wildlightphoto Posted February 28, 2017 Share #21 Posted February 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fine Doug ........ but if I had banned you from taking photos of birds and small critters for a week, what would you have concluded ? The viewfinder's automatic brightness feature would be a deal-killer. Fortunately Leica has heard of my distain for this and has asked for my input on a possible firmware update to solve the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Hi wildlightphoto, Take a look here Leica SL or Sony aR7II ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted February 28, 2017 Share #22 Posted February 28, 2017 ... I think the bigger question is if you intend to use the honking great AF lenses for the SL, why you would buy that over any other DSLR... IMHO mirrorless cameras such as the SL and the Sony a7-series are the future. Whether these cameras make sense for any one individual at this time is a personal decision, but as I see it a couple of factors sway the decision toward mirrorless: there are never any focus calibration issues. No rangefinder calibration, no AF micro-adjustment, no front-focus or back-focus, ever, with any lens. If it's in focus in the viewfinder, it's in focus, period. WYSIWYG exposure. This is one area where the SL falls short in that an 'exposure preview' mode can't be set as the default. Exposure preview is a whole 'nother dimension of WYSIWYG, comparable to the difference between a RF focussing patch and focussing on a ground glass. The former tells me if one point is in focus and I guess about the rest, the latter tells me at a glance what's in focus, what's not, and what the OOF areas look like in the final image. Similarly exposure preview tells me at a glance if any areas are clipped or blocked and allows me to decide how important these areas are in the final image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted February 28, 2017 Share #23 Posted February 28, 2017 The viewfinder's automatic brightness feature would be a deal-killer. Fortunately Leica has heard of my distain for this and has asked for my input on a possible firmware update to solve the issue. Wish you well. Because I would also welcome this change. If it should work out well, could you also complain about the LENR ? Another problem with a simple solution, but not noticed (?!) by Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereophonie Posted February 28, 2017 Share #24 Posted February 28, 2017 Hi! Sent this earlier in another thread, but still think what I've written: A year ago, I had rented an A7RII and the SL for a weekend. After that, I had bought the Sony - for being smaller and cheaper - and used it intensely with the Zeiss 55/1.8 and my M-lenses, later with the G-master zoom. After that year, I sold all my Sony gear to buy the SL. Never looked back! Reasons: A7RII: - Yes: its smaller and lighter, but feels like a piece of plastic next to my M. - Sony ergonomics: not good for my hands. Hard to reach all those little buttons, especially movie button is hard to reach. - Menus are NOT GOOD! - Advantage of being small and light vanished completely when I started using G-Master 24-70 zoom: camera way too small to balance giant lens! - Sensor is world class. I miss a little of that low-ISO magic of the Sony in my SL. - Weather sealing is not good. Spend a day at Verdun in torrential rain and missed a full weather proof camera.... - That amazing thirst for battery life, I always had to carry 3 batteries for a day of shooting. And charging these batteries is painfully slow. Major let-down! - Only one SD-card slot. - I like the look of the Sony, but never liked using/handling it. - I did not like the results when using M-lenses. SL - It is large and heavy, but feels rock-solid - balances well with zoom-lens. - SL zoom lens is of the same size as my g-master lens! - fully weather sealed - ergonomics suit my needs much better - menus are much better in my view - much better battery life - two card slots - better results with my m-lenses - handling the camera is a dream - speed of the camera is better, AF and response. Sony often felt sluggish in comparison - I love the SL's shutter sound, much nicer than whining Sony (but miss possibility to totally switch shutter to electronics as in Sony for concert shots) - SL zoom lens is a dream - SL sensor is also world class - the view finder is way better! Manual focusing is a joy, it was not with the AR7II. - weight is not an issue with M-lenses. Even the zoom is carried easily with my broad Artisan and Artist cross carry strap. The MP-count is not very important for me. 42MP were nice, but I do large prints from my SL as well as from my M8. No problems. Anyway, it's only a hobby for me. If anything, the 80MB files from the Sony made every computer I had work like a snail.... The main difference between Leica SL and Sony Alpha is probably that I am looking forward to using my SL every time, whereas the Sony used to be the necessary companion for my M for certain applications and was never "loved" the same way. There is no rational choice! Try and take what you like! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
