Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Bad news for the SL.

Csacwp

By Csacwp
in Leica SL System

Recommended Posts

wildlightphoto

wildlightphoto

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

20 frames/sec doesn't interest me.  Likewise the SL's 11 frames/sec.  I've always been a single-exposure photographer.  Old habits die hard, etc.

 

Beyond the basic advantages of the EVF and Sony's IBIS the features of the a9 that appeal to me are dual card slots and the reportedly less onerous menu system, both of which are featured on the SL.  OTOH the advantages of the a7rII's 42MP when photographing feather detail at close range with a Leica APO lens are irrefutable so 24MP doesn't appeal to me.  I'll pass on the a9.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply
BerndReini

BerndReini

Posted
Posted

I think that I will wait for 50 fps.  20 fps cannot capture das Wesentliche.

 

I am shifting back toward film more and more. There is no abstraction left in digital. It looks too real, and then people crunch it up with the clarity slider, which just makes all the colors look "dirty." The Sony crowd seems to love that look. I'd rather shoot film, or even instant film these days. This race is so dumb and unnecessary. It will end with video cameras dominating all of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff S

Jeff S

Posted
Posted

I am shifting back toward film more and more. There is no abstraction left in digital. It looks too real, and then people crunch it up with the clarity slider, which just makes all the colors look "dirty." The Sony crowd seems to love that look. I'd rather shoot film, or even instant film these days. This race is so dumb and unnecessary. It will end with video cameras dominating all of it.

 

I don't blame the tools....it's still up to the user to create the final results.  I've seen wonderful work (prints notably) from film and digital....and lots of crap, too, especially online.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
NB23

NB23

Posted
Posted

No, the RS3 is lighter, too.

 

Car analogies mostly don't work.

 

Jeff

Come on!

 

Here where I live people say that Corvette owners have tiny deecks. And over there, where my heart lives, people say that the VW Golf II is legendary.

 

Although I have no idea, Sounds accurate to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

I shoot both Sony and Leica in parallel - Sony A7R for digital, Leica M for film. The A9 is not of interest to me due to its focus on action/sports photography which is not the photography I am interested in to do. But high resolution/high DR photography certainly is - and I can't justify to put the $$$$ on the table for a M10 or predecessor digital M camera which - sorry to say this here - is technically not on pair with competitive sensor technology. I am fine with the Sony A7 series - yes, different from a Leica rangefinder, but in the end it delivers results which I want perfectly fine. And I can use the same Leica lenses on my Sony A7R, too.....best of two worlds :). 

 

Taken today: Sony A7R, Leica 35/2 version IV lens, smooth reflection app within A7R camera.

 

p2289551340-5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

Sony = Corvette

 

Leica = Good Old Volkswagen Golf II

 

 

Sony = Porsche 911

 

Leica = Porsche 911 RS3. (You know. The one with the carpets, flappy paddles and radio removed that's twice the price but somehow more fun to drive.)

 

Both is sort of right - just depends on the application and the shooting style of the photographer. If people/street photography in digital is of interest, IMO Leica works as a Porsche and Sony like a VW. Rangefinder OVF is clearly advantageous here especially with the extended view of objects coming in and out the field of view. Depending on the model, silent shutter is advantageous, too. Things are vice-versa when looking at landscape, macro, or studio photography - Sony has the edge here with higher resolution/higher DR sensor, tilt screen, and EVF. Horses for courses....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

I am shifting back toward film more and more. There is no abstraction left in digital. It looks too real, and then people crunch it up with the clarity slider, which just makes all the colors look "dirty." The Sony crowd seems to love that look. I'd rather shoot film, or even instant film these days. This race is so dumb and unnecessary. It will end with video cameras dominating all of it.

