Bad news for the SL.

[Ruz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

came here just to laugh at another sony product         

[tom0511]

Maybe good news for Sony but why bad news for the SL? I dont get this kind of dicussions.

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

I am curious about your reasoning for this claim? I think it's exactly the opposite. I would think A7r II's main strength over SL is exactly in the landscape department: Higher resolution (never too much resolution for landscapes), better dynamic range, slightly better at high ISO, no limitations with bulb mode (inability to turn long exposure noise reduction for SL), IBIS (very useful if shooting handheld) and Sony Smooth Reflection application (really brilliant). Since I am currently looking to invest in a landscape system, as I have realized certain limitations in landscaping with Leica bodies will probably never change, these are exactly the reasons which keep me away from SL, sadly. Imo, SL's strenghts lay elsewhere: better EVF than A7r II, higher burst rate, larger battery, larger size (to those who prefer) and larger grip (to those who prefer, but this is subjective). Weather sealing is something I can't comment, since usually I don't trust in any manufacturers claims about weather sealing...

 

My list of annoyances with A7rII is long (and it may not affect you as much as me), but this is not the place to vent it. This is about A9 :-). My main point was that for people who got SL instead of A7rII, A9 does not seem to bring something relevant that would cause them to regret buying SL.

 

My claim was that SL is a better system than A7rII for landscape photography. I own both systems and have used both of them for landscape photography. Of course, I should have added "IMO", since my claim is based only on my experience and preferences, YMMV.

 

I am sure that you will not go wrong with A7rII, its specs are impressive and there are some really good prime lenses for it. The reason I got Sony was its size and weight, especially with f/4 zooms. However, at least my copy of 24-70 f/4 is not that good. The specs are one thing, but how the camera works for you in the field is much more important.

 

IMO, you don't need higher resolution for landscape unless you have special printing requirements. Yes, higher resolution is nice :-). I was shooting in Lofoten with SL and H5D50c (50mp MF camera) and SL's resolution was not an issue for me. The difference of dynamic range at lowest ISO between Sony and SL is small. Landscape shooting, at least for me, involves a tripod, therefore, I mostly care about performance at base ISO. I have purchased several of Sony camera apps, and find them very cumbersome to use. Never used them in the field. I also think that turning off long exposure noise reduction causes image degradation and therefore have it always on. Still, it would have been nice to have an option to turn it off in SL. The quality of viewfinder, OVF or EVF, is very important to me in landscape photography.

 

I feel I get better results with SL's 24-90mm than I get with Sony's 24-70mm f/2.8, though Sony has several really good primes. Handling of SL is much better than A7rII, IMO. SL's DOF on top of LCD helps quite a bit for landscape photography.

[proenca]

I tried to love the A7RII, I did. 

 

But in the end, lots of factors pushed me to sell it : the menu system, which is designed by an esquizofrenic 2 year old, the batteries that a joke ( first time in decades that I bought a camera that came with TWO batteries ), the fact that every single time you hold it it seems that its going to break apart... and on and on and on.

 

The A7RII works good with vintage glass - works terrible with M glass. The SL does wonders with all the glass.

 

That said, I just sold the Sony and got a SL. 

 

The A9 doesn't bother me slightly : neither the A9R that will eventually come out and have 42/44/50mp. Because while some features, I have to admit are impressive and I wish Leica had adopted them ( 5 axis IS in the sensor. hell, I did love that when I was taking pictures of my newborn with a 85mm 1,2 FD lens handheld , etc ) the menu system is dreadful. Its painful. Horrible. Hedious. 

 

I have a long, long list of annoyances with the A7RII but the menu system is the most stupid thing ever. And I've seen VERY stupid things in 40 years. 

[Jeff S]

FWIW, the marketing suggests that the A9 menu has been totally reworked, and the battery is much larger for extended life. The EVF is also much higher spec--ed. I have no interest in the camera, but it seems Sony has heard the complaints and is addressing them head on.

