can the 24-90 be the best standard zoom Leica has ever produced

[erudolph]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To deflect this topic just a bit, I haven't noticed that 28-90 Lightroom profile doing much when enabled.  I'll check again.

 

snip

 

The 28-90/2.8-4.5 is also a manual focus lens, which is a lot simpler piece of machinery to construct than a fast-focusing AF system lens with optical image stabilization as well. And, btw, there is a lens correction profile for it available in Lightroom that improves its performance.

 

snip

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

To deflect this topic just a bit, I haven't noticed that 28-90 Lightroom profile doing much when enabled.  I'll check again.

 

 

I can't do much testing because I don't own a 28-90mm lens, but I have a couple of test exposures made with an example of this lens. They are of a grid (the Color Checker): at wider focal lengths, applying the LR profile reduces barrel distortion by a noticeable amount. 

[cpclee]

Speaking of profiles, when I develop a DNG in Lightroom taken with the SL, by default some standard Adobe color profile is selected.  Then there is an "Embedded Profile" I can change to.  Is this the proper behavior?  If by "embedded profile" they mean the specific profile for SL (which I assume is what it is), why is that profile not selected by default?  And to be honest the colors look less natural / too saturated when the embedded profile is selected.

 

I'm new Lightroom and have found it confusing.  I've been an Aperture user for years and much prefer that.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

In Lightroom Adobe create a basic profile for each camera. This is the standard profile. They may also create other profiles to try and match the ones a camera may make. These are made by Adobe because they have no access to the manufacturers inbuilt profiles.

 

However it's different for DNG files because these are essentially an Abobe creation. So they can read in camera profiles. This profile is stored with each raw file. This is the "embedded" profile.

 

Adobe software always defaults to the standard profile. you can choose the one you prefer and apply that as the default if you wish.

 

you can even make your own, if you have the time and could be bothered.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

Speaking of profiles, when I develop a DNG in Lightroom taken with the SL, by default some standard Adobe color profile is selected.  Then there is an "Embedded Profile" I can change to.  Is this the proper behavior?  If by "embedded profile" they mean the specific profile for SL (which I assume is what it is), why is that profile not selected by default?  And to be honest the colors look less natural / too saturated when the embedded profile is selected.

 

I'm new Lightroom and have found it confusing.  I've been an Aperture user for years and much prefer that.  

 

 

The embedded profile is the one that the DNG file has embedded in it by default from Leica. It's pretty bad ... produces cartoonish and ugly colors. (Most DNG embedded profiles are pretty bad, IMO. I've seen them from Ricoh, Pentax, and various other Leica cameras. They're generally not worth bothering with.)

 

The Adobe Standard profile for the Leica SL is the one you want to pick. It's the one Adobe developed specifically for the SL camera. It is an excellent profile and produces very good results. I've been using Lightroom a very long time now and find its image handling workflow and UI to be my favorite of what's available today. In most cases you should never need to touch anything in the Camera Calibration panel at all; I usually just hide it so that it doesn't clutter up the Develop module. Lightroom 6.3 and later has excellent defaults that do a good job with average SL exposures, and plenty of range of adjustment. 

 

Apple released the "Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 6.18" on Dec 14, 2015, with a camera calibration profile for the Leica SL as well. This allows you to process Leica SL raw files in Photos, Preview, and Aperture with a good camera calibration profile too. I've done several SL images using Photos which, for me, has most of the good image processing guts of Aperture in a much simplified (and free) package. Photos with this software produces results that are very good too, but it doesn't have the smooth workflow capabilities of Lightroom for handling a volume of files efficiently. You can download the Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 6.18 from here: 

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1855

[cpclee]

Thank you both for the excellent explanations.

 

ramarren:  My understanding is Apple is going to discontinue Aperture.  So I figured I should just switch to Lightroom once and for all. 

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you both for the excellent explanations.

 

ramarren:  My understanding is Apple is going to discontinue Aperture.  So I figured I should just switch to Lightroom once and for all. 

