lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #421  Posted November 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Indeed, it makes sense that an M lens should be optimized for the M body. But then, if you have evidence that the lens works better on a non M body, it starts not to make sense anymore, hence the confusion  Sure but i would be much surprised if it works better on the SL, especially when focussing at infinity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Hi lct, Take a look here Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
edwardkaraa Posted November 6, 2015 Share #422 Â Posted November 6, 2015 Â Â Â Sure but i would be much surprised if it works better on the SL, especially when focussing at infinity. Â Â It is true that we have no evidence of the lens performance at infinity. It can go either way, depending on lens characteristics, according to my limited knowledge. Â Normally M glass performs worse at infinity than at close range on a thick cover glass, from what we have seen on the Sony A7 variations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 6, 2015 Share #423 Â Posted November 6, 2015 Yes been there since 2004 (R-D1). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted November 7, 2015 Share #424  Posted November 7, 2015 If Sean's policies were as idiotic and paranoid as alleged, unlikely Leica Camera AG would have continued asking him to review their equipment over the years. Also, his review archive covers many other non-Leica brands and offers a wealth of information and knowledge not necessarily easily available elsewhere. The relatively small subscription (£22 $equivalent) has saved me hours of browsing elsewhere and enabled saving ££hundreds by buying e.g. alternative but little known DSLR wide angle lenses.  dunk   Seriously??, it is an absolute pain in the ass to read his reviews. The "idiotic" window and lame scroll bar are because of his "paranoid" concerns that we will copy and paste his articles. Why I continue to pay to be restricted into this lame design is a valid question...his content is the only thing that keeps me coming back, but I feel like I am penalized for a crime I didn't commit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 7, 2015 Share #425 Â Posted November 7, 2015 Seriously??, it is an absolute pain in the ass to read his reviews. The "idiotic" window and lame scroll bar are because of his "paranoid" concerns that we will copy and paste his articles. Why I continue to pay to be restricted into this lame design is a valid question...his content is the only thing that keeps me coming back, but I feel like I am penalized for a crime I didn't commit. Â Â For those curious about SR's reviews, a search on this forum will reveal many positive comments about them ... and he has also posted himself as a forum member. Â dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted November 7, 2015 Share #426 Â Posted November 7, 2015 So, a marketing-based question for all of the Leica experts out there. Â Given the overall high reviews of the Q and now that the provocative and controversial SL has arrived, what was the Leica-strategy for bringing the Q to market? Â By SL standards, the price point of the Q is a bargain. Â Posters have said they hoped that an interchangeable-lens Q would be in the offing, but then they release the SL a few months after the Q's intro. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 7, 2015 Share #427  Posted November 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Because the SL has been released does not mean that there will not be Q variants in future. The "provocative and controversial SL" is gaining ground as regards favourable opinions from those who have actually handled it … as distinct from the initial more negative opinions from those who have not.  dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted November 7, 2015 Share #428 Â Posted November 7, 2015 Dunk I agree. Â IMO it seems that Leica's R&D budget would have been better served producing one new system that encompasses the positive features of both the Q & SL. Â And completely dump the T for that matter! Â I just think it would have been money well-spent. Â I will be handling the SL and agreed, the more I hear, the more interest I have in the SL. Â As an avid M user, I also use numerous Canon bodies. Â The fact that the SL has 2 card slots, heavy water resistance and an actual PC socket on the body, tells me that they're seriously courting the pro market. The price of the SL is on-par with the top of the line Canon DS series, the lenses are another matter! Â Now Leica just needs more lenses and much much better pro support (Canon CPS alternative.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 7, 2015 Share #429  Posted November 7, 2015 One step at a time. Leica is not a huge company and have limited R&D funds.  Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ski542002 Posted November 7, 2015 Share #430 Â Posted November 7, 2015 Hello Wilson: Â Your comment summarizes my point completely. Â The overlap (timeline of release) of these products tells me that all 3 systems, Q, SL & T were in overlapping stages of R&D. Â One system would have been better money spent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 7, 2015 Share #431  Posted November 7, 2015 We will really know that the SL is a success, when Sigma, Zeiss and Tamron start making T mount lenses. If Leica is sensible (and brave), they will not patent the T mount.  Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 7, 2015 Share #432  Posted November 7, 2015 Hello Wilson:  Your comment summarizes my point completely.  The overlap (timeline of release) of these products tells me that all 3 systems, Q, SL & T were in overlapping stages of R&D.  One system would have been better money spent.   The Q and SL are very different 'systems' … the Q is classed as a compact 'fixed lens' FF camera. Peter Kruschewski stated in a recent interview that other Q cameras are possible (i.e. 50mm and 35mm fixed lens variants) but only when Leica have developed compact Q FF lenses. If Leica added an interchangeable lens AF mount to the Q it would likely no longer be compact. Whether or not there will ever be a Q ICL AF compact camera … which can still be called a Q … seems unlikely.   dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 7, 2015 Share #433  Posted November 7, 2015 Dunk I agree.  IMO it seems that Leica's R&D budget would have been better served producing one new system that encompasses the positive features of both the Q & SL.  