Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #61 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Either I'm really stupid, or we're looking at different images. This is a 100% crop ... Are you sure there's not more than a little overstatement going on here, George? on the contrary, you are very clever. Just look closer. It's there, everywhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Hi Paul J, Take a look here DP Review Studio Test Comparison. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #62 Posted October 30, 2015 1018 x 753 pixels. Upsample to 42 Mpx and send to a client? Perhaps not! Let's wait for a slightly better example. Not the crop here, the whole frame. If you upsample (you will have to with 24MP) it will become worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #63 Posted October 30, 2015 ..... errr....... well that's a surprise ....... I just have high standards. I need to. You might be surprised how friendly I am in person. Internet is not good for that. ..... errr....... well that's a surprise ....... Anyway it entirely depends what the end use of these images is going to be ....... I bet that as prints there would be no difference....... When I printed A2 M246 test images at ISO's from base to 12500 iso it was almost impossible to tell them apart even though at 100% on a monitor there was clearly a difference. When we all have wall sized ultra HD TV sets and want to view from close up it might be an issue ...... but that day is a way in the future yet ..... Crappy but passable does not reflect who I am or what I do and I have a lot of experience in the business to know that is going to cause problems. Take it or leave it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #64 Posted October 30, 2015 Very informative review, thank you for sharing this. I was wondering how a wide prime would fare, by way of comparison. His summary was: I think we need to remember that the the dpreview comparison is done at the 90mm, which according to the above review is the weakest focal length for this lens (for the corners) and of course this makes the lens look less good than a prime at its optimal aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #65 Posted October 30, 2015 I think we need to remember that the the dpreview comparison is done at the 90mm, which according to the above review is the weakest focal length for this lens (for the corners) and of course this makes the lens look less good than a prime at its optimal aperture. Yes, I read Ming Thein has said his copy suffered from bad focus shift at the 90 end and I wonder if this it. I hope this isn't in spec. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesL Posted October 30, 2015 Share #66 Posted October 30, 2015 Keep in mind that the light must have been dim: this is ISO 100 at 1/5 second, yet in Raw Therapee I raised exposure 1.05 stop, probably making the scene look brighter than it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam80 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #67 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, I read Ming Thein has said his copy suffered from bad focus shift at the 90 end and I wonder if this it. I hope this isn't in spec. I can believe that.. even at 90 and f4 that picture should be in focus, not sharp as a prime but in focus which it isn't. There has to be something wrong with auto focus at that focal length with that lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #68 Posted October 30, 2015 I can believe that.. even at 90 and f4 that picture should be in focus, not sharp as a prime but in focus which it isn't. There has to be something wrong with auto focus at that focal length with that lens If you are talking for the dpreview image, I believe it is taken at f5.6 and it looks in focus in the middle. But the edges are soft, the PcMag review implies that at 90mm and f4/ f5.6 the corners resolve around 1400-1500 lines which is on the weak side. Clarity weakens at 90mm. At f/4 the lens shows just 1,980 lines, with edges that drop to 1,422 lines. There's modest improvement at f/5.6, but the lens is at its best at 90mm when set to f/8. It shows 2,030 lines on the center-weighted tests, with edges that approach 1,900 lines. So if dpreview had used f8 at 90mm or they had used 50mm as the focal length it would have been a different result. Basically we see the weakest setting of the lens in the dpreview. The 50mm setting is just shy of halfway through the zoom range, and it's where the lens shows its best overall image quality. At f/3.6 it manages 2,429 lines on a center-weighted sharpness test, with superb center sharpness and excellent marks at the mid parts and edges of the frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #69 Posted October 30, 2015 actually the crop of the coloured thread spools in the first post is near the centre and is about the same sharpness, or lack thereof, from the foliage which is the corner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam80 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #70 Posted October 30, 2015 I'm sorry I was just throwing numbers out there not having read the review in question and based