New Firmware 3.0

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is that right? I didn't know that. I can't see why it would need to be a function of the lens though, i.e. why it couldn't be implemented via firmware?

 

I actually tried the 50SL yesterday. It is wrist snappingly heavy; I think you really need the vertical grip to use it effectively for portraits.

The 50 is shorter and lighter than the 24-90 zoom. I don't require a vertical grip for the SL and 24-90 so can't see why it would be worse with the 50.

 

Most don't use the vertical grip, though it is likely helpful with the control placement. If you support the weight of the lens with your left hand the lack of vertical grip shouldn't matter much. It's been this way with every camera system I've shot with (i.e. Nikon D4) or without (i.e. SL, Nikon D700) vertical grip.

[LocalHero1953]

I haven't tried the 50, but I have no problem with the 24-90 zoom, with my left hand under the zoom ring. I use a hand strap which keeps the body firm on the right hand.

I find the 90-280 is manageable for shooting, though too heavy for me to carry at the ready all the time. 

[Advertisement]

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

[gvaliquette]

Avoiding a firmware update is not just because of the risk of residual bugs. You might actually prefer an older functionality that is changed by new firmware.

...

 

So the SL is different from the M240 and M9, where one can roll-back to a previous firmware as long as one has a copy of it.  Simply preferring a previous firmware version IS a valid reason to roll-back.  Having that option just went onto MY list of wishes for 3.1!

 

I do not doubt that beta-testers do their absolute best to break the firmware and expose bugs, but some always sneak by.

 

In medicine, we call this "post-marketing experience" and I am always wary of prescribing a new drug during the first year after its introduction, if there is any alternative.  And the FDA HAS withdrawn approval for some drugs after a year or two have revealed rare but potentially deadly side-effects.

 

Guy

[panoreserve]

Yes, you can combine the focus point (single point) with spot metering, no problem at all...(regarding the SL-lenses)

[scott kirkpatrick]

I think Leica firmware has generally tolerated rollbacks to an earlier release.  If not, it should provide a message saying that you agree there is no going back, with something to click on to show you absorbed the message.  Save your copy of the old firmware, or wait a few days to see what functions have changed, as opposed to simply being fixed, if you would like this protection.  But personally, I always go with the new version, if only so that if I see something that is still broken, I can complain.  Running old firmware, you are on your own.

 

scott

[scott kirkpatrick]

....

I find the 90-280 is manageable for shooting, though too heavy for me to carry at the ready all the time. 

I sometimes leave the tripod support on the 90-280, just to have something else to grab onto.  But remember what Brett Weston, aficionado of the 11x14 field camera, used to say -- if it's more than 100 yards from the car, it's not a picture.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sometimes leave the tripod support on the 90-280, just to have something else to grab onto.  But remember what Brett Weston, aficionado of the 11x14 field camera, used to say -- if it's more than 100 yards from the car, it's not a picture.

I agree entirely. The best thing about the 90-280 is how good it is for stuff close to you.

[thighslapper]

So the SL is different from the M240 and M9, where one can roll-back to a previous firmware as long as one has a copy of it.  Simply preferring a previous firmware version IS a valid reason to roll-back.  Having that option just went onto MY list of wishes for 3.1!

 

I do not doubt that beta-testers do their absolute best to break the firmware and expose bugs, but some always sneak by.

 

In medicine, we call this "post-marketing experience" and I am always wary of prescribing a new drug during the first year after its introduction, if there is any alternative.  And the FDA HAS withdrawn approval for some drugs after a year or two have revealed rare but potentially deadly side-effects.

 

Guy

 

yes but unlike drugs the glitches that get missed rarely have thalidomide like consequences.....

 

beta testers will have been stuck with the firmware for 6 weeks or so and I am sure they will have pointed out anything that was potentially fatal by now .....

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The 50 is shorter and lighter than the 24-90 zoom. I don't require a vertical grip for the SL and 24-90 so can't see why it would be worse with the 50.

 

Most don't use the vertical grip, though it is likely helpful with the control placement. If you support the weight of the lens with your left hand the lack of vertical grip shouldn't matter much. It's been this way with every camera system I've shot with (i.e. Nikon D4) or without (i.e. SL, Nikon D700) vertical grip.

