"Why Sony's Full Frame Mirrorless System is a Mistake" -Does any of this apply to Leica SL?

[michali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting article, with some interesting thoughts on Sony's mirrorless system, with the Leica SL also thrown into the argument regarding size:

 

http://​http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

 

and the reply from a Sony perspective:

 

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/debunking-sators-article-sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-was-a-fatal-mistake/

 

 

[wildlightphoto]

Too often, reviewers and opinionators such as Sator forget there are perspectives other than their own. 'nuff said.

[Suteetat]

I suppose, if you go Sony route or SL route because you are expecting that mirrorless means smaller and lighter then you are looking at the wrong place. If you go Sony or SL route because you want state of the art FF camera with EVF rather than OVF or rangefinder then you comes to the right place. So fatal mistake is more on the consumer's expectation rather than manufacturers, I would think. Now, if Sony makes a camera that is as big and as heavy as DSLR but cannot compete with competitors on image quality, etc then that would be a fatal mistake.

[cpclee]

Will someone get the furry mammal from Cheshire to read this

[jrp]

It applies to the SL if you use the zoom, but not if you use M lenses. 

[cpclee]

David Farkas wrote in his review of the SL that new lens testing procedures for the new zooms include 60 lp/mm to accommodate future sensors' much higher resolution even though those MTFs are not made public. The second article above points to Sony moving in a similar direction with their latest designs, meaning anticipating future sensors' capabilities.

 

M lenses were not designed with the same kind of considerations or freedom of constraints.  For example, the diameter of the M mount might be too short for the same kind of lens designs to be viable or beneficial.

 

It applies to the SL if you use the zoom, but not if you use M lenses. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yep. Mistake. Absolutely fatal.

 

Too bad no one told all the people buying Sony A7 series cameras. Sony are the 800lb gorilla of the mirrorless market and growing.

 

There's room for all types of cameras on this little spinning rock of ours and anyone who tells me their way is the only way has zero credibility with me. People who are good at actually making photographs don't feel the need to criticise other peoples camera choices, I would think.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

Both articles are a great big "meh" to me. Look at the criteria for calling the A7 a failure: 

 

• Compactness - It's not as compact as the author thinks it should be.
• Weight - It's not as light as the author thinks it should be.
• IBIS - It's not a unique feature nor is it the only way to get it. 
• Lens adaptation - It's too much trouble to use. 

 

None of these criteria underlie why I disliked and sold off the A7, and only one of them is an advantage that I bought the SL for. The underlying question of "why a FF pro mirrorless" I also find to be ludicrous. Battling pros and cons on these bases is irrelevant to me.

 

I bought the A7 as I wanted a digital body to use my Leica R lenses on with the original format that the lenses were designed for and a viewfinder that would work well with them. Adapting lenses to SLRs and giving up auto-diaphragm and meter coupling doesn't work for me ... been there, done that, disliked it with rare exception. EVFs are much more effective when used with adapted lenses. 

 

I never found, nor expected, the A7 to be particularly small nor light, but I did find it cramped with poorly organized controls and menus. There are lots of issues with body rigidiy, the size and strength of the lens mount, the flimsy tripod mounting point, etc. 

 

"Juggling adapters" is nonsensical: The solution is don't juggle adapters. Fit each lens you are going to use with an adapter to the camera mount, or use only lenses with one specific mount. 

 

I gave up on the A7 because I found the body clunky in operation and was not thrilled with the quality of the captures it made. I bought the SL because I found the performance of the Leica M-P with the same R lenses superior to the A7 and figured the SL body would be even better for them as it was larger and had a shape (and controls) more appropriate to the design of the R lenses. The fact that Leica (the OEM of the R lenses) created specific tools to use those lenses to best advantage on the SL body was another compelling reason to buy into it. 

 

I've never given one thought as to "why a FF pro mirrorless" was desirable. I wanted a good digital body to use with my Leica R lenses, to replace the now-gone R8/R9+Digital Modul R with something more modern and compelling. The SL does that very nicely, is ergonomically and mechanically very sound, and produces image quality in line with what I know the lenses are capable of. 

[Steve Spencer]

It is pretty clear what the author wanted was Sony to further develop the A mount. He made 5 points where he thought the Sony A7 series fell short. 1) Compactness; 2) Weight; 3) Adapters; 4) IBIS - not good enough; 5) EVF -- nothing many cameras don't have. You put these criticisms together and it is clear he would have liked a full size Sony A mount camera in which he didn't need an adapter to use his A mount lenses with better IBIS than the A7 series (he seems to think it could be bette in A mount because it has a bigger diameter--I am skeptical) and that had a better EVF.