proenca Posted February 28, 2017 Share #25 Posted February 28, 2017 I've had the A7RII for over a year and sold it. I hated every single minute of it : - the menus. its hell. they are hedious. every half decent functions that you need are buried in the menu, in stupid sub menus that take 6 or 7 clicks. like formatting the card. - the sensor is optimized for Zeiss/Sony glass and NOT for M lenses. M lenses are sub par, unless you do the Kolari mod. - the menus. really. Sony employed a 6 year old dislexic hyperactive child to design the menus. sorry. a child like this would have done a better job. - when you want class leading results, you have to use Sony G lenses. Or similar ( Zeiss 55 FE not earth shattering - good but not outstanding ). Or Batis lenses. when you start to use them, camera is unbalanced. then you have to add a grip. then you are in 35mm dSLR territory size and weight. but with measly fps. and sub par battery life. - the menus. did I mention the menus ? - battery life. its appaling. in dozen of years I'm into photography, its the first time I see a manufacterer ship with TWO batteries. - oh the menus... gosh... - the handling - never got into it. tries to hard to be small but its unbalanced - menus... Yes the files are lovely in size and SUPERB in the high iso. The camera had intial quirks ( 4k recording ending after a few minutes ) that were corrected via firmware. The menus are so hedious - not because they are different but because they have ZERO logic and they are really, really long that I had ZERO joy using this camera. I sold it for a 50mm Lux ASPH and got back into the Leica M9. Yes, I went from 42mp to 18mp. 42mp is all fine and lovely, but to get those pixels working, your technique has to be flawless and the lens has to be flawless. Its fun to use legacy glass but the Sony sensor doesnt do well with M glass - at all. Corner performance of a 28mm ASPH Summicron at 5.6 is destroyed by any 100 usd lens. If you are pretending to buy the A7 to compliment/replace a Leica body, forget it. Unless of course, you are buying it to use with - I have to say it - excellent Sony G glass. The 35mm 1.4 is phenomenal. The Batis lens are superb. But they are big - not per se, but they are regular 35mm premium glass sized. And then you have to buy a grip - ending up with a dSLR size and weight package. And for that, I prefer a dSLR which has tons of more fps, buffer size, MUCH faster AF and superb battery. Now the SL. simple menus, simple layout, just Leica. optimized for M and R glass. everything just works beautifull. perfect to use with premium R glass or big M lenses. great files, great iso and because its 24mp it doesnt punish you so hard for the technique. Rent a Sony - make sure it goes with your shooting style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetee1972 Posted February 28, 2017 Share #26 Posted February 28, 2017 IMHO mirrorless cameras such as the SL and the Sony a7-series are the future. Whether these cameras make sense for any one individual at this time is a personal decision, but as I see it a couple of factors sway the decision toward mirrorless: there are never any focus calibration issues. No rangefinder calibration, no AF micro-adjustment, no front-focus or back-focus, ever, with any lens. If it's in focus in the viewfinder, it's in focus, period. WYSIWYG exposure. This is one area where the SL falls short in that an 'exposure preview' mode can't be set as the default. Exposure preview is a whole 'nother dimension of WYSIWYG, comparable to the difference between a RF focussing patch and focussing on a ground glass. The former tells me if one point is in focus and I guess about the rest, the latter tells me at a glance what's in focus, what's not, and what the OOF areas look like in the final image. Similarly exposure preview tells me at a glance if any areas are clipped or blocked and allows me to decide how important these areas are in the final image. I agree. And yet with my Sony and an AF lens, I still missed focus, even when focusing manually. The problem is that you can't actually see if something is in focus with the sony - you can with the SL in almost all conditions, certainly outside in the light and most of the time even indoors/in low light. That's why I like it so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted February 28, 2017 Share #27 Posted February 