 

Yes....and no: As stated earlier, I am also shooting film, about 50:50 with digital. Yes, film helps you to focus better on composition and the essential. But it is not correct to generalize that all Sony post processed photos look dirty - as with any kind of digital photo, it all depends on your post processing preference. I shoot Sony, and I dislike over-post processed photos, too. But I like the options which Sony gives me in my camera - even if I only use part of them on a regular basis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BerndReini

BerndReini

Posted
Posted

I don't blame the tools....it's still up to the user to create the final results.  I've seen wonderful work (prints notably) from film and digital....and lots of crap, too, especially online.

 

Jeff

 

Oh, I agree. I just wouldn't want to spend my time going through all these files trying to pick which one I like. There were even fantastic sports photographs that were shot with an old Graflex before the "fast" 35mm format was invented. 

 

 

 

But it is not correct to generalize that all Sony post processed photos look dirty - as with any kind of digital photo, it all depends on your post processing preference.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a Sony problem. My generalization is that the trend of upgrading to the newest feature laden tool coincides with a trend toward overprocessing and HDR. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
caissa

caissa

Posted
Posted

Imagine Leica made an announcement that there is a SL2 with 42 MP and 15 frames/s and IBIS.

We would not believe it, would critisize the camera before we have seen or held it and so on....

But when Sony does the same, and nobody has seen the camera and dozens of writers are simply copying the Sony announcement - then we call this bad news for Leica, then we believe every single word about the phantastic new features.

For example a new menu system - since several years it is crappy and Sony was not making it better in any way. But now they write it has been redesigned and everybody knows from this moment on that it is really good, perfect.

And similarly, what is the price - some stated already 4500$ which sounds great. But others published 5300$ not so great anymore. And why are there two prices if everything about the camera is so clear and well defined and trustworthy ? And you need the additional battery grip to get decent battery life - maybe also for top speed. How much is this ? And the weight ?

And AF is extremely fast, but what about the older lenses that were known to be slow ? Or aren't there any ?

Speed often depends on the lens, so which lens was taken to measure the AF speed ? Was it measured or is it just a statement of direction ?

 

Don't you see what nonsense this is ? 

 

And many/some say they use mainly M lenses with the Sony - so will there also be a "corrected" sensor for these users ? (like the a7R II)

Link to post
Share on other sites
105012

105012

Posted
Posted

Not sure if this is a useful contribution, but here is a link comparing the size of 5 cameras (including the SL) with approx 80-300mm (equiv) lenses attached:

 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#692.444,679.620,713.581,639.495,655.607,ha,t

 

(Helps to view on a larger monitor).

 

MFT, APS-C, 35mm x 3

 

One thing to note is that I think the SL is the only one with a non-extending lens(?).

 

If you hover over the cameras you can see the weights of the setups. In my view Leica is in a league of their own when it comes to design of control interfaces, but size and weight are on the high side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin B

Martin B

Posted
Posted

And many/some say they use mainly M lenses with the Sony - so will there also be a "corrected" sensor for these users ? (like the a7R II)

 

In fact the A7R II sensor does only limited work better with wide angle M lenses compared to the A7R. The issue is not the sensor itself, it is the sensor stack: the A7 (and likely A9) sensor stack is optimized for the FE lenses. Sony uses a much thicker sensor class compared to the Leica M digital cameras. The thicker sensor glass leads to some vignetting in the corners of the frame with some wide and ultra-wide lenses which can be corrected in post processing. Kolarivision offers a modification of A7-based cameras to use thinner sensor glass which seems to help a lot with the Leica M/Sony sensor hybrid (I have no personal experience with the latter since I am fine removing some little color shift in the corners in PP). It is very unlikely that Sony will release a new sensor stack which would be better for M lenses since Sony pushes now for their own FE lens line which the stack is optimized for. 

 

Important to know which M lenses workl well with Sony's sensor stack and which don't. Very important for users like me which use M lenses both for M (film) cameras and with Sony digital. Rule of thumb: stay away from wide ASPH M lenses which are mostly really bad from my own experience on Sony A7 cameras. The predecessor M versions (non ASPH) on the other hand work great (the 35/2 Summicron is a good example here). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...