New Firmware 3.0

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the third day after the arrival of the great new firmware, the "new SL" is still quite an unknown camera to me. I was not able to give the AF in all its different modes a thorough testing. For me the time was too short. It will probably take several months before I can definitely say how well it compares to my Canon and Nikon equipment.

So I am simply astonished to hear how others are already clearly stating that the SL is still an inferior camera - they must have been extremely busy during the last three days, so that they can firmly make and prove their statements.

 

Or put in other words: What is discussed here sounds to me premature. Using the time for testing would have been the better choice, And coming to a conclusion after several months of tests in different environments with time between the tests to consider the results and try possible improvements sounds much more convincing than what I hear now.

 

Another point: The D5 or 1Dx II are no reference points for me. They are not my preferred CaNikon products - value per price is not good enough for what I am using them. I prefer the higher resolving models, the semi-pro gear at a more decent price. I do not know how many professional photographers would prefer the pro cameras to their semi-pro counterparts. I think the semi-pro gear is much more often used for birding or wildlife or nature or macro.

 

So for me the comparison is still completely open. I just know that my CaNikon gear has not made any noticeable changes lately, while the SL has suddenly taken a really big leap forward.

Edited June 4, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[steveBK]

CaNikon comparisons are interesting.

I was just at a wedding today. Small, outdoor ceremony.

I forgot how loud DSLRs are.

Pro in aisle to my left & guest to my rear both shootings.

VERY loud. People 2 rows up (there were only 8 rows) were turning around to look.

 

Mirrorless pro can deliver an advantage there.

[Advertisement]

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

[Budfox]

No question mirrorless pros are the future. The swinging mirror is certainly old technology - and can't be improved with a firmware upgrade.

 

The SL and A9 both show what is possible physically and technically, especially with the rapid narrowing between what we still call 'video' versus 'still pictures'. In the future it will all just be imaging - video or still being only a matter of preference in post processing.

 

The D5 and 1Dx will be as quaint and collectible as the M3 is now.

[helged]

The Canon 1DX and Nikon D5 serve a very different purpose at a similar price point to the SL. The SL just doesn't perform as well for the type of photography those cameras are designed for. Having shot a D4 and D4s I can tell you they are great sports/action cameras as well as great general purpose cameras. I still prefer the SL at this point because of the EVF and the ability to shoot my M lenses.

Same with me. SL for almost everything except wildlife, then I use Nikon D5/D500 with long lenses.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Have you had a long look at the EXIF data?

 

A forum member complained that there was no indication in the DNG file that electronic shutter was used instead of manual.  He's right.  There may be something in the (private, proprietary, undecodable) Leica Maker Notes section, but there is no EXIF tag in which it could be recorded, and I can find no other tag which has been used for this purpose.  (I use Adobe's DNG Validation toolkit to extract all metadata.)

 

When EXIF, TIFF, and DNG standards were developed, as far back as the 1980s, this was not an issue to be concerned about.  Maybe now it is.

 

scott

Edited June 4, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[ramarren]

I don't really care whether a Nikon or Canon is a 'better' camera for sports or bird photography. I don't do much of either. 

I also don't care whether the EXIF data shows that my camera used the electronic shutter or not. I hardly ever look at the EXIF data.

 

I'm not sure why these concerns are so important to some folks.

 

What I do care about is that the SL is now more responsive, the exposure more accurate, the focus with both SL24-90 and SL90-280 (and reportedly SL50) lenses faster and more accurate, that tracking works better than it did, that various bugs I reported have all been taken care of, and that Leica is responsively developing the SL system into maturity. These are the things I thanked Leica for, not whether the SL is some kind of "world beater" that can do anything better than any other camera. We all know that that notion is idiotic. 

[rafikiphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't really care whether a Nikon or Canon is a 'better' camera for sports or bird photography. I don't do much of either. 

 

I'm not sure why these concerns are so important to some folks.

 

 

Perhaps because they are sports or bird photographers?

[ramarren]

Perhaps because they are sports or bird photographers?

 

 

Then they should test the cameras they're interested in and buy the camera they believe is superior for their use. Why debate about whether a Leica SL might be as good or not as if it were some kind of dogma? 

