dkCambridgeshire Posted November 16, 2015 Share #121 Posted November 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Wilson I completely agree with you . . . . and now I know why! I wrote a long article about the Q for LFI magazine - very specific word count requirements for the layout which I adhered to magnificently. . . . . . When it came out I read it and though - WOW am I that pretentious? Did I say that? Surely I didn't write that? ........ and when I compared the text I'd sent in, they had, indeed, added lots of long words and completely destroyed any rhythm my poor writing style manages . . . and removed anything even slightly resembling a joke. I remonstrated, and it was explained to me. If you write for LFI in English, then they translate it to German for the German edition (fair do's I'd say - no complaints). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Then they translate it back to English for the English edition (WTF) . . . and they have a problem, which is that German takes up quite a lot more space than English, so to fill in the bits between the snapshots they need more text - so they sprinkle it with long words and voila - pretentiousness. Of course, this is also true for articles written in German. And that's why I also stopped subscribing to LFI; I wrestled with the syrupy text; biting my lip but sometimes uttering my expletive laden thoughts. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Hi dkCambridgeshire, Take a look here Questions About The Leica SL? Please Tell!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted November 16, 2015 Share #122 Posted November 16, 2015 If you write for LFI in English, then they translate it to German for the German edition (fair do's I'd say - no complaints). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Then they translate it back to English for the English edition (WTF) . . . and they have a problem, which is that German takes up quite a lot more space than English, so to fill in the bits between the snapshots they need more text - so they sprinkle it with long words and voila - pretentiousness. Of course, this is also true for articles written in German. Same thing happened to my LFI interview a few years ago. Parts of it were translated back to English that made no sense at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 16, 2015 Share #123 Posted November 16, 2015 And that's why I also stopped subscribing to LFI; I wrestled with the syrupy text; biting my lip but sometimes uttering my expletive laden thoughts. dunk Bad enough reading what someone else wrote - it's excruciating reading what one wrote oneself! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 16, 2015 Share #124 Posted November 16, 2015 That's a torturous editing process. Anyway, I never much liked the articles although the technical ones do usually have decent information if saturated in gobbledygook. I buy an issue now and then when I am interested in the content, either pictures or feature articles. I figure that having the Leica SL issue is worth it for 6.5 euro... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 16, 2015 Share #125 Posted November 16, 2015 That's a torturous editing process. Anyway, I never much liked the articles although the technical ones do usually have decent information if saturated in gobbledygook. I buy an issue now and then when I am interested in the content, either pictures or feature articles. I figure that having the Leica SL issue is worth it for 6.5 euro... I don't know. I suspect I've learnt more here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgktkr Posted November 21, 2015 Share #126 Posted November 21, 2015 Andreas, Hopefully there's still a chance to get questions answered, but here's one that didn't occur to me till this morning: Has Leica done anything special in getting good spectral response from the color mosaic filters in the SL? Or is it pretty much an industry standard solution? There is some evidence they did something special in the DMR, because it had a reputation for unusually good colors. Or asked a bit differently: How good is the SL in reproducing the color of an IT8 target (e.g. https://www.silverfast.com/buyonline/en.html#targetfilter)? Does Leica take pride in the SL's ability to reproduce color? dgktkr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 21, 2015 Share #127 Posted November 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I took today pretty much identical photos with the SEM 18mm lens on the SL and M240. First the good news. The 18SEM performs fractionally better on the SL than it does on the M240, with slightly crisper edges and corners. This came as a bit of a surprise. However the not so good news is on white balance and reproduction of particularly green colours. The SL colours are not as yet as good as the M240 with greens harsher and maybe slightly too blue. I am not too worried as white balance, tint and colour reproduction are something that often is improved in early FW updates and better profiles for RAW development. For example in Capture One, I am using the Leica Q profile as the SL is not written yet. It is noticeably that ACR 9.3, which has an SL profile, is better on colours at the moment than Capture One. ACR 9.3 also has a profile for the 24-90 lens which is good. AWB is setting the colour temperature a bit lower than the M240 by around 500ºK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 21, 2015 Share #128 Posted November 21, 2015 Shoot a colourchart and make a profile? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 21, 2015 Share #129 Posted November 21, 2015 I took today pretty much identical photos with the SEM 18mm lens on the SL and M240. First the good news. The 18SEM performs fractionally better on the SL than it does on the M240, with slightly crisper edges and corners. This came as a bit of a surprise. However the not so good news is on white balance and reproduction of particularly green colours. The SL colours are not as yet as good as the M240 with greens harsher and maybe slightly too blue. I am not too worried as white balance, tint and colour reproduction are something that often is improved in early FW updates and better profiles for RAW development. For example in Capture One, I am using the Leica Q profile as the SL is not written yet. It is noticeably that ACR 9.3, which has an SL profile, is better on colours at the moment than Capture One. ACR 9.3 also has a profile for the 24-90 lens which is good. AWB is setting the colour temperature a bit lower than the M240 by around 500ºK. The current LR/ACR Adobe Standard profile looks pretty accurate to me ...... greens and reds are much more natural and saturation is generally less overall..... I was going to do a dual illuminant dng profile myself, but I think the current LR one will do for now .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted November 21, 2015 Share #130 Posted November 21, 2015 Shoot a colourchart and make a profile? Great for big blocks of color, worthless for color gradation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted November 21, 2015 Share #131 Posted November 21, 2015 Does Leica take pride in the SL's ability to reproduce color? Color gradation is a bigger question, typically does not go hand-in-hand with low noise performance at high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgktkr Posted November 21, 2015 Share #132 Posted November 21, 2015 Shoot a colourchart and make a profile? Sure, one should do that, but I wonder if a detailed answer to Doug's question (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253393-color-quality-sl-vs-dmr/) could go beyond that. Here's my understanding of how things work: At each spot on your retina, the 'color' landing there is a spectrum. Your eye decomposes that spectrum into three channels that are determined by the three sensitivities of the cones, each with its own distinct response curve. Here's where my understanding isn't so clear: if one is trying to emulate human color vision, would the ideal filters have these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#/media/File:Cones_SMJ2_E.svg) responses or these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#/media/File:CIE_1931_XYZ_Color_Matching_Functions.svg)? If the mosaic filters are not right, then I think some colors in a photo might give the same impression as in the original scene, but others wouldn't. I'm thinking that's what a good, densely sampled profile would fix. That leads into the notion of color differentiation, the ability to distinguish two slightly different colors. I believe some photographic systems do better than others. For instance, some photos I've seen seem to reproduce pure primaries red, green and blue adequately, but when it comes to reproducing fine color gradation (e.g. subtle differences in the red of rose petals or of cherries) they are unsatisfying. Doing a densely sampled (dense in color space) color profile could help fix that, but ultimately, I think, noise floors in the sensor will prevent that. Doug's observation (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253393-color-quality-sl-vs-dmr/?p=2933780) seems to support that notion. dgktkr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 21, 2015 Share #133 Posted November 21, 2015 Shoot a colourchart and make a profile? Works for LR but doesn't work for C1. C1 uses ICC profiles which are a whole different kettle of fish. The DCP profiles for LR are fixed whereas the ICC profiles seem to alter for each image. ICC generation software is very expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 21, 2015 Share #134 Posted November 21, 2015 I've been capturing with raw+JPEG enabled and all the JPEG settings are at the factory defaults. I was just looking at what I shot this morning in LR6.3 and marveling that the current LR/ACR raw processing and camera profile produces results that are very nearly identical to the JPEG output from the camera, one of the closest matches I've seen. To my eye, the standard settings produce accurate colors, presuming the white balance is correct. The AutoWB implementation has some limitations in that regard, the targeted white balance setting tool is ideal to get it spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 22, 2015 Share #135 Posted November 22, 2015 Please standardise the batteries and chargers across all systems (so far as possible). Every time a new camera, a new battery and charger. It's wasteful and annoying. At least provide for in-camera charging with a USB cable. Leica is a lens and camera maker, not a battery/charger maker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted November 22, 2015 Share #136 Posted November 22, 2015 You'd think Leica would have at least the adapters ready at launch to make the SL that much more interesting to those with R and S lens collections... Leica wants its many users out there with R lenses to start their SL experience with a shiny new SL lens, with autofocus. If the R to SL adapter was available from the start most R owners would buy the body only and be thrilled by having their cherished R lenses back in the game. The R adapter will be released when sales of SL bodies falls below a factor of manufacturing capacity. I would definitely use my R and M primes with an SL but I'm also keen to exploit the benefits of a flexible mid-range zoom with autofocus and focus following for making high quality videos. Not to mention the convenience of the 28-90 for event photography. Yesterday I was using my R8 with DMR and an APO-Telyt-R f4/400 modular. The small birds I was shooting were splashing around in a puddle; about as uncooperative as can be imagined. I really do wonder how the SL's viewfinder, with latency (detectable? spec in milliseconds?) and freezing or blacking out (which? spec in milliseconds? SD card dependent?), as well as resolution, will be useable. Is the resolution of the SL viewfinder more or less grainy than a ground glass focussing screen in an R8? Thanks. Rick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 22, 2015 Share #137 Posted November 22, 2015 Leica wants its many users out there with R lenses to start their SL experience with a shiny new SL lens, with autofocus. If the R to SL adapter was available from the start most R owners would buy the body only and be thrilled by having their cherished R lenses back in the game. The R adapter will be released when sales of SL bodies falls below a factor of manufacturing capacity. I would definitely use my R and M primes with an SL but I'm also keen to exploit the benefits of a flexible mid-range zoom with autofocus and focus following for making high quality videos. Not to mention the convenience of the 28-90 for event photography. Yesterday I was using my R8 with DMR and an APO-Telyt-R f4/400 modular. The small birds I was shooting were splashing around in a puddle; about as uncooperative as can be imagined. I really do wonder how the SL's viewfinder, with latency (detectable? spec in milliseconds?) and freezing or blacking out (which? spec in milliseconds? SD card dependent?), as well as resolution, will be useable. Is the resolution of the SL viewfinder more or less grainy than a ground glass focussing screen in an R8? Thanks. Rick. And you know that for a definite fact … do you? Sounds like pure supposition and wishful thinking. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted November 22, 2015 Share #138 Posted November 22, 2015 And you know that for a definite fact … do you? Sounds like pure supposition and wishful thinking. dunk It seems reasonable that Leica would want it's R lens owners to buy and try the new SL lenses. There's little doubt they'd enjoy them. Offering an adapter that hurts profitability is not good business sense, until it becomes good business sense when fresh sales can be driven by reaching the R die-hards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 22, 2015 Share #139 Posted November 22, 2015 It seems reasonable that Leica would want it's R lens owners to buy and try the new SL lenses. There's little doubt they'd enjoy them. Offering an adapter that hurts profitability is not good business sense, until it becomes good business sense when fresh sales can be driven by reaching the R die-hards. But using the existing Leica R to M adaptor plus the M to T adaptor will trigger the SL's R lens menu - enabling R lens owners to use the SL now - without waiting for the dedicated R to SL adaptor. The SL is not marketed just for use with the 24-90mm … and the many current SL b/o sales orders are testament to that fact. None of us knows for sure which company is making the dedicated R to SL adaptor and there are likely many reasons why it has not been made available at launch - not least of which is that Leica would hardly consider delaying launch for want of the adaptor. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted November 22, 2015 Share #140 Posted November 22, 2015 I'll be waiting for the dedicated R adapter. I might try a short stack of adapters as a demo opportunity. If not for a sales/marketing reason, what other plausible reason is there for the R adapter not being ready? I'm still keen for thoughts on my other questions above, copied below: - Yesterday I was using my R8 with DMR and an APO-Telyt-R f4/400 modular. The small birds I was shooting were splashing around in a puddle; about as uncooperative as can be imagined. I really do wonder how the SL's viewfinder, with latency (detectable? spec in milliseconds?) and freezing or blacking out (which? spec in milliseconds? SD card dependent?), as well as resolution, will be useable. - Is the resolution of the SL viewfinder more or less grainy than a ground glass focussing screen in an R8? About 10% of the bird photos I took yesterday are well focussed. Imagine trying to focus on the eye of a 2 inch tall bird that doesn't stay still for more than half a second. Sheesh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.