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree. And yet with my Sony and an AF lens, I still missed focus, even when focusing manually. The problem is that you can't actually see if something is in focus with the sony - you can with the SL in almost all conditions, certainly outside in the light and most of the time even indoors/in low light. That's why I like it so much. With the lenses I use most often, the 280/4 APO and FD 500/4.5 L, the Sony viewfinders show some aliasing and moire which appears as shimmering with fine detail. That means it's in focus. When comparing the a7II and a7rII there are some differences, the a7rII easier to focus w/o magnification, the a7II easier with magnification while with the SL I didn't miss focus often when I had time to work carefully, but it wasn't as quick and obvious as with the Sonys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alib Posted March 1, 2017 Share #28 Posted March 1, 2017 Leica SL or Sony aR7II ? I'm an M user and occasionally need Zooms and AF. I want to get rid of my Nikon's for something lighter and *less menu heavy. You all own the SL and are pretty technical folks....How about some advice, please? Honestly I cant see the advantage of buying the SL,the cost, the weight , slower lenses. I do love my M system but I don't see how the Leica SL is the better mirrorless camera to the Sony? It would be helpful if you all could give me some sound reasons to go with the SL over the Sony A7 (not sure which version)? What am I missing, that Leica wants me to see? Is it the quality of the Leica lenses over Zeiss? Is it that Leica as a camera company sees and understands my needs as a photographer better than Sony? In full disclosure I have not physically seen an SL.....a trip the the Leica store is on my list. *Whats keeping me from the Sony is the repulsive layers and layers of menus. Any and all advice is welcome. Thank You in advance for your kindness Also, there is a person in spain who had a sensor corrosion issue with the Sony and was very vocal on social media about lack of response from sony, which version it was etc I cannot remember. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted March 1, 2017 Share #29 Posted March 1, 2017 Sony is a gigantic consumer electronics conglomerate and unfortunately their level of customer support sucks across the entire brand. It's like dealing with the Department of Motor Vehicles. They treat both their products and customers like disposable commodities. Anyway, mirrorless is the future. I think if the camera industry were healthier we'd already have seen professional mirrorless systems surpassing DSLRs because the big hitters would be taking bigger risks and investing more in R&D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 2, 2017 Share #30 Posted March 2, 2017 Leica SL or Sony aR7II ? I'm an M user and occasionally need Zooms and AF. I want to get rid of my Nikon's for something lighter and *less menu heavy. You all own the SL and are pretty technical folks....How about some advice, please? Honestly I cant see the advantage of buying the SL,the cost, the weight , slower lenses. I do love my M system but I don't see how the Leica SL is the better mirrorless camera to the Sony? It would be helpful if you all could give me some sound reasons to go with the SL over the Sony A7 (not sure which version)? What am I missing, that Leica wants me to see? Is it the quality of the Leica lenses over Zeiss? Is it that Leica as a camera company sees and understands my needs as a photographer better than Sony? In full disclosure I have not physically seen an SL.....a trip the the Leica store is on my list. *Whats keeping me from the Sony is the repulsive layers and layers of menus. Any and all advice is welcome. Thank You in advance for your kindness Personally, I'd say there are basically four factors to consider: 1) Size and weight (advantage Sony) 2) Ergonomics and menus (advantage Leica--especially on the menus and the EVF) 3) Lenses (depends) 4) Cost I'm going to ignore cost since that is so specific to the individual it would be silly for me to comment either way; both are expensive cameras but the Leica is obviously much more expensive. Whether that matters is up to you. If you can't decide based on items one and two (and we discount item four), then it's really all about the lenses. You've already got a bunch of 'M' lenses. Did you intend to use them or sell them? If you are going to use them--especially if they are going to be what you use most often--I'd go with the Leica. The Sony was not designed to work well with Leica lenses and the definitely makes a difference, especially with wide angle lenses. Corner performance is highly variable with Leica 'M' lenses on the Sony. Much less variable when shooting the SL. If you are