New Firmware 3.0

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sold off all my Nikon gear so there won't be any direct comparisons from me. You can look at just about all the professional sports photography available (including horse racing) to see the high end Nikon and Canon gear's results. There's a reason these two companies dominate sports photography, because the tools simply work best. Sony may be challenging that with the newest A9, though I have no experience with it.

 

The last Nikon gear I shot with was a D4s and an assortment of lenses. For action stuff it was 24-70, 70-200, 200, etc. Now shooting with the SL for a year I can tell you the Nikon gear was substantially better for me when shooting fast moving subjects, AFc, and tracking. I haven't shot anything as effective (besides testing the D5) but I'm sure Canon's best is similar, as are a few others. The SL just isn't in that league yet and probably won't get there without the addition of PDAF.

 

In terms of focus accuracy, the SL blows it away for most everything else. The Nikon zooms were painful for accuracy and having to micro adjust the AF for each one. They don't allow adjustments at different focal lengths/apertures so you basically hope for the best. The one big challenge for me with SL focus accuracy is the size of the AF points. They are far too large to avoid having to zoom in and adjust manually.

In my earlier replies to you I use my actual shots from my SL as verification to support my point.

So you have provided your criticisms to the photos on the horses critical saying the SL misses focus on the right point and yet cannot show us how Nikon & Canon gear can achieve them but merely telling us subjectively Nikon and Canon is perfect? I don't buy it. Not because I think SL AF tracking is more superior than Csnon & Nikon, rather no AF tracking system available today is perfect.

[LD_50]

Canon and Nikon aren't perfect. Read what I wrote.

[sillbeers15]

Canon and Nikon aren't perfect. Read what I wrote.

I can only buy that Canon & Nikon have a more stable AF tracking due to phase detect system employment but certainly phase detect is not know to provide more accurate AF, so your critism on the horses pics off focus on key points such as eye of horses or and jockey that phase detect of Canon & Nikon can do a better job is not logical to me. Technically Contrust detect is more accurate just not as reliable to track focus giving a poorer hit rate of clearly focused pic. With dual motor on 90-289mm VE, the focusing is fast and razor sharp once the SL construst detect can successfully lock focus. My previous complain before FW3.0 is SL's ability to lock focus was poor. It has since improved lotsbased on my personal experience and other users in this forum.

[sillbeers15]

Canon and Nikon aren't perfect. Read what I wrote.

I can only buy that Canon & Nikon have a more stable AF tracking due to phase detect system employment but certainly phase detect is not know to provide more accurate AF, so your critism on the horses pics off focus on key points such as eye of horses or and jockey that phase detect of Canon & Nikon can do a better job is not logical to me. Technically Contrust detect is more accurate just not as reliable to track focus giving a poorer hit rate of clearly focused pic. With dual motor on 90-289mm VE, the focusing is fast and razor sharp once the SL construst detect can successfully lock focus. My previous complain before FW3.0 is SL's ability to lock focus was poor. It has since improved lotsbased on my personal experience and other users in this forum.

[scott kirkpatrick]

what does this conversation have to do with firmware 3.0?

[Chaemono]

Leica claims improved AF with FW 3.0 and somebody was wondering whether she or he could ditch their PDAF SLR now and replace it with the SL for sports and concert work. That's what got this whole thing going.

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

what does this conversation have to do with firmware 3.0?

There is great improvement to the AF tracking capability after FW3.0.

Before the camera more than often fail to lock focus on moving subject against a low construst background.

 

It is obvious you do not use the AF on capturing fast moving subjects often.

 

In that case if one hardly uses AF capability of the SL, it would be better sticking to the M which in return gives you better pic to weight ratio,....

Edited June 14, 2017 by sillbeers15

[Jeff S]

In that case if one hardly uses AF capability of the SL, it would be better sticking to the M which in return gives you better pic to weight ratio,....

There are many reasons folks use an SL in lieu of an M, e.g., EVF advantages, use of long/ wide lenses without external VF, use of R lenses, including manual zooms, etc.

 

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

It is obvious you do not use the AF on capturing fast moving subjects often.

 

I don't use AF often, but I use both M10 and SL.