 

If you look at these criticism, it looks like he would mostly like the Leica SL. He doesn't believe a FF camera can be small and light and I generally agree there. I have big hands and I find my Sony A7 II to be too cramped. My wife who has small hands likes it very much so as is typical ergonomics is very much a personal issue. He probably wouldn't like many lenses on the SL require the use of an adapter, but I don't think he understand adapters very well and his evidence is weak. He would level criticism about using adapters on the SL, but no one has tested the Leica adapters and the SL to see how they fare. I think his criticism of adapters is likely misguided. He likely would criticize the SL for not having IBIS. I actually would be quite happy with the camera having this feature, but I don't think it is very critical for my types of shooting. Others may find it to be more important. Finally, he should love the EVF on the SL. That is the type of EVF that I think he would like to see as it was the type of evolution in EVF that I think he wanted to see. 

 

So, a couple of the criticisms could be levelled at the SL, but the major complaint that they made it too small which made it hard to get the features he wanted doesn't really apply. In fact, he complains in the end that it is just a digital rangefinder and as such is a niche product doesn't sound like much of criticism to Leica users,

[digitalfx]

Fatal???

 

Fatal to who? Not Sony as the camera seems to be a success...so all I can assume is that its fatal to the author. He seems to live in a bubble.

The perfect camera doesn't exist, and if you wait for it you will die first...maybe thats what he meant. 

[adamdewilde]

The basis of his argument is true. And one just needs to look towards the M to figure this all out.

(But it is no longer a priority of the Sony user base as I mention below)

 

The boom Sony seen was with it's adaptability at first. M users who couldn't/didn't want to use an RF anymore (some who couldn't afford). And other ALT users who were already struggling with DSLRs for achieving focus with their manual lenses. 

 

Slowly Sony released lenses and they weren't bad (from a basic perspective). The lenses were bigger then people would have hoped (bigger then M lenses). As Sony got better with their sensors it started to be less about adaptability and more about usability of the system based on how good the sensor was. 

 

Basically, now that Sony has everyone hooked on their sensors and color profiles etc.. They can release whatever they want, as long as the performance is "good". People no longer see mirrorless kits as needing to be small. They just crave "good" sensors and whatever lenses give the best results. It just so happens that Sony needs to make their lenses big. Something most manufacturers suffer from.. Aside from Leica, who for some reason also of late seems to be making bigger lenses (a shame really). 

 

 

I think in the SLs case.. Leica wanted to make a without compromise mirrorless camera. That meant, bigger batteries, bigger body, dual card slots etc etc.. So it came in big. And since Leica wasn't going to sacrifice lens quality. The lenses ended up big. Why Leica didn't take M designs and make them AF? I don't know.. I'm sure they couldn't/wouldn't for some reason or another. I also say this about the 35 Summilux-T. It's a big lens for the fact that it's APS-C and not really that special. It would be down right reasonably sized if it were a FF lens. But it's not.

 

 

Anyway, I say "good" ^ above ^ meaning.. I'm not a fan of Sony lenses or sensors. But I can concede that they're good for some people. 

[steppenw0lf]

I understand that these discussions are mainly for pleasure and for having a good time and forgetting about the real problems of modern life.

But is it necessary to discuss if it was a mistake to create mirrorless cameras ? 

By the way what a stupid name, I would rather discuss which better name could be used for these systems - usually an item is described by what it offers, not by what is missing (e.g. turbo charged motors; electro-cars are not called petrolless cars).

The name "mirrorless camera" reminds me of the "horseless carriages" of long ago. No name for the future ....

 

The article is mainly a fight between admirers of Sony alpha vs Fuji APS-C. Both systems completely irrelevant for me and for many others. Not even so relevant to be against them. Shrugging it off seems the right reaction... maybe uttering "how interesting" to be polite.

 

On the street do I have to overtake every car with a different brand than mine to show my cars superiority and mine ? We would call this childish behaviour. We would think that it is stupid to endanger everybody for such a vane attempt.

If I had bought a wrong car, would I need to be bragging about it  and write long articles why it is so bad ? Or what would be the cleverest behaviour ?

This person has made a wrong camera buying decision - so what ? Life is probably full of wrong decisions - some people just take some time to realize, others even much more time.