 

Jeff

[Guest VVJ]

Not interested but I will gladly accept IBIS and PDAF in the SL2.  

 

Competition is a good thing and hopefully (and unlike the S and T) it ensures that Leica keeps innovating and updating its bodies

[oldwino]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One is a highly refined photographic instrument. And the other is a Sony.

[Bill W]

One is a highly refined photographic instrument. And the other is a Sony.

Agree and I will drink to that!!!!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I will be back shooting my SL on Sunday............ my old lady still has a Sony but I just hate the buttons and menus so not interested over hear in sunny Phuket

[Tmuussoni]

My list of annoyances with A7rII is long (and it may not affect you as much as me), but this is not the place to vent it. This is about A9 :-). My main point was that for people who got SL instead of A7rII, A9 does not seem to bring something relevant that would cause them to regret buying SL.

 

My claim was that SL is a better system than A7rII for landscape photography. I own both systems and have used both of them for landscape photography. Of course, I should have added "IMO", since my claim is based only on my experience and preferences, YMMV.

 

I am sure that you will not go wrong with A7rII, its specs are impressive and there are some really good prime lenses for it. The reason I got Sony was its size and weight, especially with f/4 zooms. However, at least my copy of 24-70 f/4 is not that good. The specs are one thing, but how the camera works for you in the field is much more important.

 

IMO, you don't need higher resolution for landscape unless you have special printing requirements. Yes, higher resolution is nice :-). I was shooting in Lofoten with SL and H5D50c (50mp MF camera) and SL's resolution was not an issue for me. The difference of dynamic range at lowest ISO between Sony and SL is small. Landscape shooting, at least for me, involves a tripod, therefore, I mostly care about performance at base ISO. I have purchased several of Sony camera apps, and find them very cumbersome to use. Never used them in the field. I also think that turning off long exposure noise reduction causes image degradation and therefore have it always on. Still, it would have been nice to have an option to turn it off in SL. The quality of viewfinder, OVF or EVF, is very important to me in landscape photography.

 

I feel I get better results with SL's 24-90mm than I get with Sony's 24-70mm f/2.8, though Sony has several really good primes. Handling of SL is much better than A7rII, IMO. SL's DOF on top of LCD helps quite a bit for landscape photography.

 

Hi.

 

Yes, I also don't want to drag the discussion away from A9, that was not my intention. I was just curious about your thoughts I kinda have my eyes set after Fujifilm GFX or Hasselblad X1D now. I had the X1D for one week, and it really impressed me. I think the resolution advantage over my M 240 (and hence, the SL) is significant and quite noticeable. Since you have H5D50c, I would assume you agree with me . . Anyway, X1D is sadly slightly over my budget, and that's where the GFX 50 comes in. Will have to think this over.

 

 

The A7R2 is a superior camera body, technically, for landscape shooting, and is compact.  But light (M) lenses and the zooms and built-in GPS make the SL a more practicable proposition, a position that should improve further when the new SL zoom and lenses emerge.

 

The key thing about the new A9 (which is clearly aimed at a different market from the existing A7 range: sports photographers and photojournalists) is the sensor technology (v fast readout).  That, added to IBIS pulls the Sony sensor away from the Leica one in yet another respect.

 

I have not idea whether Leica's sensor suppliers have access to the same technologies but, if not, in another year or two's time the Leica sensors will start to look as quaint as the M8/9's do to us now.

 

Built-in GPS sure is nice. The the argument about light M-lenses is imo, essentially a wash. SL is bigger and heavier body, and once you add the weight of the adapter, it doesn't really hold on, anymore. Remember some of those Sony lenses can be just as compact as M-lenses with adapter, and just as good: e.g. Loxia 21/28 vs SEM 21/3.4 is a wash. Except the Loxia is faster and focuses significantly closer. I admit the SL series and all new lenses, although optically nearly perfect, have kinda priced them outside of my interest. Essentially you can buy new Fuji GFX and Hasselblad XCD lenses for cheaper price, so that really says something...

