psss Posted October 29, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) i love how some people pick and choose some reviews over others to support some idea they have.... i honestly don't care much about any reviews and i definitely would never buy anything based on what some review says about something.... the 3 sony lenses i mentioned have seen some of the best reviews all around and my experiences with 2 of them give me no reason to doubt any of these glowing reviews.... as i mentioned before, the reason i really trust dpreview is simply that their camera comparison tool is by far the best and simplest way to quickly get an idea what a camera can and probably can't do.....raw, jpeg, all iso....of course nothing is perfect and i would never buy a camera or lens based on it.....and they have raw files for download in their real world gallery...what more can we ask for..... i also said that my own brief experience with the 24-90 on the SL body and the raw files i have here show no signs of softness.....banding yes, softness no.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Hi psss, Take a look here DP Review Studio Test Comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted October 29, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 29, 2015 ... SL is resized to the same as a7r II. .... How, exactly, was this done? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted October 29, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 29, 2015 You are shure about the Sony 1,4/35 and the macro 90mm, realy? Look at this: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests You must be lucky.... MArtin As the lens rental blog says The 55mm f/1.8 is really a good lens, very sharp and consistently made. The 90 mm f/2.8 is a decent lens, reasonably sharp, but there seems to be a fair bit of copy-to-copy variation in overall sharpness. Personally my copy of the FE90/2.8 macro shows outstanding sharpness across the frame even when used for landscape work. The problem with the Sony/Zeiss lenses is getting a good copy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deliberate1 Posted October 29, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 29, 2015 I have money in my pocket to "upgrade" from my four year old M9. My new hobby is seeking out and pouring over reviews of Leica alternative offerings now that I have more specific requirements in mind. It is my impression that virtually every new Leica body is greeted with great fanfare, only to be scrutinized for its true strengths and weaknesses once the shine wears off - and especially when a new iteration is released. And the cycle begins anew. But this SL. whether justified or not, just can not seem to get a honeymoon pass, even from us Leicaphiles. Some already speak of an "SL2." The King is dead. Long live the King. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 29, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 29, 2015 i don't think any product should get a "pass" regardless of who makes it and honest critique keeps companies on their toes.... i think the SL can definitely be a valid solution and i am getting closer to ordering one....but it makes no sense to make claims and "defend a brand" when there are certain realities that just don't go away......and issues that need to be resolved..... the Sl is not a small camera but it is not as huge and heavy as some put it....the 24-90 is large and heavy but it is a great range zoom and optical laws apply and some things can't be made smaller or lighter.... for someone with existing M lenses i think it is a very good option....correction should be better then with sony bodies (but that is obviously just a software tweak away for sony or adobe) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 29, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 29, 2015 How, exactly, was this done? this. BTW- why would you resize the smaller image, shouldn't you do the opposite? Also how is sharpness applied by Sony vs Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deliberate1 Posted October 29, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) ....correction should be better then with sony bodies (but that is obviously just a software tweak away for sony or adobe) My reading suggests that the problem of M lenses (under 50mm) is the thickness of the sensor glass, not software design. Hence, the $500 Kolari mod, which may then throw off native lenses. Perhaps you are referring to some other non-native phenomenon? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share #28 Posted October 29, 2015 How, exactly, was this done? I first did a straight develop from Lightroom at the pixel height of 7952px (the Sony's height) @ 300dpi. I was so shocked by the results I spent half an hour trying several different methods from Capture One, ACR, and Photoshop Image Size (Bicubic + USM, Bicubic Sharper). The results remained very similar. Viewing the native file with no resize, you can see the image is this soft anyway. You can download the raw files from dpreview and try yourself if you, like me at first, don't believe it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 29, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 29, 2015 Not sure how Sony deals with sharpness, but I took the raw SL image and applied my standard Leica M240 settings (in LR) and the results are much closer. It may be as simple as the way Sony applies sharpness vs Leica. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252291-dp-review-studio-test-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=2916586'>More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 29, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 29, 2015 and the same M240 setting applied to the thread. To me the Sony examples look overly sharpened. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252291-dp-review-studio-test-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=2916599'>More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 29, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 29, 2015 I first did a straight develop from Lightroom at the pixel height of 7952px (the Sony's height) @ 300dpi. This is part of the issue, to compare the two do the opposite. Resize the Sony image. The other issue is that Leica gives us a RAW image with no sharpness applied...isnt that a good thing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share #32 Posted October 29, 2015 This is part of the issue, to compare the two do the opposite. Resize the Sony image. The other issue is that Leica gives us a RAW image with no sharpness applied...isnt that a good thing? No, it is not the issue. The test is to see how 24MP compares with 40MP. Commercially, when you need bigger output, you need to upsample file size, not downsample. The less you need to do it, the better. There is no point in a down sampling test. As for the sharpening, your heavy handed approach is 1) not an solution 2) it does not bring it "much closer". It looks terrible when sharpness is "similar". The tones are chopped, the noise is worse, the structures are damaged, the colour is affected, and artefacts are introduced and pronounced. Applying that much sharpening to an image of skin will ruin the tone and texture, making the person look like plastic. Applying to this test image selectively like this, the foliage may look moderately better, but look elsewhere in the file, to the text in the centre - totally unacceptable. 