When I read these "flames" I ask myself how old is this person ? Is it a newcomer in his job and needs to get attention at any price ? Which problem (financial, personal, ...) made him try this ? Or is it just his "personal" style, his way to differentiate from the others ? His way to sell his website ?

 

Back to the SL topic. The SL is a long-term investment for me. I do not react to what others say about it - time will tell. That was probably the reason why I chose Leica in the first place (decades ago in my youth). I cannot afford to buy a new camera of this price every few months or years. So I do not really care about the next SL, and much less about the next Sony or Fuji. (I do not loathe them, I am simply slightly indifferent, now that I got the new tool, the SL)

I will think about new equipment when there is a big step (not a "quantum step", because these are the smallest possible steps in nature/physics) so for example when the sensors and lenses offer 100-200 MP (no intention to start a "new" topic again). I actually hope this will take some years ...

 

If you feel so insecure that you depend on the next hot features, on the smallest camera, on the lightest lens, then maybe you should invest some time and effort in yoga or meditation - look for "mindfulness" e.g. Kabat-Zinn to find an intro.

 

It was mentioned that "the basis of his arguments is true". Well, I do not know - I also do not want to deny it. But truth is for me something completely different, more timeless, at least longer lasting than just a short discussion or "flame".

 

Truth is, I have a lot to discover with my new SL and it will take months or years before I can say, now I really have made good use of this expensive equipment.

 

Stephan

[BerndReini]

 

 

David Farkas wrote in his review of the SL that new lens testing procedures for the new zooms include 60 lp/mm to accommodate future sensors' much higher resolution even though those MTFs are not made public. The second article above points to Sony moving in a similar direction with their latest designs, meaning anticipating future sensors' capabilities.

Oh I can't wait until we stop driving the manufacturers toward more sharpness and pixels and start concentrating on "drawing." With any disregard to the uproar this may cause I will say this out loud: I sometimes feel that the M8 in print had more of the "bite" I love from 35mm film than any other camera from any manufacturer since. This includes my current MM1, which I compare more to the look of a fine grain medium format film like TMax.

 

If someone had the courage to develop an improved 10-15mp sensor with some real punch between ISO 200-1600 without the artifice of the "clarity" slider, they would have a winner on their hands.

[CheshireCat]

Will someone get the furry mammal from Cheshire to read this

 

 

Lens design is a fine art of compromise. Size does matter when physics is involved.

Considering all the complicated constraints, mirrorless cameras allow an extra degree of freedom for the lens designer.

However, everything boils down to design and execution. Where are the results ? I see no pictures.

[AlanJW]

Both articles are a great big "meh" to me. Look at the criteria for calling the A7 a failure: 

 

• Compactness - It's not as compact as the author thinks it should be.
• Weight - It's not as light as the author thinks it should be.
• IBIS - It's not a unique feature nor is it the only way to get it. 
• Lens adaptation - It's too much trouble to use. 

 

None of these criteria underlie why I disliked and sold off the A7, and only one of them is an advantage that I bought the SL for. The underlying question of "why a FF pro mirrorless" I also find to be ludicrous. Battling pros and cons on these bases is irrelevant to me.

 

I bought the A7 as I wanted a digital body to use my Leica R lenses on with the original format that the lenses were designed for and a viewfinder that would work well with them. Adapting lenses to SLRs and giving up auto-diaphragm and meter coupling doesn't work for me ... been there, done that, disliked it with rare exception. EVFs are much more effective when used with adapted lenses. 

 

I never found, nor expected, the A7 to be particularly small nor light, but I did find it cramped with poorly organized controls and menus. There are lots of issues with body rigidiy, the size and strength of the lens mount, the flimsy tripod mounting point, etc. 

 

"Juggling adapters" is nonsensical: The solution is don't juggle adapters. Fit each lens you are going to use with an adapter to the camera mount, or use only lenses with one specific mount. 

 

I gave up on the A7 because I found the body clunky in operation and was not thrilled with the quality of the captures it made. I bought the SL because I found the performance of the Leica M-P with the same R lenses superior to the A7 and figured the SL body would be even better for them as it was larger and had a shape (and controls) more appropriate to the design of the R lenses. The fact that Leica (the OEM of the R lenses) created specific tools to use those lenses to best advantage on the SL body was another compelling reason to buy into it. 

 

I've never given one thought as to "why a FF pro mirrorless" was desirable. I wanted a good digital body to use with my Leica R lenses, to replace the now-gone R8/R9+Digital Modul R with something more modern and compelling. The SL does that very nicely, is ergonomically and mechanically very sound, and produces image quality in line with what I know the lenses are capable of. 