 

 

Apple announced that Aperture was shelved about a year ago, if I recall correctly. It is no longer available from the Mac App Store and they are no longer putting development effort into it. But it works well on OS X v10.11 and the Digital Camera Raw frameworks are shared with it and Photos so it will likely continue to work for a while yet. Photos does the same job even if it doesn't have the more professionally oriented workflow features that Aperture has. 

 

But as I said, I prefer Lightroom anyway. It's probably wise to put some time and effort into learning it. in the end, your skill in using a raw processor is much more important than the specific quality of the raw processor itself these days, and both Apple and Adobe have put a lot of effort into their raw processing software. 

[MarkP]

I imagine that if Leica, for example, were to set themselves the target of building a 24-90mm f2.8-4 zoom lens for the SL that required no digital correction at all, they probably could do. It would take a lot of scarce resources (time and expertise and, who knows, materials too) and would cost multiples of the price of the exemplary current version. Perhaps it would need to be bigger too, who knows.

 

And to what avail?

 

What advantage to a photographer would it yield?

 

 

The 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R was probably the result of exactly that attempt in the early 2000's. A shame it didn't extend to 24mm but even at 28mm there is not insignificant distortion (I own this otherwise fabulous lens). To expect, with purely optical technology, to be able to significantly improve this out to 24mm may indeed continue to be a challenge.

 

None. The lens will only be used with camera that will correct the lens deficiencies.

 

None.

[jrp]

One thing that has happened to me more than once with this lens is that people in the street have asked for their photo to be taken with it.  (I have my Leica logos masked out.) This never happened when I was packing only M lenses. Whether you think that is an advantage or disadvantage will depend on your personal taste ....

[IkarusJohn]

I take Pete's point that a lens costing this amount, from Leica, would be attractive if it was optically perfect (neutral?) and capable of being used with any camera; but is that feasible and has it ever really been practical in the digital era?

 

The lens was designed specifically for the SL. What would be the point of using it on a Canon, Nikon or Sony?  I suppose S users might want to use it cropped with an adapter, you can't use it on an M, what other system do you have in mind?  This lens is nothing like the Digilux 2 - we can assume (I hope) that Leica is committed to the SL system, and there will be further L mount cameras. They started developing the SL in 2012 (according to Jaap). That's a huge investment to dump. 

 

The 'without compromise' advertising I read as meaning Leica is taking on the Zeiss Otus range and the like. The best Leica can do, without compromising for size (I guess). It sounds like the 50 Summilux is going to be very big compared to its M mount cousins. Granted, the M lenses appear to be small, beautifully made and with few optical compromises (all the 50s and wider I have need some correction in LightRoom) - but let's be honest, they have been made for many years, and most if not all have been redesigned for digital. 

 

The SL lenses aren't designed for film and there isn't a film camera which will take them. Why quibble over digital correction?  You have to go to considerable lengths to work out what they are, and with the corrections the results are more than acceptable.  I struggle to understand a system where the corrections wouldn't be applied. At the moment, you can only use the T and SL with this mount. I imagine that will change soon enough. 

 

As an AF system, I'm very happy with the SL + 24-90 setup. I have an R tele and extender, and I can use my M mount lenses, including the 15 Distagon, which was problematic on the M, though not on the Monochrom. The zoom is a very useful addition to what I have. If I want the best result at the wide end, using a tripod etc, then I would use a prime, but I couldn't guarantee a better result.

 

After reading the Digilloyd focus shift thread, and Tim's discussions of his findings, I'm very confident and comfortable with the zoom. The only downside is its size - and that is common to any zoom of this range. Many complain about the weight - that is the least of my worries. For its size, it's surprisingly light, in the same way that for their size, the M lenses are surprisingly heavy. 

 

As a unit, I like the SL and zoom combination (considerably more than the D800 and similar Nikon lens), but for many situations, an M lens (mounted on either M or SL) is preferable.

[jaapv]

 They started developing the SL in 2012 (according to Jaap).

Quite possibly, but it is news to me...

[cpclee]

Lenses for the SL system generally cannot be expected to work on other systems -- except the T with which it shares the same mount.

