scott kirkpatrick Posted November 3, 2015 Share #101 Posted November 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yup, you are right. So what! I have been there, done it, got the T-shirt, used the APO-Telyt-R 280/4 with APO-Extender-R 1.4x or 2x or both on a very sturdy tripod and a higher resolution camera than the M240. That gives a bit more detail than the setup you have described! My point here was a bit different, namely capturing the stars around the Moon which you don't get to see when the Moon is bright. I had the same experience recently on the night of the red moon. Left the camera and lens (also the APO-Telyt 280/4) out all night on a tripod to keep it cold, and used 16 MPx of Micro 4/3 on my little Olympus M-5vII to put the pixels where the moon was. The spots that I saw on the resulting images were also in other pictures seen that night, so I concluded that they really were stars. scott 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Hi scott kirkpatrick, Take a look here Enough is enough.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted November 3, 2015 Share #102 Posted November 3, 2015 Nice example of why one should use a really long lens for a moon shot,,,, Horses for courses. Nice example of missing the point. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 3, 2015 Share #103 Posted November 3, 2015 I had the same experience recently on the night of the red moon. Left the camera and lens (also the APO-Telyt 280/4) out all night on a tripod to keep it cold, and used 16 MPx of Micro 4/3 on my little Olympus M-5vII to put the pixels where the moon was. The spots that I saw on the resulting images were also in other pictures seen that night, so I concluded that they really were stars. scott Thank you scott. I came to the same conclusion, those are stars, not noise. One can see the noise by increasing exposure by 3 to 5 stops in post. My A7r2 turns out to behave, I would say, extremely well with regards to noise. BTW, I once took a picture of the Sun through dense smoke from a forest fire with the APO-R 180/3.4. And lo and behold on close inspection I noticed three spots that looked like Sunspots. Too good to be true? No! I compared with the daily Sunspot Almanac for that day, and indeed the Sun had exactly 3 spots in those places where I had found them. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/191326-smoke-sunset-migrating-cranes/?hl=sunspots&do=findComment&comment=2156489 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2015 Share #104 Posted November 3, 2015 Nice example of missing the point.Maybe. I personally dislike framing wide and cropping down excessively. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 3, 2015 Share #105 Posted November 3, 2015 +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 3, 2015 Share #106 Posted November 3, 2015 Maybe. I personally dislike framing wide and cropping down excessively. I prefer not to crop at all (I will usually only do it to straighten horizons) but this has nothing to do with the point that K-H was making. I don't know whether you do this kind of obfuscation on purpose (perhaps to counter what you perceive as an implied criticism of a Leica product – in this case, K-H demonstrating how useful IBIS is, a feature that the SL lacks) or whether you just can't help it? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 3, 2015 Share #107 Posted November 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maybe. I personally dislike framing wide and cropping down excessively. I do too, and I think this is the case when using T lenses on the SL. The more MP, the less "excessive" the crop. Thanks for confirming my point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 5, 2015 Share #108 Posted November 5, 2015 I prefer not to crop at all (I will usually only do it to straighten horizons) but this has nothing to do with the point that K-H was making. I don't know whether you do this kind of obfuscation on purpose (perhaps to counter what you perceive as an implied criticism of a Leica product – in this case, K-H demonstrating how useful IBIS is, a feature that the SL lacks) or whether you just can't help it? Where did I say I disliked IBIS (or KH for that matter)? My remark was @ Cat who was going on about the "advantage" of having tons of megapixels. Please bark up the right tree. Nice example of one of the many reasons megapixels are useful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted November 5, 2015 Share #109 Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) With both the M and Q on the side of Leica, SPECTRE chooses Sony. Edited November 5, 2015 by rramesh 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted November 5, 2015 Share #110 Posted November 5, 2015 I don't think that's really accurate, Rick. The instant this camera was released, many disappointed M owners piled in pouring ill-conceived scorn on the camera; followed by what appeared to be trolls. I have no problem at all with criticism based on fact (I think my posting record shows that I have no trouble pointing out to Leica they don't live up to my expectations), but what has gone on here was generally baseless and really damaging for an important new release for the company. For those of us not looking for a new M, and who have been waiting for a camera such as this for years, it has been really quite distracting trying to cut through the vitriol to get to the facts. I'm not surprised that some here aren't interested in this camera; some don't have a digital Leica at all (James?) and aren't in the market. Why are they here? The fact that some are here, despite their lack of interest does show how important this camera potentially is (better than not being talked about), but don't be surprised if some call other forum members on pretty unhelpful posting. Criticism, it isn't; less than considered, informative posting typical of this forum, it is. Personally th SL interests me as a camera that can pick up the tasks that my M system is not suited to. Wider than 28mm, longer than 90mm, fast autofocus with a standard zoom lens. The SL covers all of those things for which my M-E, M Monochrom and X113 do not cover well. Only problem is that those are not things I need most of the time, and so I'm just not willing to spend Leica money when. cheap Nikon, Canon or Sony will do almost as well and weigh a whole lot less. For my personal photography I use the M and X, but for casual family travel and certain event projects a DSLR remains the right tool for the job, and while the SL is (for me) better than an entry-level full-frame DSLR, it's not enough better to justify the cost and weight. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #111 Posted November 5, 2015 That's an entirely valid point of view, and personal choice. However, as the SL body is priced at the same price as a Monochrom, and the lens pretty much in the middle of the Leica lens price bracket, the price wasn't a surprise - I certainly had to think whether or not I can justify it (I can't really, but decided to buy it anyway). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 5, 2015 Share #112 Posted November 5, 2015 However, as the SL body is priced at the same price as a Monochrom, and the lens pretty much in the middle of the Leica lens price bracket, the price wasn't a surprise For years Leica said that they simply couldn't compete in the DSLR sector - their price point would be too high for the comparable products in the market. Presumably they didn't think that anyone would pay a premium for the Leica badge over the top end Nikon and Canon models, regardless of the opportunity to use Leica glass. After all Leica is all about the glass. Maybe part of the reasoning was the ability to offer AF lenses - maybe difficult back then but now they have that capability in partnership with Panasonic. However, haven't they just gone head to head with the top end DSLR's albeit with a different type of viewfinder (and that Sony camera!). Whether they can compete now remains to be seen. I'm sure Sony won't take too long before they trump the Leica EVF, for example. Leica really need to concentrate on bringing a range of dedicated SL lenses to market - lenses which will make people want to buy the SL in order to be able to use them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 5, 2015 Share #113 Posted November 5, 2015 I welcome Leica's entry with the SL as it gives us more choices. The market will decide whether it lasts. In the last 4 years I have acquired 7 R-lenses for use on other companies' cameras. Great lenses, all of them, IMHO. I'll wait to see what functionalities the Leica R adapter will have. Also, what truly independent reviewers will find before forming a definitive opinion. A next generation SL hopefully is forthcoming in a few years. By then we should have a clearer picture, also with regards to how this particular market shapes up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #114 Posted November 5, 2015 Meanwhile, I'm expecting to have a wonderful time taking pictures with my M lenses on the SL, while others stress over the minutiae of corner performance. I've taken a leaf out of your book, K-H. You have had a very fine time taking lovely images with your Heath Robinson concoctions using the Sony cameras the rest of us hated for various reasons. If I have fun with my camera (I wonder if it will arrive before Christmas - I might wrap it), I'll share any worthy or interesting pictures. Cheers John 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 5, 2015 Share #115 Posted November 5, 2015 Meanwhile, I'm expecting to have a wonderful time taking pictures with my M lenses on the SL, while others stress over the minutiae of corner performance. I've taken a leaf out of your book, K-H. You have had a very fine time taking lovely images with your Heath Robinson concoctions using the Sony cameras the rest of us hated for various reasons. If I have fun with my camera (I wonder if it will arrive before Christmas - I might wrap it), I'll share any worthy or interesting pictures. Cheers John Thanks John. I have no doubt you'll have a fabulous time with the Sl and your lenses. Almost all of them, if not all, including your Ms, also do pretty well on cameras I own. I think you have chosen wisely with regards to your lenses. As I have said before, I am looking forward to your images! TIA. Good luck! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 5, 2015 Share #116 Posted November 5, 2015 No pressure, then! Thank you for your kind words, Karl-Heinz. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 5, 2015 Share #117 Posted November 5, 2015 No pressure, then! Thank you for your kind words, Karl-Heinz. OT slightly, but I can't work out which thread to go for, so : Do you ever do any macro stuff John? I can imagine the R 60mm 2.8 Macro Elmar doing really well on the SL. This is pure guesswork but judging by the way it works on the M it could be great fun. Macro is something I do very occasionally and light-heartedly, it's not something I can ever take very seriously, but it can still be very enjoyable and satisfying and I really shouldn't be so snooty about it. I think the SL and the 60 (or 100, but there's just something so down-to-earth and sweet about the 60) could be hugely effective and easy to use. Tailor-made, in fact. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
likalar Posted November 5, 2015 Share #118 Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I just found this thread, and have to admit I had not even heard of the Leica SL until a few minutes ago. So, before I even see it or see a photo of it, or hold it or use it, I decided to hate it, just because I can. So there, SL (Stupid Leica)! Larry edit: okay, just kidding. I want one, now that there's all this fuss. ;-) Edited November 5, 2015 by likalar 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 6, 2015 Share #119 Posted November 6, 2015 OT slightly, but I can't work out which thread to go for, so : Do you ever do any macro stuff John? I can imagine the R 60mm 2.8 Macro Elmar doing really well on the SL. This is pure guesswork but judging by the way it works on the M it could be great fun. Macro is something I do very occasionally and light-heartedly, it's not something I can ever take very seriously, but it can still be very enjoyable and satisfying and I really shouldn't be so snooty about it. I think the SL and the 60 (or 100, but there's just something so down-to-earth and sweet about the 60) could be hugely effective and easy to use. Tailor-made, in fact. I do from time to time. I have the macro adapter for the 90 Macro-Elmar (not the lens, just the adapter). I got when I had the T after Jono pointed out you could use it with any M lens. I've played with the Noctilux and other lenses. It's quite fun, though it doesn't achieve 1:1. Macro is something I will look further at. Cheers John 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 6, 2015 Share #120 Posted November 6, 2015 I prefer not to crop at all (I will usually only do it to straighten horizons) but this has nothing to do with the point that K-H was making. I don't know whether you do this kind of obfuscation on purpose (perhaps to counter what you perceive as an implied criticism of a Leica product – in this case, K-H demonstrating how useful IBIS is, a feature that the SL lacks) or whether you just can't help it? The SL lacks IBIS, but its lens (lenses, when they introduce the 90-280 and 50) do support OIS, which provides the same capability although not for just any lens you throw on the body. Thats one one of the reasons I decided to buy the 24-90 as well as the body: IS is very handy to extend hand-hold-ability in less than optimum light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.