going to be using mostly the AF lenses, perhaps even sell your 'M' glass, then it gets a little harder. I think the two Leica zooms that have been released are excellent in terms of quality, and everything I have read about the 50mm Summilux SL indicates reference level image quality though mediocre AF performance. If you are happy with those focal lengths then I'd again say go with Leica. If you want a wider selection of AF lenses in the native format, I'd say go with the Sony. Both cameras have excellent sensors that will be completely obsolete in five years but which are very satisfying right now. Both cameras are capable of superbly detailed, rich images. I have only played with the Sony never owned it, so I can't tell you much about color differences except to say I have yet to find a camera I couldn't make work for me consistently from a color perspective. Both cameras allow the use of excellent glass. Both cameras will let you extract everything the glass has to offer in most situations. You won't go wrong either way. If the size vs. ergonomics doesn't make the choice obvious, just look at the lenses you are going to use. - Jared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacksinner Posted March 2, 2017 Share #31 Posted March 2, 2017 wait for a7iii and see what they have Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share #32 Posted March 2, 2017 Personally, I'd say there are basically four factors to consider: 1) Size and weight (advantage Sony) 2) Ergonomics and menus (advantage Leica--especially on the menus and the EVF) 3) Lenses (depends) 4) Cost I'm going to ignore cost since that is so specific to the individual it would be silly for me to comment either way; both are expensive cameras but the Leica is obviously much more expensive. Whether that matters is up to you. If you can't decide based on items one and two (and we discount item four), then it's really all about the lenses. You've already got a bunch of 'M' lenses. Did you intend to use them or sell them? If you are going to use them--especially if they are going to be what you use most often--I'd go with the Leica. The Sony was not designed to work well with Leica lenses and the definitely makes a difference, especially with wide angle lenses. Corner performance is highly variable with Leica 'M' lenses on the Sony. Much less variable when shooting the SL. If you are going to be using mostly the AF lenses, perhaps even sell your 'M' glass, then it gets a little harder. I think the two Leica zooms that have been released are excellent in terms of quality, and everything I have read about the 50mm Summilux SL indicates reference level image quality though mediocre AF performance. If you are happy with those focal lengths then I'd again say go with Leica. If you want a wider selection of AF lenses in the native format, I'd say go with the Sony. Both cameras have excellent sensors that will be completely obsolete in five years but which are very satisfying right now. Both cameras are capable of superbly detailed, rich images. I have only played with the Sony never owned it, so I can't tell you much about color differences except to say I have yet to find a camera I couldn't make work for me consistently from a color perspective. Both cameras allow the use of excellent glass. Both cameras will let you extract everything the glass has to offer in most situations. You won't go wrong either way. If the size vs. ergonomics doesn't make the choice obvious, just look at the lenses you are going to use. - Jared Damn that is some sound advice........The weight and size of the Leica is a bit of a problem However I really hate the menus on the Sony....as much as I hate the menus on the Nikon I'm using now. I'll probably only use this camera with zooms 24-70 and 70- 200 is my current auto focus kit. Cost is only a factor because the Leica is so heavy and will be obsolete in 5 years. So 19K for a camera and 2 lenses is a bit steep. ....after all it is just a hammer. ....you got to hand it to Leica..... they know my ouch factor. I have no intention of selling the M240 and my M lenses, as this is my primary camera. I'll try to get to the Leica store this month and see if the menu's will let me fall in love with the weight and size.......It worked with the M I just wish Leica would have assumed that mirrorless and building a camera from scratch was a good opportunity to build something smaller and lighter than the average DSLR..... Sony did it. Thanks to everyone for all your help and advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexP Posted March 2, 2017 Share #33 Posted March 2, 2017 Cost is only a factor because the Leica is so heavy and will be obsolete in 5 years. So 19K for a camera and 2 lenses is a bit steep. ....after all it is just a