 

I have the grip and don't like it much. The shutter button is in a different shooting position, the joystick doesn't fall to my thumb easily and the actual grip isn't very nice to hold on to. It's only redeeming feature is the second battery slot, as far as I'm concerned. I'd almost always prefer the RRS baseplate on my SL which extends the grip to the perfect size for me.

 

However the exception is when I'm shooting portraits with the SL 50. I don't know exactly why (probably the change in shooting position when in the vertical format for an extended period of time) and I don't feel the same way with the larger 90-280. I like the grip when with the 50. Maybe I'll feel the same way with they upcoming primes (prime vs zoom??).

 

I should note I've always been a grip hater, so my opinion is coloured by my previous experiences. I've shot many "pro" bodies and always hated them, eventually shooting the model below without a grip. The SL and 50 is a very weird exception for me.

 

Gordon

[Joshua Lowe]

I've had the e-shutter fire on my SL a few times.  Mostly when shooting at f2 in broad daylight but having forgotten to lower the ISO from 800 or 400 down to 100 or 50.  The photos are indistinguishable from ones taken with the mechanical shutter.  I can't perceive any difference in image quality, sharpness, etc.

[LocalHero1953]

E-shutters don't handle subject movement well. Although the exposure is short, it is actually read over around 1/30s from top to bottom of the sensor, so any significant subject movement can produce distortion. Pan a camera across a scene and vertical poles will appear tilted. Jim Kasson did a blog on this effect using a Sony, I think, but most e-shutters are similar.

Edited May 24, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[dancook]

Rolling shutter and banding with some artificial lighting are both issues with most electronic shutters (A9 unknown)

Edited May 24, 2017 by dancook

[scott kirkpatrick]

The emphasis on video options (some of which run at 60 and 120 frames/sec) is making e-shutters clean up their acts so that the image is extracted faster.  I haven't figured out how to measure that speed on the SL but the fast AF in good light suggests that the readout is 1/60 sec or better.  If someone has a variable (known) frequency strobe light (from their basement disco) they could count the light bands on a plain background and tell the duration over which the image was extracted.  To my taste, the bands of light from flourescents indoors is a big distraction.  Leaning light poles in the background when you pan with a fast moving car bother me much less.

 

scott

[Andrew Gough]

NOISE REDUCTION, I need to be able to TURN IT OFF. Especially in video, it makes the camera useless above ISO800...

[Andrew Gough]

I have the 50mm and it is fine without the grip.

[Irakly Shanidze]

The emphasis on video options (some of which run at 60 and 120 frames/sec) is making e-shutters clean up their acts so that the image is extracted faster.  I haven't figured out how to measure that speed on the SL but the fast AF in good light suggests that the readout is 1/60 sec or better.  If someone has a variable (known) frequency strobe light (from their basement disco) they could count the light bands on a plain background and tell the duration over which the image was extracted.  To my taste, the bands of light from flourescents indoors is a big distraction.  Leaning light poles in the background when you pan with a fast moving car bother me much less.

 

scott

 

Traveling bands with fluorescent light are easily taken care of by changing the shutter speed a notch. I was shooting the other day, and it was just a matter of 1/40 vs 1/50

[Irakly Shanidze]

NOISE REDUCTION, I need to be able to TURN IT OFF. Especially in video, it makes the camera useless above ISO800...

I also would LOVE to have 24 fps in UltraHD mode and a 1/48 sec shutter speed

[scott kirkpatrick]

I also would LOVE to have 24 fps in UltraHD mode and a 1/48 sec shutter speed

Why specifically 1/(2*fps)?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm no expert but I believe 1/24 is used to mimic the frame rate of film recording. The "cinematic" look created by 1/24th is unique and highly regarded by some cinematographers.

 

I also suspect it's like the difference in fast 50's. If you know what you want it's immediately obvious but an ignoramus like me probably won't see it.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Irakly Shanidze]

Why specifically 1/(2*fps)?

 

 

Because if the shutter speed faster than 1/2fps, the image looks jerky. it is especially noticeable on people close-ups.  Due to the retina inertia, we do not see motion blur on fast moving objects like we would on stills, hence 1/48 sec is a pretty much universal shutter speed in cinema.

At 25fps and 1/50 sec (this is the NTSC frequency) the footage looks a bit too smooth. That's why you can see the difference between a real movie shot at 24fps (even digitally) and a TV sitcom shot at 25, or 30 (in Europe Pal/SECAM refresh rate is 60Hz)