 

I know Doug has tested the SL extensively for his bird photography and has chosen something else (neither Nikon nor Canon) as he finds it works better at this time. Nothing wrong with that. Why belabor the evaluation and decision with all the debate? 

[steppenw0lf]

About the ES. 

I found out that the A9 delivers DR of 14 bit  with pics taken with the mechanical shutter - usually single images and anything slower than 5 fps, because the normal shutter maxes out at 5 fps.

For faster series the ES is automatically used, but everything taken with it has only 12 bit of DR.

At the moment I do not know if this makes a big difference (well if I asked a X1D user it would certainly make a huge difference   ).

 

But it is interesting that there is this limitation, after all Sony regards using the ES as the normal modus operandi. (because of the noiseless shutter)

With the SL we can go to 11 fps without a reduction in DR. that gives us more flexibility. I like that.

But the question arises, if the SL FES has similar properties ?  (like reduced DR ?)

Up until now I thought there were no drawbacks (apart from the typical flaws of ESs), so can anybody tell more about that ?

[ramarren]

ES implementations are so new on the ground that I suspect the only way to understand what effect it might have on DR and ISO performance is to do some testing. Should be easy to do ... you already have the camera in your hands. Why don't you do some testing and let everyone know what you discover? 

[steppenw0lf]

Especially now when testing and comparing pics taken with FES and with ordinary shutter (going back and forth all the time), I would like to have a means of quickly seeing which is which.

Still I have not found a means - neither when the camera is running (no new icon or anything) nor afterwards in the "lab". This is no complaint, I was just not sure if I had overlooked anything and asked here for advice.

So I would be glad if anybody finds anything regarding this (tiny) "problem".

[LocalHero1953]

Then they should test the cameras they're interested in and buy the camera they believe is superior for their use. Why debate about whether a Leica SL might be as good or not as if it were some kind of dogma? 

 

I know Doug has tested the SL extensively for his bird photography and has chosen something else (neither Nikon nor Canon) as he finds it works better at this time. Nothing wrong with that. Why belabor the evaluation and decision with all the debate? 

Why not? Isn't that the sort of debate forums are for? I see no belabouring or dogma here. I, for one, am certainly interested in how different cameras perform with different subjects and styles.

 

It would help, though, when those taking part in the debate say what their actual experience is with the cameras and lenses in question, to remove any doubt that the evidence is first hand. I have nothing to offer in comparative favour of the SL or against for sports and wildlife, because I don't have experience of cameras other than the SL for birds and sports. I suspect, though, that for a lot of wildlife photography (though certainly not all) lenses longer than the SL's 90-280 are needed.

[Guest VVJ]

In my business trip to Milan last month, I could not afford to carry a bag of prime M lenses plus my M240, so 24-90 + SL which I brought along was a good comprimise for me.

 

Same here.  And as I have been doing that for a year now the question really is whether I still need any SL primes...?

 

At this stage I am probably closer to buying the M10 and (lightweight) M glass than I am to buying additional SL glass.  

[ski542002]

Have a bug report to describe for the new firmware.  

 

Overall love the new update.  Shot my first big event yesteday with the new firmware installed.  I use M-lenses (& 1, R lens) on the SL.  Two of my lenses are Zeiss, a 50mm F2 Planar and a 21mm 2.8 Biogon. For past iterations of the firmware, I could pick a similar Leica-branded lens profile for my Zeiss lenses.  When I mounted either Zeiss, the lens profile I wanted showed up on my options list immediately.  I'd have to go thru the trouble of manually going to the menu, but the lens selection was there and "it would stick" as long as the lens was mounted.  Even if I  removed a Zeiss lens and would eventually go back to it later in a shoot, the lens selection would usually hold.  

 

NOW, I'm given 3 options when a  non-Leica lens is mounted,  OFF, Auto, and Leica-lens which brings me to a list.  I go to the list and select my close lens-profile approximation.  Then when I shoot, I get a quick warning screen telling me I've mounted an unrecognized lens.  To remove the screen, I need to half-press the shutter button, or if I'm continuously shooting, the warning screen goes away without interrupting my shooting sequence.  The images ARE captured but I don't even know if the camera is applying the leica-branded lens profile.  Somewhat irritating and must be a bug.  

 

Still am greatly enjoying the new firmware.  Camera seems snappier for all capture related functions.