Edited June 14, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[LD_50]

I can only buy that Canon & Nikon have a more stable AF tracking due to phase detect system employment but certainly phase detect is not know to provide more accurate AF, so your critism on the horses pics off focus on key points such as eye of horses or and jockey that phase detect of Canon & Nikon can do a better job is not logical to me. Technically Contrust detect is more accurate just not as reliable to track focus giving a poorer hit rate of clearly focused pic. With dual motor on 90-289mm VE, the focusing is fast and razor sharp once the SL construst detect can successfully lock focus. My previous complain before FW3.0 is SL's ability to lock focus was poor. It has since improved lotsbased on my personal experience and other users in this forum.

All PDAF systems are not equal nor are all CDAF. Your lack of understanding does not make the commentary illogical.

 

My comment about the focus locking on part of the horse that I wouldn't select was specifically discussed in relation to: the photographer's intent, the chosen DOF, and the size of the AF points on the SL. A D5 or something similar may or may not have done better. In my experience my Nikon gear was better for that type of photography but it's impossible to look at a single photo (or three) of a moving subject and say which camera would produce better results.

 

If you would just read what I wrote and stop making this a defend one brand or the other issue the thread can move along.

[sillbeers15]

All PDAF systems are not equal nor are all CDAF. Your lack of understanding does not make the commentary illogical.

 

My comment about the focus locking on part of the horse that I wouldn't select was specifically discussed in relation to: the photographer's intent, the chosen DOF, and the size of the AF points on the SL. A D5 or something similar may or may not have done better. In my experience my Nikon gear was better for that type of photography but it's impossible to look at a single photo (or three) of a moving subject and say which camera would produce better results.

 

If you would just read what I wrote and stop making this a defend one brand or the other issue the thread can move along.

What is the strength of PDAF? vs what is the strehgth of CDAF? Why not clearly state it if only you know all and think that others only know less than you?

 

The traditional PDAF is faster in finding focus as it has dedicated AF sensors to do the focusing job without using the image sensor, but it is less accurate than utilizing sensor pixels. CDAF is traditional slower as the image sensor has to double up as focusing image determination. However the recent improvements in CDAF utilizing lens dependent pixel derived image to speed up focusing (DFD in panasonic terminology) has improved focusing speed plus the dual motor set up in leica's 90=280mm. So that brought both focusing system speed much closer. However lacking the ability to lock focus under motion was one of the CDAF's weakness.

Tell me more that what I've missed and you know about, if you think of yourself as such a wise guy?

 

your comment here about about about AF point selection with respect to the situation would make sense as it is down to user and gear optimisation and not your earlier comments down on just blaming on a particular camera system weakness. I do not defend Leica in any way. It is not and will not be a better AF system than the D5 and 1DX in terms of hit rate. Certainly it is not the rubish you have said it to be. While we talked about FW3.0 improvement on AF tracking,...you insisted on bashing the SL's AF capability and how good the Nikon & Canon were. Now you talk about user interface against strength & weakness of AF system. Read what you have written again and tell me I were wrong?

Edited June 14, 2017 by sillbeers15

[LD_50]

What is the strength of PDAF? vs what is the strehgth of CDAF? Why not clearly state it if only you know all and think that others only know less than you?The traditional PDAF is faster in finding focus as it has dedicated AF sensors to do the focusing job without using the image sensor, but it is less accurate than utilizing sensor pixels. CDAF is traditional slower as the image sensor has to double up as focusing image determination. However the recent improvements in CDAF utilizing lens dependent pixel derived image to speed up focusing (DFD in panasonic terminology) has improved focusing speed plus the dual motor set up in leica's 90=280mm. So that brought both focusing system speed much closer. However lacking the ability to lock focus under motion was one of the CDAF's weakness.Tell me more that what I've missed and you know about, if you think of yourself as such a wise guy?your comment here about about about AF point selection with respect to the situation would make sense as it is down to user and gear optimisation and not your earlier comments down on just blaming on a particular camera system weakness. I do not defend Leica in any way. It is not and will not be a better AF system than the D5 and 1DX in terms of hit rate. Certainly it is not the rubish you have said it to be. While we talked about FW3.0 improvement on AF tracking,...you insisted on bashing the SL's AF capability and how good the Nikon & Canon were. Now you talk about user interface against strength & weakness of AF system. Read what you have written again and tell me I were wrong?

Please stop. Ignore my posts if necessary.

[Jeff S]

Sony, with its A9, is the company that has unmistakably targeted Canon/Nikon with extremely fast (and silent) AF... and for overall market leadership. Of course that story has yet to be written.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

There is great improvement to the AF tracking capability after FW3.0.