on my limited knowledge of the new system. I was only commenting about the focus because to me it looks like something is wrong, the picture does not look sharp anywhere imo. I would love to see a picture with the same settings but using manual focus.. If it still looks like this then there's a much bigger problem, my guess is that it will focus better manually and produce a sharper image which would mean that auto focus at 90 is not functioning properly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam80 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #71 Posted October 30, 2015 actually the crop of the coloured thread spools in the first post is near the centre and is about the same sharpness, or lack thereof, from the foliage which is the corner. Yes! Same thing, NOT in focus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam80 Posted October 30, 2015 Share #72 Posted October 30, 2015 I just read Ming Thein's review, he found the same thing as someone mentioned earlier. "Optically, it’s also quite solid. Despite the number of elements, one has to try very hard to make the lens flare. The wide end is outright impressive: microcontrast is good and resolving power is high across the frame at all apertures; there is almost no improvement from f2.8 to f8. The telephoto end is a very mixed bag. I experienced serious forward focus shift when stopping down, resulting in much softer images than expected (not reflected on the top panel info). This does not help matters because though the centre is strong at f4, you really need to stop down to bring the corners to match. In addition, the telephoto end somewhat lacks bite – I suspect this has something to do with the number of elements. I can only hope this behaviour is attributable to the lens being a preproduction unit. Otherwise, there was little lateral or longitudinal chromatic aberration (software correction, perhaps?), and mostly smooth out of focus areas" I hope it's only an issue with preproduction models as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 30, 2015 Share #73 Posted October 30, 2015 Leica are not prone to exaggeration when it comes to their optics ...... ...... 'This completely new design with internal focusing and integrated optical image stabilisation is impressive with its excellent imaging performance at distances from 30 cm to infinity, both at maximum aperture and stopped down. A total of 18 elements in six moving groups are employed to achieve the outstanding optical per formance of this lens. In addition to four aspherical elements, the design of this lens also features eleven elements made from glasses with anomalous partial dispersion for the correction of chromatic aberrations. The universal capabilities of this lens are underlined by homogeneous imaging performance at all focal lengths and distance settings.' ........ so either they are deluded for once or there is some other mischief afoot ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 30, 2015 Share #74 Posted October 30, 2015 I can believe that.. even at 90 and f4 that picture should be in focus, not sharp as a prime but in focus which it isn't. There has to be something wrong with auto focus at that focal length with that lens I've not really looked at the dPreview images - but there have been so many instances of images in those tests which are simply out of focus - not just with Leica. Not criticising, I'm very well aware how hard this stuff is to do properly (although choosing 90mm on a zoom seems really odd - why didn't they put a 50 'lux on and have done with it?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted October 30, 2015 Share #75 Posted October 30, 2015 Not in reply to anyone in particular: About the lens, I'm enclined to say: So what do you know? The zoom is softer on the long end than it is in the middle of the range. Who'd have thought ... There's marketing speak, there's some Leica Magic and there's the harsh optical reality. Heck, from what I hear even the €10.000 30-90 S is supposedly softer on the longer side of the range. But the image circle of that lens is 54mm, so who knows what it gives in the corners at so called FF? I'm beginning to think this camera might be interesting for S lens owners. Kind of like an Otus with AF, auto diaphragm which is also wheather sealed. Though no S lens is as "fast" as a f1.4 Otus, DOF-wise I would not mind to use an prime S lens wide open on 2.5, 2.8 or 3.5. I bet the S lenses would do just fine on a 100 MP 24x36 sensor, the future looks bright for S lens owners. All, IMHO, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 31, 2015 Share #76 Posted October 31, 2015 Ok, I went over to the DPReview site and read it. I found it odd that the reviewer with a claimed PhD in some sort of science admitted that the lens was in focus and they were sure about that. And, that they saw the problems with out of focus images. Then, why didn't they go further and determine whether it was a lens problem, a sensor alignment problem, or just a crappy lens or sensor that wasn't able to resolve? Why just keep going on testing? Once, you see a problem in your testing why not plop a 50mm Leica Summilux on it and a couple of