[LD_50]

Then they should test the cameras they're interested in and buy the camera they believe is superior for their use. Why debate about whether a Leica SL might be as good or not as if it were some kind of dogma?

 

I know Doug has tested the SL extensively for his bird photography and has chosen something else (neither Nikon nor Canon) as he finds it works better at this time. Nothing wrong with that. Why belabor the evaluation and decision with all the debate?

I have tested the Nikon D# cameras and their high end zooms and telephotos. The SL is positioned as a high fps, fast AF, pro camera with two zooms that compete with the standard pro kits from Nikon and Canon (24-70 and 70-200). You know this as well as I do so I don't understand why you question the comparison.

 

That you don't need some of the features the SL offers is irrelevant to whether others might want to actually use those features to replace camera systems from other brands.

[ramarren]

I have tested the Nikon D# cameras and their high end zooms and telephotos. The SL is positioned as a high fps, fast AF, pro camera with two zooms that compete with the standard pro kits from Nikon and Canon (24-70 and 70-200). You know this as well as I do so I don't understand why you question the comparison.

 

That you don't need some of the features the SL offers is irrelevant to whether others might want to actually use those features to replace camera systems from other brands.

 

 

I don't care how the SL is "positioned" by the marketers. I care what it does. 

 

I compared the SL against my Nikon and Olympus systems for my use. The Nikon system is now sold. The Olympus system is next to go on the block. The SL outperforms both for my photography. Done. Whether it is more suitable for your photography only you can decide, hopefully by testing them in comparison.

 

No amount of someone else's testing ever told me what worked best for my photography. Which is why I neither read nor publish test reports...  

Edited June 4, 2017 by ramarren

[LD_50]

I don't care how the SL is "positioned" by the marketers. I care what it does.

 

I compared the SL against my Nikon and Olympus systems for my use. The Nikon system is now sold. The Olympus system is next to go on the block. The SL outperforms both for my photography. Done. Whether it is more suitable for your photography only you can decide, hopefully by testing them in comparison.

 

No amount of someone else's testing ever told me what worked best for my photography. Which is why I neither read nor publish test reports...

Someone posted that the quality Leica glass outweighs the AF offered by Canon and Nikon for bird in flight photography. I was responding to this person to say the SL doesn't suit that type of photography as well as Canon and Nikon's best and likely won't until PDAF is available along with teleconverters and longer lenses.

 

You question the reason to debate the differences. Debate and comparison is the reason for a forum, especially when it's focused on the actual performance of the tool for a task and not about the brand (as many seem caught up in) or one's personal and singular focus. This is what you are seem to reference with your comments that only each individual can decide if one tool outperforms another, which is absolutely incorrect. Objective tests may not be interesting to you but that doesn't mean the results are inaccurate or meaningless to others. The AF in a D4s (and likely D5) outperforms the AF in an SL for BIF and any erratically moving subject requiring tracking, period. It doesn't matter who tests it, the SL is just not as effective at completing the task. It's not even particularly close. The whole business about "for my photography" just means you don't shoot anything that leverages the strengths of the competing systems. That's okay and but also not meaningful to those who shoot subjects requiring great AF and high fps.

 

The SL is not only "positioned" to be an alternative to Canon and Nikon's best, it's designed to be. It includes features that are meant for exactly the same thing as the same features in a Canon or Nikon. The fact is the relevant features included (11fps, tracking AF, etc) don't work as well as the alternatives from other brands.

 

All that said, like you, "for my photography" I just don't need the high fps and AF abilities often enough to maintain a Nikon kit anymore. I hope the SL series improves dramatically in these areas so that when I do, I do not have to rent and carry another system. My needs don't negate the reason to discuss the differences on these forums.

[LocalHero1953]

I don't care how the SL is "positioned" by the marketers. I care what it does. 

 

I compared the SL against my Nikon and Olympus systems for my use. The Nikon system is now sold. The Olympus system is next to go on the block. The SL outperforms both for my photography. Done. Whether it is more suitable for your photography only you can decide, hopefully by testing them in comparison.

 

No amount of someone else's testing ever told me what worked best for my photography. Which is why I neither read nor publish test reports...  

Now that's settled, and I doubt you'll find anyone here who would disagree with you.

 

Can you leave us mere mortals to consider how the SL works for sports and wildlife? And how it compares with other cameras that can be used for the same thing?