 

This goes for other modern mirrorless systems too, like the Sony E or Oly OM-D. (The M is excluded.) Only their bodies can use their lenses.

 

A mirrorless camera like the SL is a "universal recipient" of lenses from other mounts. Their sensor to mount distance is made deliberately short so that with an adapter (eg. positive offset), lenses for other mounts can properly achieve infinity focus on it. So the reverse can't happen: for SL lenses to achieve properly infinity focus on those other mounts, you'd need a negative offset.

 

A universal recipient body thus means its lenses will be least mountable on other mounts.

 

SL lenses will thus never mount on the S, the M, or any system whose lenses the SL can take with an appropriate adapter.

 

So when you buy an SL, you buy without expectation of ever using its lenses in another system. Personally I'm not bothered by that. The SL body can easily serve 10-15 years of useful life (features are abundant and mature and not s whole lot of room for improvement). And I think Leica has a bright future with mirrorless. I give the SL system a better prognosis than what Leica faced when launching the R or the S. So I don't expect there won't be continuity in new SL bodies to take my lenses.

 

I take Pete's point that a lens costing this amount, from Leica, would be attractive if it was optically perfect (neutral?) and capable of being used with any camera; but is that feasible and has it ever really been practical in the digital era?

 

The lens was designed specifically for the SL. What would be the point of using it on a Canon, Nikon or Sony? I suppose S users might want to use it cropped with an adapter, you can't use it on an M, what other system do you have in mind? This lens is nothing like the Digilux 2 - we can assume (I hope) that Leica is committed to the SL system, and there will be further L mount cameras. They started developing the SL in 2012 (according to Jaap). That's a huge investment to dump.

 

The 'without compromise' advertising I read as meaning Leica is taking on the Zeiss Otus range and the like. The best Leica can do, without compromising for size (I guess). It sounds like the 50 Summilux is going to be very big compared to its M mount cousins. Granted, the M lenses appear to be small, beautifully made and with few optical compromises (all the 50s and wider I have need some correction in LightRoom) - but let's be honest, they have been made for many years, and most if not all have been redesigned for digital.

 

The SL lenses aren't designed for film and there isn't a film camera which will take them. Why quibble over digital correction? You have to go to considerable lengths to work out what they are, and with the corrections the results are more than acceptable. I struggle to understand a system where the corrections wouldn't be applied. At the moment, you can only use the T and SL with this mount. I imagine that will change soon enough.

 

As an AF system, I'm very happy with the SL + 24-90 setup. I have an R tele and extender, and I can use my M mount lenses, including the 15 Distagon, which was problematic on the M, though not on the Monochrom. The zoom is a very useful addition to what I have. If I want the best result at the wide end, using a tripod etc, then I would use a prime, but I couldn't guarantee a better result.

 

After reading the Digilloyd focus shift thread, and Tim's discussions of his findings, I'm very confident and comfortable with the zoom. The only downside is its size - and that is common to any zoom of this range. Many complain about the weight - that is the least of my worries. For its size, it's surprisingly light, in the same way that for their size, the M lenses are surprisingly heavy.

 

As a unit, I like the SL and zoom combination (considerably more than the D800 and similar Nikon lens), but for many situations, an M lens (mounted on either M or SL) is preferable.

[IkarusJohn]

Quite possibly, but it is news to me...

 

 

Sorry, Jaap. I can't recall who told me then. 

[thighslapper]

I take Pete's point that a lens costing this amount, from Leica, would be attractive if it was optically perfect (neutral?) and capable of being used with any camera; but is that feasible and has it ever really been practical in the digital era?

 

The lens was designed specifically for the SL. What would be the point of using it on a Canon, Nikon or Sony?  I suppose S users might want to use it cropped with an adapter, you can't use it on an M, what other system do you have in mind?  This lens is nothing like the Digilux 2 - we can assume (I hope) that Leica is committed to the SL system, and there will be further L mount cameras. They started developing the SL in 2012 (according to Jaap). That's a huge investment to dump. 