Before the camera more than often fail to lock focus on moving subject against a low construst background.

 

It is obvious you do not use the AF on capturing fast moving subjects often.

 

In that case if one hardly uses AF capability of the SL, it would be better sticking to the M which in return gives you better pic to weight ratio,....

 

 

There are many other reasons to use the SL instead of an M: access to long lenses, macro work, copy work, movie capture, rapid sequence capture, etc. 

 

...And now we're well afield of SL firmware V3 commentary...

[sillbeers15]

There are many other reasons to use the SL instead of an M: access to long lenses, macro work, copy work, movie capture, rapid sequence capture, etc.

 

...And now we're well afield of SL firmware V3 commentary...

I agree.

I have commented so as I initially thought that based on technical capability I should replace my M with SL. Now after more than a year of using SL, I clearly see the merits of M and I missed using it. So for example that I'm traveling on business right now in Taiwan, I brought along my M340 + 35lux.

[frame-it]

Hi Godfrey,

 

 

could you possible share your "SL-with-M lens" custom key prefs ?

 

 

taking some time to get to a comfy key setup

 

 

thanks in advance.

 

 firmware V3 commentary...

 

 

[ramarren]

could you possible share your "SL-with-M lens" custom key prefs ?

 

 

I believe there was a thread or two about people's different setups over time. I spent the first month or two playing with different setting back in 2015 when I got the camera; I haven't changed them much since back then. This is what my "R & M lens" user configuration sets up. It's only slightly different in some details in the two user configurations I use for SL native lenses. 

 

Customizations

 

Button :: short press : long press (note that short press functions are not customizable)

------    -------------

TL :: menu : drive mode

BL :: magnification : exposure metering pattern

TR :: review : exposure compensation

BR :: display information : ISO setting

FN :: display mode : lens profile

VID :: OFF : user configuration

S/V :: still-video toggle : bracketing

 

FAVORITES MENU

Interval >

White Balance > 

JPG Setting > 

User Profile > 

Auto ISO Setting >

Lens Profiles >

WLAN > 

 

Firmware v2 then v3 didn't change much that changed these. Some of the underlying SETUP options expand on them ... for instance, the direction and meaning of the dial operation, what mode I configure the electronic shutter to be (EXTENDED), exposure preview setting (PASM), default ISO and file format (400, DNG), storage options (SD1=SD2), direct exposure compensation (ON), and so forth. 

[frame-it]

thank you

 

I believe there was a thread or two about people's different setups over time. I spent the first month or two playing with different setting back in 2015 when I got the camera; I haven't changed them much since back then. This is what my "R & M lens" user configuration sets up. It's only slightly different in some details in the two user configurations I use for SL native lenses. 

 

Customizations

 

Button :: short press : long press (note that short press functions are not customizable)

------    -------------

TL :: menu : drive mode

BL :: magnification : exposure metering pattern

TR :: review : exposure compensation

BR :: display information : ISO setting

FN :: display mode : lens profile

VID :: OFF : user configuration

S/V :: still-video toggle : bracketing

 

FAVORITES MENU

Interval >

White Balance > 

JPG Setting > 

User Profile > 

Auto ISO Setting >

Lens Profiles >

WLAN > 

 

Firmware v2 then v3 didn't change much that changed these. Some of the underlying SETUP options expand on them ... for instance, the direction and meaning of the dial operation, what mode I configure the electronic shutter to be (EXTENDED), exposure preview setting (PASM), default ISO and file format (400, DNG), storage options (SD1=SD2), direct exposure compensation (ON), and so forth. 

 

[Chaemono]

Please stop. Ignore my posts if necessary.

With the lens stopped down a bit they look better now, I think. Contrast is amazing. Look here for full resolution:

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-sm4ftm/

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sillbeers15]

With the lens stopped down a bit they look better now, I think. Contrast is amazing. Look here for full resolution:

 

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-sm4ftm/

 

S1000292_lufversion.jpg

It is not the problem of the lens nor the AF system unless your focus of entire picture is out. No AF system available can provide 100% hit rate on your focused subject and the employment of focusing pattern also determines the outcome of focus tracking. Stepping down is one way of improving focus through more DOF. Perhaps MF setting with zone focusing technique using corresponding DOF will provide more consistent results in such situation.PDAF system on DSLRs also often miss critical focal points suddenly on some shots within a series of AF tracked shots when tracking fast action subjects.