 

 

 

One is a highly refined photographic instrument. And the other is a Sony.

 

Maybe this was a joke or sarcasm, and I am aware we are in Leica forums where some anti-Sony Bias is bound to be found, but I will still say it: Sony is just much of a refined photographic instrument as Leica is. Just pick the one which suits you better.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Tmuussoni

[wildlightphoto]

If I were a Sony user I would be extremely frustrated by the constant stream of new or updated models which immediately devalue existing cameras. The technology is impressive, if that's what floats your boat, but from a consumer's point of view the marketing policy is questionable in my book.

 

 

I'm currently using Sony bodies (with Leica-R and other lenses) and I'm not frustrated at all by the frequent model introductions.  It means I can pick several options for the features I want to use.  Devaluation of my camera doesn't enter into the equation; I'm much more concerned with the value of the pictures I can make with them.  Is 24MP sufficient?  Three choices.  Do I want/need more than 35MP?  Two choices.  Don't care for IBIS?  Two choices.  Want IBIS?  Four choices.  What frustrates me more is the lack of choices in the Leica SL system.

[caissa]

I cannot see that this is reality - at least not for me. I can make a choice once and then I have to live with it for several years.

So I once made the decision in favour or against the SL, and then that's it. No additional frustration anymore.

You only have a choice with Sony, if you are willing to spend the money several times - or if you have a sponsor or dealer that offers you the possibility to switch several times (without losing too much money), but this is not the reality for most users.

 

And if you concentrate on the pics you will probably avoid most of this artificial frustration. Or were you constantly frustrated during the last 20 years, when cameras were capable of much less ?  Certainly not.

 

For me Sony is a producer of fine sensors, but of cameras that I do not like. E.G. I like the D800 D810 with its sensor much better than the a7R II - both sensors are Sony made AFAIK, but I prefer the results from the Nikon. And I like the policy of one "leading camera" for several years much better, than this constant exchange of hardware. For me this is a waste of resources. (And of time as well). It makes me (almost) sick.

Edited April 21, 2017 by caissa

[wildlightphoto]

I cannot see that this is reality - at least not for me. I can make a choice once and then I have to live with it for several years.

So I once made the decision in favour or against the SL, and then that's it. No additional frustration anymore.

You only have a choice with Sony, if you are willing to spend the money several times - or if you have a sponsor or dealer that offers you the possibility to switch several times (without losing too much money), but this is not the reality for most users.

 

And if you concentrate on the pics you will probably avoid most of this artificial frustration. Or were you constantly frustrated during the last 20 years, when cameras were capable of much less ?  Certainly not.

 

For me Sony is a producer of fine sensors, but of cameras that I do not like. E.G. I like the D800 D810 with its sensor much better than the a7R II - both sensors are Sony made AFAIK, but I prefer the results from the Nikon. And I like the policy of one "leading camera" for several years much better, than this constant exchange of hardware. For me this is a waste of resources. (And of time as well). It makes me (almost) sick.

 

 

Yes I was certainly frustrated for the last 20 years.  Autofocus SLRs have terrible viewfinders for manual focus, the Leicaflex SL spoiled me for lesser equipment.  And the bulk and weight of DSLRs frustrated me along with the piss-poor focussing accuracy.  Mirrorless cameras such as the SL and the Sony a7 series (and now, a9) have eliminated my frustrations with modern cameras.  The Sony cameras didn't interest me enough to spend my money until they incorporated IBIS.

 

And guess what, I haven't "upgraded" with each new model introduction.  I bought the cameras that met my needs: the a7II to dip my toe in the system, and now the a7rII because I've found that despite the fiddly buttons and horrid menus that I'm getting more and better pictures.  There are very specific reasons the Leica SL doesn't work as well for me, a few of which might or might not be resolved in upcoming firmware or hardware releases.  The Sony cameras I've settled on have addressed these issues and are more productive for me.