adaptors and find out how the camera resolves and then, be able to factor out where the problem resides. These guys are a couple blocks away from Glazers Camera and have access to anything Leica they want. Just don't understand what their agenda is. Testing a new camera involves a little thought about your own testing procedure. As in, control your variables. Wouldn't a guy with a PhD know something about the scientific method before he just cuts something like this article loose into the ether of the great internet vacuum? These guys have done this before. Not the most scientific group, for sure. And, I'm not defending Leica or the SL. Just, frankly saying that the review created more questions than it gave us answers about this camera. Rick ps If, I turned something in like this for my doctorate thesis I'd have been flunked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 31, 2015 Share #77 Posted October 31, 2015 Ok, I went over to the DPReview site and read it. I found it odd that the reviewer with a claimed PhD in some sort of science admitted that the lens was in focus and they were sure about that. And, that they saw the problems with out of focus images. Then, why didn't they go further and determine whether it was a lens problem, a sensor alignment problem, or just a crappy lens or sensor that wasn't able to resolve? Why just keep going on testing? Once, you see a problem in your testing why not plop a 50mm Leica Summilux on it and a couple of adaptors and find out how the camera resolves and then, be able to factor out where the problem resides. These guys are a couple blocks away from Glazers Camera and have access to anything Leica they want. Just don't understand what their agenda is. Testing a new camera involves a little thought about your own testing procedure. As in, control your variables. Wouldn't a guy with a PhD know something about the scientific method before he just cuts something like this article loose into the ether of the great internet vacuum? These guys have done this before. Not the most scientific group, for sure. And, I'm not defending Leica or the SL. Just, frankly saying that the review created more questions than it gave us answers about this camera. Rick ps If, I turned something in like this for my doctorate thesis I'd have been flunked. i got to test the lens and Sl and my experience was different, no focus issues at all...i have no clue what happened over there.... but i don't think it is fair to blame them for messing up a test...these guys do this all day long, it makes no sense to put a different lens on it, this is the kit leica send, that is what they will test....if it does not perform, well its not their fault......they have no agenda, maybe the copy they got was just off somehow....and if that is the case, that is what they should report.... leica is absolutely in their right to have the SL re-tested with another kit.....dpreview has done this before....they even re-test if firmware fixes an obvious issue (like the banding going in with the SL and Q)....i would not be surprised if we see another test done in the near future..... again: i don't see why preview should have an agenda? amazon sells leica.....and in the big picture all these camera sales are nothing compared to mid-range camera sales.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 31, 2015 Share #78 Posted October 31, 2015 I think they just churn stuff out, and don't really think about what they're doing too much. I certainly think they're more interested in finding a problem (we ran our test and look what happened) than working out why. I just don't find their stuff very informative. It's always given the impression of being half-assed and once over lightly. Once I've used gear they've tested, I find they're basically wrong or irrelevant to the way I use my gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 31, 2015 Share #79 Posted October 31, 2015 No. By agenda I don't mean anti-Leica or pro-Sony. I meant that they are named a review site, but they don't seem to do much but compare and do little thinking on their own. How can you take any of the rankings or comparisons with any weight if, they don't vet their own tests? They knew something was not right, they stated it, if you wade through the comment section (which was painful), yet they went ahead and published the results anyway without determining if they were valid. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismuc Posted October 31, 2015 Share #80 Posted October 31, 2015 Guys & Leica fanboys, stop the moaning and excuses. This lens was provided by Leica for the test so one can assume it was selected by Leica for the test and had the best possible resolution ... it's just not better (at the long end ... and what about 5.5 stops (!) vignetting at open aperture at the short end?). And resolution, dynamic range, high iso/shadow recovery noise and banding issues do not make the sensor class leading at all. So what's left of the SL: A great EVF and presumingly a good AF system in a huge camera that lacks an ergonomic hand grip. Is this enough to establish a completely new camera system? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.