And completely dump the T for that matter!  I just think it would have been money well-spent.  I will be handling the SL and agreed, the more I hear, the more interest I have in the SL.  As an avid M user, I also use numerous Canon bodies.  The fact that the SL has 2 card slots, heavy water resistance and an actual PC socket on the body, tells me that they're seriously courting the pro market. The price of the SL is on-par with the top of the line Canon DS series, the lenses are another matter!  Now Leica just needs more lenses and much much better pro support (Canon CPS alternative.)   The T is the APS-C ICL mirrorless compact … there's a demand for same … not everyone needs or wants a FF ICL mirrorless or DSLR camera.  Also unlikely that the SL will make significant inroads into demand for Canon and Nikon FF cameras … regardless of whether they are DSLR or mirrorless.   dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 7, 2015 Share #434  Posted November 7, 2015 Dunk I agree.  IMO it seems that Leica's R&D budget would have been better served producing one new system that encompasses the positive features of both the Q & SL.  And completely dump the T for that matter!  I just think it would have been money well-spent.  I will be handling the SL and agreed, the more I hear, the more interest I have in the SL.  As an avid M user, I also use numerous Canon bodies.  The fact that the SL has 2 card slots, heavy water resistance and an actual PC socket on the body, tells me that they're seriously courting the pro market. The price of the SL is on-par with the top of the line Canon DS series, the lenses are another matter!  Now Leica just needs more lenses and much much better pro support (Canon CPS alternative.) Hi There "One new system encompassing the positive features of the Q and the SL" would have been . . . . . . As it is the SL is the missing link between the full frame rangefinder, the MF S, the compact Q and the APSc T system  -  none of them need dumping! The L mount (formerly known as the T mount) was designed from the ground up to be full frame (as we all noticed when the T came out). Suddenly, and rather surprisingly, Leica have a coherent product range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 8, 2015 Share #435  Posted November 8, 2015 We will really know that the SL is a success, when Sigma, Zeiss and Tamron start making T mount lenses. If Leica is sensible (and brave), they will not patent the T mount.  Sigma and Tamron lenses on an SL? I'd never do it. That's like putting Sears bargain brand tires on a Ferrari. :-)  Maybe Zeiss, if they produce something with quality control a bit better than what I see in the ZM lens line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 8, 2015 Share #436  Posted November 8, 2015 Sigma and Tamron lenses on an SL? I'd never do it. That's like putting Sears bargain brand tires on a Ferrari. :-)  Maybe Zeiss, if they produce something with quality control a bit better than what I see in the ZM lens line.   Leica used a Sigma zoom lens design for their Vario-Elmar 28-70mm R lens … and over a 19 year period.  dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 8, 2015 Share #437  Posted November 8, 2015 Leica used a Sigma zoom lens design for their Vario-Elmar 28-70mm R lens … and over a 19 year period.  dunk  That's certainly true, and it's also true that they at least oversaw production and QC to ensure that it met Leica specs. Sigma and Tamron have both delivered some excellent lenses. Their problem is inconsistent quality ... From one unit to the next is a pig in a poke as to what you're going to get. I know that Sigma have improved somewhat since the days I did four exchanges and then gave up trying to get a decent example, but I'm uninterested in the possibility of seeing that again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted November 8, 2015 Share #438  Posted November 8, 2015 Sigma and Tamron lenses on an SL? I'd never do it. That's like putting Sears bargain brand tires on a Ferrari. :-)  Maybe Zeiss, if they produce something with quality control a bit better than what I see in the ZM lens line. 10 years ago, i would have agreed, today any camera can be happy to be able to mount the sigma 18-35 f1.8 (crop) or the FF 35mm/50mm lenses....their Art line is truly amazing... there are several lenses out there with the Zeiss label that are questionable......and their sony/zeiss line is really all over the place....from terrible (24-70) to excellent (55 and 35).....but their outs line is great....but at a price.... personally: i have never really been a big fan of the clinical zeiss look, and the sigma Art series is very much along those lines, which is about the only bad thing one could say about them, with technical excellence comes a certain lack of character.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 8, 2015 Share #439  Posted November 8, 2015 10 years ago, i would have agreed, today any camera can be happy to be able to mount the sigma 18-35 f1.8 (crop) or the FF 35mm/50mm lenses....their Art line is truly amazing... there are several lenses out there with the Zeiss label that are questionable......and their sony/zeiss line is really all over the place....from terrible (24-70) to excellent (55 and 35).....but their outs line is great....but at a price.... personally: i have never really been a big fan of the clinical zeiss look, and the sigma Art series is very much along those lines, which is about the only bad thing one could say about them, with technical excellence comes a certain lack of character....  ... and “clinical" being defined as a "lack of uncorrected spherical aberrations" ...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted November 8, 2015 Share #440  Posted November 8, 2015 ... and “clinical" being defined as a "lack of uncorrected spherical aberrations" ...? IMO camera or sensor performance is much easier described because the specs are usually what they are but glass is just very personal....and perfect numbers for a lens don't necessarily mean i prefer it over another one.....especially with digital capture i find technically perfect lenses sometimes to appear "brittle"....i sometimes (or most of the time actually) prefer a smoother more organic look which often means non ASPH, often less coating....i don't have a problem with flaring or even ghosting....like i said, its very personal.... i really don't like CA though...in old or new lenses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.