 

The 'without compromise' advertising I read as meaning Leica is taking on the Zeiss Otus range and the like. The best Leica can do, without compromising for size (I guess). It sounds like the 50 Summilux is going to be very big compared to its M mount cousins. Granted, the M lenses appear to be small, beautifully made and with few optical compromises (all the 50s and wider I have need some correction in LightRoom) - but let's be honest, they have been made for many years, and most if not all have been redesigned for digital. 

 

The SL lenses aren't designed for film and there isn't a film camera which will take them. Why quibble over digital correction?  You have to go to considerable lengths to work out what they are, and with the corrections the results are more than acceptable.  I struggle to understand a system where the corrections wouldn't be applied. At the moment, you can only use the T and SL with this mount. I imagine that will change soon enough. 

 

As an AF system, I'm very happy with the SL + 24-90 setup. I have an R tele and extender, and I can use my M mount lenses, including the 15 Distagon, which was problematic on the M, though not on the Monochrom. The zoom is a very useful addition to what I have. If I want the best result at the wide end, using a tripod etc, then I would use a prime, but I couldn't guarantee a better result.

 

After reading the Digilloyd focus shift thread, and Tim's discussions of his findings, I'm very confident and comfortable with the zoom. The only downside is its size - and that is common to any zoom of this range. Many complain about the weight - that is the least of my worries. For its size, it's surprisingly light, in the same way that for their size, the M lenses are surprisingly heavy. 

 

As a unit, I like the SL and zoom combination (considerably more than the D800 and similar Nikon lens), but for many situations, an M lens (mounted on either M or SL) is preferable.

 My sentiments exactly. 

 

You can only judge a camera system and components on what the manufacturer designed them to look like and do .... and they usually have sane reasons for the choices they have made.

 

The SL does exactly what Leica says it will. If that fits with what you want, then fine, if not, get something else. 

 

I get really fed up with constant carping and comparisons with completely different systems, ancient gear...... and people idiosyncratic wishes.... mostly from an armchair with only test reports as ammunition or a five minute fiddle with the camera at a dealers. 

 

The more I use this camera, the more I come to appreciate the thought Leica have put into it ...... and ultimately it is a pleasure to use (like the Q) so they must be doing something right ....

[ramarren]

 My sentiments exactly. 

 

You can only judge a camera system and components on what the manufacturer designed them to look like and do .... and they usually have sane reasons for the choices they have made.

 

The SL does exactly what Leica says it will. If that fits with what you want, then fine, if not, get something else. 

 

I get really fed up with constant carping and comparisons with completely different systems, ancient gear...... and people idiosyncratic wishes.... mostly from an armchair with only test reports as ammunition or a five minute fiddle with the camera at a dealers. 

 

The more I use this camera, the more I come to appreciate the thought Leica have put into it ...... and ultimately it is a pleasure to use (like the Q) so they must be doing something right ....

 

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

[Peter H]

........................................

The SL does exactly what Leica says it will. If that fits with what you want, then fine, if not, get something else. 

 

I get really fed up with constant carping and comparisons with completely different systems, ancient gear...... and people idiosyncratic wishes.... mostly from an armchair with only test reports as ammunition or a five minute fiddle with the camera at a dealers. 

 

...............

 

Why do you get fed up with people expressing their opinions about this camera?

 

It's as though they are expected to be 100% rational all the time (no one ever is), and overlook the fact that in many cases they have a strong attachment to Leica and are very interested in any new Leica camera. So if it disappoints them, for perhaps personal, idiosyncratic reasons, or maybe because they can't afford it, or maybe because they haven't given it a fair trial yet, or maybe because they are mistaken in some way, they express their opinions. That is all part of the overall evaluation process isn't it?

 

Some people post irrepressibly and repeatedly positive comments. That's fine. It reflects how they feel. But why require those who feel strongly enough to want to post less positive thoughts to be more restrained? 

[thighslapper]

Not this camera in particular ....... just the general generic slagging off of the sort that is more suited to the playground.