[ramarren]

Someone posted that the quality Leica glass outweighs the AF offered by Canon and Nikon for bird in flight photography. I was responding to this person to say the SL doesn't suit that type of photography as well as Canon and Nikon's best and likely won't until PDAF is available along with teleconverters and longer lenses.

 

You question the reason to debate the differences. Debate and comparison is the reason for a forum, especially when it's focused on the actual performance of the tool for a task and not about the brand (as many seem caught up in) or one's personal and singular focus. This is what you are seem to reference with your comments that only each individual can decide if one tool outperforms another, which is absolutely incorrect. Objective tests may not be interesting to you but that doesn't mean the results are inaccurate or meaningless to others. The AF in a D4s (and likely D5) outperforms the AF in an SL for BIF and any erratically moving subject requiring tracking, period. It doesn't matter who tests it, the SL is just not as effective at completing the task. It's not even particularly close. The whole business about "for my photography" just means you don't shoot anything that leverages the strengths of the competing systems. That's okay and but also not meaningful to those who shoot subjects requiring great AF and high fps.

 

The SL is not only "positioned" to be an alternative to Canon and Nikon's best, it's designed to be. It includes features that are meant for exactly the same thing as the same features in a Canon or Nikon. The fact is the relevant features included (11fps, tracking AF, etc) don't work as well as the alternatives from other brands.

 

All that said, like you, "for my photography" I just don't need the high fps and AF abilities often enough to maintain a Nikon kit anymore. I hope the SL series improves dramatically in these areas so that when I do, I do not have to rent and carry another system. My needs don't negate the reason to discuss the differences on these forums.

 

(bolded) I always thought forums were for sharing information about common pursuits and helping others; not debating which thing is better than which other thing. Forgive my naïveté. 

 

Now that's settled, and I doubt you'll find anyone here who would disagree with you.

 

Can you leave us mere mortals to consider how the SL works for sports and wildlife? And how it compares with other cameras that can be used for the same thing?

 

 

Consider it, sure. When I see notes from someone who actually uses both for these different purposes and can document properly why they've arrived at their conclusions, I might consider what they have to say about it credible. For me to find these opinions credible and useful, you see, requires that I understand how similar to my use of the camera their use of the camera might be. Statements like "The AF in a D4s (and likely D5) outperforms the AF in an SL for BIF and any erratically moving subject requiring tracking, period." mean nothing to me since when I've used tracking for 'erratically moving subjects' with firmware 3.0, the SL has performed very nicely. I can't tell what circumstances the individual making that statement is referring to, or what the difference is. (The SL with firmware 3 and the SL90-280 at 180mm setting is certainly outperforming my Nikon D750 with Nikon 180/2.8 AF-D in this regard in my tests (I tested both at the local middle school ball field, shooting kids playing a casual game of football, specifically to see how the tracking and AFc worked, since I don't ordinarily use AFc or tracking...). The D750 is not a D4, but it does this better than I've ever needed, and the SL did it a little bit better with the current firmware. 

 

Note that I've been photographing racing at track and road events for forty years, when I get the chance, and only recently found that there was some use for AFc and tracking in those situations. Most of the time, the machine gun like rat-tat-tat of shutters going off produces only one or two useful frames out of hundreds taken, and my hit rate for useful frames with just good timing and sensible prefocusing, using a 1-2 fps auto wind and single frame at a time shooting, net me on the order of 6 good frames out of 10 tries. 

 

But continue on. I'm sure everyone will anyway. I'll skip the thread from now on.

Edited June 4, 2017 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

(bolded) I always thought forums were for sharing information about common pursuits and helping others; not debating which thing is better than which other thing. Forgive my naïveté.

 

...

 

But continue on. I'm sure everyone will anyway. I'll skip the thread from now on.

"Sharing information about common pursuits" is not different than discussing (or debating or comparing) an SL to a Nikon or Canon shooting the same subject (be it BIF, or sports, or landscape or anything else).

 

I do value your input (typically technical) on many threads. I hope you don't choose to ignore the thread as you always have a lot to offer. Simply acknowledging others may want to discuss features you don't find interesting would be enough to move the thread along without posturing that your opinion carries more weight here.

Edited June 4, 2017 by LD_50