+1.     I also had Sony A7 and while Sony makes a very good camera and sensor, I found it required too much thinking to use quickly.  Too many dials and wheels and menus, some of which change in ways I could not always remember.  Some people like that "flexibility;"  others, like me, prefer simple and predictable.  What attracted me to the SL was the EVF, which was a leap forward, and the ability easily to use my M lenses.   The availability of autofocus lenses was a bonus. 

[wildlightphoto]

+1.     I also had Sony A7 and while Sony makes a very good camera and sensor, I found it required too much thinking to use quickly.  Too many dials and wheels and menus, some of which change in ways I could not always remember.  Some people like that "flexibility;"  others, like me, prefer simple and predictable.  What attracted me to the SL was the EVF, which was a leap forward, and the ability easily to use my M lenses.   The availability of autofocus lenses was a bonus. 

 

 

I agree with both ramarren and AlanJW about the a7's control layout and much prefer the SL however for myself the two features the a7II has that override the camera's fussy/fiddly handling are the exposure preview mode and sensor stabilization.  Having used both the a7II and the SL a digital camera without a good EVF is no longer of any interest to me.

[ramarren]

I agree with both ramarren and AlanJW about the a7's control layout and much prefer the SL however for myself the two features the a7II has that override the camera's fussy/fiddly handling are the exposure preview mode and sensor stabilization.  Having used both the a7II and the SL a digital camera without a good EVF is no longer of any interest to me.

 

 

Whatever works best for your work is best. That applies to all of us equally. 

 

I don't think I'd put down the SL as not having a "good EVF", however. The viewfinder quality is not in question. You're looking for a specific mode of operation, "full time preview mode", where I find the implementation of preview in the SL to be ideal for my needs.

[CheshireCat]

I also had Sony A7 and while Sony makes a very good camera and sensor, I found it required too much thinking to use quickly.  Too many dials and wheels and menus, some of which change in ways I could not always remember. 

 

 

Each of the "too many" dials, buttons and wheels can be reprogrammed or disabled.

If you want, you can disable them, mount a manual lens (Zeiss has several great ones) and use the A7 just as an M with EVF.

 

About Leica's sensor "rendering style", it all depends on the software profiles used to develop raws. You can create your own Lightroom profile to simulate Leica's ones. You won't be able to simulate the nasty IR leaks though

 

P.S. Unfortunately, Sony's setup menus are labyrinthic to say the least (I use a different 4-letter word to define them). However, once you have set up the camera, you will only likely use the "Format Card" function.

[wildlightphoto]

Whatever works best for your work is best. That applies to all of us equally. 

 

I don't think I'd put down the SL as not having a "good EVF", however. The viewfinder quality is not in question. You're looking for a specific mode of operation, "full time preview mode", where I find the implementation of preview in the SL to be ideal for my needs.

 

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  IMHO the SL's viewfinder is a good EVF and I prefer it over the vast majority of DSLR viewfinders.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AlanJW]

Each of the "too many" dials, buttons and wheels can be reprogrammed or disabled.

If you want, you can disable them, mount a manual lens (Zeiss has several great ones) and use the A7 just as an M with EVF.

 

About Leica's sensor "rendering style", it all depends on the software profiles used to develop raws. You can create your own Lightroom profile to simulate Leica's ones. You won't be able to simulate the nasty IR leaks though

 

P.S. Unfortunately, Sony's setup menus are labyrinthic to say the least (I use a different 4-letter word to define them). However, once you have set up the camera, you will only likely use the "Format Card" function.

CC, you seem to try very hard to persuade everyone that Sony is the way to go. I know all those buttons and wheels can be fiddled with.  I didn't want to.  And I wanted to use Leica M lenses; some work okay on the Sony and some not so okay IMHO, which opinion is the one I care about.  I found focusing manually with the Sony difficult. I didn't want to have to do a profile to emulate Leica  (there doesn't appear to be much interest in a ACR profile that would allow Leica files to emulate Sony files but that is a matter of personal preference anyhow).  The Zeiss AF lens I had was very good, but that was not enough for me, so I sold the Sony gear.

 

I wasn't happy with Sony but I don't go over to the Sony forum(s) to complain or to persuade anyone that Leica is "better" -- because it isn't better for everyone.  My approach is whatever you can use best to make images you like is the way to go.  The SL is better for me just as Sony A7 may be better for you.   They're both capable cameras, each with attributes and faults, no more and no less.