[almoore]

I bought the cameras that met my needs: the a7II to dip my toe in the system, and now the a7rII because I've found that despite the fiddly buttons and horrid menus that I'm getting more and better pictures.  There are very specific reasons the Leica SL doesn't work as well for me...The Sony cameras I've settled on have addressed these issues and are more productive for me.

You're not alone. Despite all the jibes about Sony cameras being plasticky toys, they're being used by a lot of working photographers who find that their virtues outweigh their shortcomings.

[Paul J]

I don't care what anyone says or what ever argument they have, 20fps is ridiculous.

 

I have ZERO interest in any photography shot at 20fps.

 

Is there is no magic left in the world? No more cultivation of talent? No more sensitivity, and the decisive moment?

 

Observe, interpret, respond. That is what photography was and is. This is equivalent to performance enhancing drugs. It's not longer about photography, just cameras. RIP photography.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Paul J

[helged]

Although I follow your argument, Paul, wildlife and in particular birds in flight, can certainly benefit from a high frame rate. I use 11 fps on SL (and high-end Nikon) when I shoot birds. This may give me a few pics where wings and light and focus sit. Otherwise, not. Different types of photography, I guess.

Edited April 22, 2017 by helged

[Jeff S]

The Sony target is Canon and Nikon, which includes pro users who already make their living shooting high burst rates, among other techniques/features.

 

Not my cup of tea.... but different tools for different needs....horses....

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

I don't care what anyone says or what ever argument they have, 20fps is ridiculous.

 

I have ZERO interest in any photography shot at 20fps.

 

Is there is no magic left in the world? No more cultivation of talent? No more sensitivity, and the decisive moment?

 

Observe, interpret, respond. That is what photography was and is. This is equivalent to performance enhancing drugs. It's not longer about photography, just cameras. RIP photography.

 

 

No need to RIP photography Paul. 

 

These cameras are largely for people who genuinely have a different style from the one you describe and will never go about things in the way you do, or for people who are not able to get the results they want by more traditional methods.

 

Good luck to them if they enjoy it, there's no virtue in effort for its own sake, (that is the bit I expect some people to disagree with) but it won't make any difference to others like you and me and probably most Leica users who prefer doing things quite differently.

[Paul J]

No need to RIP photography Paul. 

 

These cameras are largely for people who genuinely have a different style from the one you describe and will never go about things in the way you do, or for people who are not able to get the results they want by more traditional methods.

 

Good luck to them if they enjoy it, there's no virtue in effort for its own sake, (that is the bit I expect some people to disagree with) but it won't make any difference to others like you and me and probably most Leica users who prefer doing things quite differently.

 

 

I'm reacting to many comments on blogs etc about using this for portraiture, weddings, street photography.

 

They can't get the results because they haven't bothered trying, in sticking with it, learning about photography, tuning into sensitivity, they're not observing and reacting, thinking, they are just machine gunning their victims and still getting boring dull photos. In 5, 20, 30 years time of people doing this I can't even think of what photography will be like and how little it will be regarded.

 

I saw one video example that took 20fps for what seemed a minute of a gymnast doing nothing, missing entirely that in the foreground was someone head ruining the photo.

 

You can take the fair play route if you like, but personally I have no respect for this sort of practice and I really don't like what photography is becoming.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Paul J]

Although I follow your argument, Paul, wildlife and in particular birds in flight, can certainly benefit from a high frame rate. I use 11 fps on SL (and high-end Nikon) when I shoot birds. This may give me a few pics where wings and light and focus sit. Otherwise, not. Different types of photography, I guess.

 

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that every application is irrelevant. I'm not even aware of every application it could be used for and I'm not trying to suggest that I do know. I'm reacting to people talking about using this for portraits, weddings, street photography, replacing conventional photography. It's not photography. it's video. and just IMO, it's terrible. I was down at Cue Gardens the other week and there were all these dSLR nuts with multiple bodies, 300 2.8's, shooting at 10fps for seconds in a row of old people walking down paths. Ridiculous.