 

No problem with some cogently argued opinions that weigh up pros and cons in a measured way. Fanaticism..... for and against .... is a bit tiring. 

 

It's the 'it's rubbish because it only has 24 megapixels' or the 'I don't like it because it's 50g heavier than my grannies handbag' brigade that get me. 

 

Any way I'm now retired, getting old and entitled to be grumpy now and again ...... 

 

By some miracle the sun has come out so I might actually get a chance to use one of my Leica arsenal today for a change ......

[Peter H]

Not this camera in particular ....... just the general generic slagging off of the sort that is more suited to the playground.

 

No problem with some cogently argued opinions that weigh up pros and cons in a measured way. Fanaticism..... for and against .... is a bit tiring. 

 

It's the 'it's rubbish because it only has 24 megapixels' or the 'I don't like it because it's 50g heavier than my grannies handbag' brigade that get me. 

 

Any way I'm now retired, getting old and entitled to be grumpy now and again ...... 

 

By some miracle the sun has come out so I might actually get a chance to use one of my Leica arsenal today for a change ......

 

 

 

Well, I can go along with virtually all of that except the weight comment, because it is a legitimate reason for some people to be put off what may otherwise be a very attractive camera for them. 

 

Enjoy your shooting. I've just come back from the beach doing exactly the same thing. One lens only of course! 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

Actually, weight is also subjective. What one person might carry will vary from the next person.

 

But, for its range and use, it is not really that heavy. Yes, a lot heavier than an M, but that isn't the point. I don't really feel the SL + zoom is heavier than the equivalent Nikon I had, and it feels smaller in the hand. Haven't compared the figures as I haven't felt I need to. 

 

It hasn't been an issue for me. 

 

My point?  Just like size. If you like small and light, there are lots of M cameras and lenses to chose. Many here think the 28 Summilux is too big and too heavy - the entire SL system is not for them.  If you want a mirror less system that has a fabulous EVF and user interface and fantastic zoom, plays nice with R and M lenses, the SL is the only game in town. 

 

If the M(240) does it for you - fine. But I doubt the M(240) with EVF, adapter and R28-90 zoom is that much lighter or smaller (haven't weighed or measured that as the combination is fundamentally flawed, for me). For the same reason I don't want an M(240) with Olympus EVF clip-on, it's okay not to want an SL. But size and weight is an odd reason to use - I don't think comparable systems are really lighter, smaller and as well made. 

 

Unless ss you want a Sony ...

[Peter H]

Actually, weight is also subjective. What one person might carry will vary from the next person.

 

But, for its range and use, it is not really that heavy. Yes, a lot heavier than an M, but that isn't the point. I don't really feel the SL + zoom is heavier than the equivalent Nikon I had, and it feels smaller in the hand. Haven't compared the figures as I haven't felt I need to.

 

It hasn't been an issue for me.

 

My point? Just like size. If you like small and light, there are lots of M cameras and lenses to chose. Many here think the 28 Summilux is too big and too heavy - the entire SL system is not for them. If you want a mirror less system that has a fabulous EVF and user interface and fantastic zoom, plays nice with R and M lenses, the SL is the only game in town.

 

If the M(240) does it for you - fine. But I doubt the M(240) with EVF, adapter and R28-90 zoom is that much lighter or smaller (haven't weighed or measured that as the combination is fundamentally flawed, for me). For the same reason I don't want an M(240) with Olympus EVF clip-on, it's okay not to want an SL. But size and weight is an odd reason to use - I don't think comparable systems are really lighter, smaller and as well made.

 

Unless ss you want a Sony ...

Of course weight is subjective. That's why it's perfectly valid for someone to say that s camera is too heavy or them, while for others it's perfectly comfortable.

 

My only objection, slight though it is, is that when someone quite sincerely expressed their personal feeling that it is bigger or heavier than they'd like, it is often dismissed as either ignorance or prejudice, as though the reasons for its size somehow invalidate their observations.

 

Obviously it is too heavy for some people and not for others. That shouldn't be difficult to accept.