24-42 MP is a big leap up and interpolation is interpolation. It can not be avoided Commercially you are even going to have to upsample more from here, and it is going to make things worse. What is worse is when a client needs to upsample your already finished image for what ever reason. It means it enlarges your introduced artefacts. Then there is client side rip on top introducing further sharpening. Minimum sharpening is a must. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 29, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 29, 2015 Any 24Mp image upsampled to 40Mp is going to look poor compared to a native 40Mp image. I've lost track of this argument. Edit: and I didn't think that's the point DPreview were making either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted October 29, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 29, 2015 No, it is not the issue. The test is to see how 24MP compares with 40MP. Wasn't aware that was the point of your test...it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a test to know the answer to this though. 40MP is better. If you need 40MP, this camera isn't for you. Regrading the sharpness difference, I disagree. Sony applies too much sharpness, which is not a good thing. I would rather have control of the sharpness applied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted October 29, 2015 Wasn't aware that was the point of your test...it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a test to know the answer to this though. 40MP is better. If you need 40MP, this camera isn't for you. Regrading the sharpness difference, I disagree. Sony applies too much sharpness, which is not a good thing. I would rather have control of the sharpness applied. Any 24Mp image upsampled to 40Mp is going to look poor compared to a native 40Mp image. I've lost track of this argument. Edit: and I didn't think that's the point DPreview were making either. Even compared with other 24MP cameras, Sony a7 II, Nikon D750, the result is not much better for the Leica, see for your self. Poor performance at a significantly more premium price does not add up. I compare with the 40MP a7r II because for less than half the cost you can get a more capable camera, and supersampling gives a much better result at 24MP than the SL and room for more when you need it. This camera is aimed at the commercial market. Commercially you will have to upsample even more than 40MP. As for Sony doing more sharpening, this is not really true. Of corse, there may be some. Use heavy handed sharpening to get a more similar result in the foliage and you will see how it destroys other areas of the file like the type in the centre. The Sony, which you say is sharpened, looks natural in comparison. What you are seeing is a better lens and a better sensor with more resolution. The SL does not compete well even if the price was the same - Wether that is from the camera used, an error in test procedure, or performance, is not yet certain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 29, 2015 Share #36 Posted October 29, 2015 The whole comparison business is complete b*llocks and you can prove whatever you like depending on how you do it. The only way you will find if it lives up to YOUR expectations is to buy,steal or borrow it and use it for several days under varied conditions and process the images yourself. These 'tests' are not 'real world' at all and the Dpreview snaps are a pretty uninspiring selection that I would personally have binned. Every camera can take crap photos no matter how wonderful it is. There is far more to camera ownership than just DPreview benchmark figures ........ and anyone buying on these alone is a fool. A Leica SL will be in the Thighslapper testlabs in a few weeks and if it passes muster I will keep it ..... otherwise it will go the way of the Sony A7 whose extra megapixels did not make up for the miserable experience of using it...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 29, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 29, 2015 Well put! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewolfs Posted October 29, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 29, 2015 If you up sampled the test is void. You should have down sampled. It will be more of an apples to apples comparison. You can't expect the images to look similar when up sampling something that doesn't have the details to begin. Looking at DPR site the SL still seems to have less detail than about everything else which makes me think their test is potentially faulty (or things are really bad). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share #39 Posted October 29, 2015 If you up sampled the test is void. You should have down sampled. It will be more of an apples to apples comparison. You can't expect the images to look similar when up sampling something that doesn't have the details to begin. Looking at DPR site the SL still seems to have less detail than about everything else which makes me think their test is potentially faulty (or things are really bad). No, the test is not void, at all, for reasons I've already stated. But since you claim it's void, here is the same process, with the Sony down sampled to the SL's 24MP. Supersampling a 42MP file to 24MP actually makes the image quality better. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252291-dp-review-studio-test-comparison/?do=findComment&comment=2916791'>More sharing options...
vikasmg Posted October 29, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 29, 2015 The zoom example is so bad I wonder if they got the focus incorrect - it doesn't make sense. You would think they noticed this and tried again to ensure the test was correct but who knows. Leaving IS on while doing this is highly possible. They could have screwed up. Regardless, having owned Nikons 24-70mm f/2.8 I have no intent of ever owning a zoom like this again. They are large and not fun to hold all day. The banding seems odd. I wondered about that as well (the focusing that is) because the Q images seem better than the SL versions with a very similar sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.