dkCambridgeshire Posted October 31, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 31, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Damien Demolder's online BJP comment regarding the SL's DR: "What will be most appreciated will be the dynamic range though. Both shadows and highlights are full of detail that is ready to be drawn-in to create moderate, realistic images where others will be forced to display a more heavy form of contrast" I await his full review. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 31, 2015 Posted October 31, 2015 Hi dkCambridgeshire, Take a look here Dynamic range / ISO invariance: Sony a7r II vs. Leica SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
psss Posted October 31, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 31, 2015 Damien Demolder's online BJP comment regarding the SL's DR: "What will be most appreciated will be the dynamic range though. Both shadows and highlights are full of detail that is ready to be drawn-in to create moderate, realistic images where others will be forced to display a more heavy form of contrast" I await his full review. dunk I saw the same comment and it made me laugh....it's a little like saying: "photos made with this camera will look great!" now I understand.....why appreciate a review that not only states objective facts but provides raw files to back up these facts or to let everybody form their own opinion...., i can almost smell what this BJP review will be like: some guy in tweed roaming the landscape or maybe a county fair waxing poetic about Leica.....no facts, no data.....don't get me wrong I can appreciate a "review" like that as much as anyone but I would prefer to call it description of an experience..... if I am interested in a camera, I want to see what it can and can't do....the rest I will experience myself.... but by the time this review comes out I will hopefully already have mine and and maybe returned it already if putting up with certain things proves too much..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 1, 2015 Share #23 Posted November 1, 2015 I saw the same comment and it made me laugh....it's a little like saying: "photos made with this camera will look great!" now I understand.....why appreciate a review that not only states objective facts but provides raw files to back up these facts or to let everybody form their own opinion...., i can almost smell what this BJP review will be like: some guy in tweed roaming the landscape or maybe a county fair waxing poetic about Leica.....no facts, no data.....don't get me wrong I can appreciate a "review" like that as much as anyone but I would prefer to call it description of an experience..... if I am interested in a camera, I want to see what it can and can't do....the rest I will experience myself.... but by the time this review comes out I will hopefully already have mine and and maybe returned it already if putting up with certain things proves too much..... I doubt very much that DD's review will be like your prediction; I spoke with him several times before, during, and after one of his street photography presentations last April; he was very approachable and very knowledgeable … and he was not dressed in tweeds … it was on a Sunday and he wore denim jeans. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 1, 2015 Share #24 Posted November 1, 2015 Why compare the SL to the Sony? At over $7000 it should double the performance the the Sony. I guess it will depend on me winning the lottery or donating more blood at the blood bank but that's another story. It's a Leica, just the name says it all - period! Never heard of diminishing returns? like HiFi, cars, and anything else made by humans that shows performance, the last percent will multiply the price, the last tenth of a percent again, and it may not even be possible to express in numbers. As to the idea behind the thread, wake me up when somebody starts comparing (large) prints... Sensor performance is but one aspect of camera quality and performance. Compare it to lens performance. Half is the design of the glass, the other half the machining of the mechanic components. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTRP Posted November 2, 2015 Share #25 Posted November 2, 2015 I saw the same comment and it made me laugh....it's a little like saying: "photos made with this camera will look great!" now I understand.....why appreciate a review that not only states objective facts but provides raw files to back up these facts or to let everybody form their own opinion...., i can almost smell what this BJP review will be like: some guy in tweed roaming the landscape or maybe a county fair waxing poetic about Leica.....no facts, no data.....don't get me wrong I can appreciate a "review" like that as much as anyone but I would prefer to call it description of an experience..... if I am interested in a camera, I want to see what it can and can't do....the rest I will experience myself.... but by the time this review comes out I will hopefully already have mine and and maybe returned it already if putting up with certain things proves too much..... I think you mean 'subjective' instead of 'objective' facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTRP Posted November 2, 2015 Share #26 Posted November 2, 2015 Never heard of diminishing returns? like HiFi, cars, and anything else made by humans that shows performance, the last percent will multiply the price, the last tenth of a percent again, and it may not even be possible to express in numbers. As to the idea behind the thread, wake me up when somebody starts comparing (large) prints... Sensor performance is but one aspect of camera quality and performance. Compare it to lens performance. Half is the design of the glass, the other half the machining of the mechanic components. Yes but it's a Leica. High price for mediocre technology that's the motto. Ancient and archaic but lineage. Leica - money is no issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 2, 2015 Share #27 Posted November 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes but it's a Leica. High price for mediocre technology that's the motto. Ancient and archaic but lineage. Leica - money is no issue. None of your posts to date offer anything meaningful or constructive. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdw Posted January 31, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 31, 2016 FWIW, in real-life usage I often pit the M 240 against the A7S and A7R2, and find the M and A7S have nice images at low / base ISOs in which I can nicely push up the shadows later with no serious issues of noise and image degradation. Not to mention, their noise is fairly pleasant. On the A7R2 (if it's not hanging or otherwise broken because of its incredibly poor build quality) I find that even base ISO images can sometimes show noise in particular areas with no real rhyme or reason, and the noise is incredibly bothersome, hard to remove noise. It's better to simply recover highlights in post than push up shadows. I don't think I've ever been more disappointed with noise performance in a camera than with the A7R2. So, eager to try my SL next week and see how it compares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 31, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 31, 2016 Whether it's +4, +5 or +6 is not that important. Those are extreme pushes. +1 to +2 is much more relevant to me. My Canons always come out looking bad in these comparisons, and yet they make amazing photos. Someone recently posted a fantastic, beautifully made mountain-top portrait, with extremes of light and shadow, made with a Canon 5D2 (with its 2009 sensor). Much of Salgado's Genesis was made with Canon cameras that would absolutely fail these tests — and yet the work is magnificent, timeless and breathtaking. I shoot weddings where there are dark suits, white dresses, in all sorts of light, and don't have to do +4, +5 or +6 corrections. Correction is typically in the -1 to +1 range, and rarely going to +2. I have a Sony A7II and its 24mp sensor is supposed to beat every Canon in dynamic range and in push-ability, and yet that makes no difference in my photos. It might be an incidental benefit in case I have a colossal exposure failure, but it's not a reason to own the camera. I recognize that there are some photographers in the world who genuinely benefit from +4, +5 or +6 stop corrections. There are all kinds of photography. I question the test because "pulling up the shadows" that much is not important for the vast majority of photography, and yet is put forth as something that photographers should be really concerned about when choosing cameras. It's a bit like the classic Henny Youngman joke where a guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doctor, when I do this it hurts". The doctor's wise reply is "Then don't do that!" On DPR, the joke would be, "DPR, when I push my pics 4 stops I see banding". My response would be "Then don't push 4 stops!". But on DPR it feels like the response is always "Then buy a camera with a Sony sensor!" I just got to say, this post is about as good as it gets. +1 Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted January 31, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 31, 2016 I think that the reason that these high push tests are potentially relevant is that in some cases you want to underexposed to preserve highlight detail (eg, skies) and then recover your foreground material. It it is particularly important to be able to do this on a Sony when using their lossy raw compression, slightly less so on the SL when highlight clipping looks less bad as they don't compres raw in the same way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.