usually closer to real life in my experience. The wall color in the above two photos is a good example—the actual color of the wall is very close to the A7rIII capture (rust-colored, not ochre-orange). I routinely fix this in post, but I'd rather not have to. 4) Raw file headroom at the top end. The M10's DNG files leave almost no room for highlight recovery. The raw files of the A7rIII, like the various Nikons's I've shot in the past (D700, D800E, D810, D810A, D4, D4s) all offer quite a bit more room for highlight recovery. Again, for most situations I enjoy shooting the M10 more than any other camera, which is why I use the M10 more frequently and own more M10 gear than Sony gear. But my love for Leica does not cross into blind fanaticism (despite what my wife says!), and when shooting under conditions for which the above imagining strengths of the A7rIII are critical, I take the Sony instead. These findings are also reasons why I'm excited by the rumors that Leica continues to release new full-frame cameras. If the rumored C-M has a sensor and/or software that addresses any of the above issues, I will buy it, along with its native lenses.