hammer. I look at it different. They're all tool. If you don't make money from your "tool" then you shouldn't even buy it in the first place. I mean if you can't break even your camera within the first 6 months to a year then we have a problem. BUT if you're just a hobbyist then why worry about when it will become obsolete? think of all the memory you can create in 5 years. I still keep ALL of my Canon and Nikon DSLR date back 10+ yrs ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunil Posted March 2, 2017 Share #34 Posted March 2, 2017 I look at it different. They're all tool. If you don't make money from your "tool" then you shouldn't even buy it in the first place. I mean if you can't break even your camera within the first 6 months to a year then we have a problem. BUT if you're just a hobbyist then why worry about when it will become obsolete? think of all the memory you can create in 5 years. I still keep ALL of my Canon and Nikon DSLR date back 10+ yrs ago. Wow, if i had this kind of GAS I'd fart the 3 pigs out of house and hearth, bricks notwithstanding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share #35 Posted March 2, 2017 I look at it different. They're all tool. If you don't make money from your "tool" then you shouldn't even buy it in the first place. I mean if you can't break even your camera within the first 6 months to a year then we have a problem. BUT if you're just a hobbyist then why worry about when it will become obsolete? think of all the memory you can create in 5 years. I still keep ALL of my Canon and Nikon DSLR date back 10+ yrs ago. Thanks for that business advice. ......for me moneys not the only reason for shooting these days. I'm a retired advertising photographer 40 + years The way technology changes I'd still like to take part and enjoy it. Photography is a hobby now, I still love it as much as when I first picked up a camera in 1968 Can I afford the SL Kit? Yep .....But maybe its not a good idea...It is Leica's first attempt at Full Frame Mirrorless....smaller, lighter, simpler its the only reason I'm still thinking about Mirrorless. Isn't lighter the whole reason for the Mirrorless revolution ? Wondering: Do you really need all those cameras? Donate them to a school or someplace they will do some good. Pay it forward,man...it feels good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted March 2, 2017 Share #36 Posted March 2, 2017 Wondering: Do you really need all those cameras? Donate them to a school or someplace they will do some good. Pay it forward,man...it feels good Do any of us really need all of our equipment, or should we be selling it to fund good deeds? It may well be that AlexP 'feels good' about charitable acts that you have no knowledge of. There are a lot of camera collectors around here, and I for one totally understand why he wants to keep those bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share #37 Posted March 2, 2017 Do any of us really need all of our equipment, or should we be selling it to fund good deeds? It may well be that AlexP 'feels good' about charitable acts that you have no knowledge of. There are a lot of camera collectors around here, and I for one totally understand why he wants to keep those bodies. "I for one totally understand why he wants to keep those bodies." OK I'll bite .....Why? I guess its how one would define a collection vs hording? Your 100% correct its none of my business....what Alex chooses to do with his studios unused cameras. And I was out of line for implying otherwise. I have a friend who kept every TV set he's ever owned in the last 35 years. Its neat to see but his basement is still cluttered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted March 2, 2017 Share #38 Posted March 2, 2017 Isn't lighter the whole reason for the Mirrorless revolution ? Nope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngjohn Posted March 2, 2017 Share #39 Posted March 2, 2017 OK I'll bite .....Why? I guess its how one would define a collection vs hording? There doesn't need to be a reason, maybe he has them just because he likes to have them. I certainly wouldn't describe it as hoarding, just a nice and very interesting collection of Canon & Nikon Pro bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share #40 Posted March 2, 2017 "Isn't lighter the whole reason for the Mirrorless revolution ?" Nope. With today's technology it should be. As years move on there is no reason that cameras should get heaver. You eliminate the mirror and the prism and move the lens closer to the sensor ....with today's electronics doesn't all that mean smaller? So what is the reason for the Mirrorless revolution? What is the benefit to to making a camera heaver than it has to be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.