Chaemono Posted July 13, 2017 Share #21  Posted July 13, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) One can see what the difference in file sizes is here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-7Wx3DS/  I’m renting the a7r II this weekend and will use it with the Sonnar T* FE 35 mm F2,8 ZA. The other camera side by side to it will be the M10 with Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Hi Chaemono, Take a look here If the replacement for the SL were to use the TL2's pixel density?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted July 13, 2017 Share #22 Â Posted July 13, 2017 I don't need more than 24 Megapixels, but I have no problem with more if it is available and presents noticeable benefits. Whether I'd need to buy a new camera just because it has more pixel resolution ... most likely not. So if they are going to update the SL and want my upgrade money, they are going to have to come up with something a lot more compelling than just more pixels. Â Whether more pixels at the same quality is possible is not an issue. That's just a matter of engineering development. Â I can't think of what might be compelling enough to motivate my springing another bunch of cash for a new camera at the moment, which does nothing aside from making me very happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irakly Shanidze Posted July 14, 2017 Share #23 Â Posted July 14, 2017 This is a bit of BS. It's like saying, I've shelled out on the SL system and I'll be upset if there was something better out there too soon. In addition to SL, I shoot with H5D-50C and RAW files are 100+ MB each. And they offer fantastic flexibility in terms of DR, colour, skin tones and most importantly cropping, being 50 MP. And I don't sell the prints to advertising agencies, but get enormous personal satisfaction from work I can crank out. My LR catalog has 160,000+ RAW images, and I process everything on a 3 year old MacBook Pro. No fans are competing and all is zippy fast. Â I did not shell out on the SL, Leica gave it to me. When the new comes out, most likely I will get that one too. So, in this sense I am completely price unconscious. Â When it comes to enormous personal satisfaction, logic is not the best way to make purchasing decisions. In this situation, whatever tickles your fancy works. My point of view is based on using the system professionally. SL sales, unlike M and Q, are not something to write home about, unfortunately. At this point, it is the price that prevents SL from taking over the professional market, and anything that will increase its price, or operating costs, will make the situation even worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted July 14, 2017 Share #24 Â Posted July 14, 2017 At this point, it is the price that prevents SL from taking over the professional market, and anything that will increase its price, or operating costs, will make the situation even worse. Even if priced more competitively with Nikon, Canon, Fuji, M43, it has more preventing it from "taking over" the professional market. Â Lens options, availability, service turnaround times, CDAF only AF, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irakly Shanidze Posted July 15, 2017 Share #25 Â Posted July 15, 2017 Even if priced more competitively with Nikon, Canon, Fuji, M43, it has more preventing it from "taking over" the professional market. Â Lens options, availability, service turnaround times, CDAF only AF, etc. Â Leica SL is a long-term project. New lenses are coming out, Leica is working on building a professional support network. Of course "taking over" is not a goal, as it is just impossible at Leica's production capacity. It would still be a more of a niche option. That is, provided it is priced right, which is not. Cinematography, however, is a completely different story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted July 15, 2017 Share #26 Â Posted July 15, 2017 I did not shell out on the SL, Leica gave it to me. When the new comes out, most likely I will get that one too. So, in this sense I am completely price unconscious. When it comes to enormous personal satisfaction, logic is not the best way to make purchasing decisions. In this situation, whatever tickles your fancy works. My point of view is based on using the system professionally. SL sales, unlike M and Q, are not something to write home about, unfortunately. At this point, it is the price that prevents SL from taking over the professional market, and anything that will increase its price, or operating costs, will make the situation even worse. Â LOL not seen a post full of contradictions like this one. Price, at SL's price point, is the least of a factor for a professional photographer to consider. It pays itself off after the first project. And some "pros" "receive an SL from Leica" and "are completely price unconscious" however "at this point ... the price prevents SL from taking over the pro market" ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irakly Shanidze Posted July 15, 2017 Share #27  Posted July 15, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) LOL not seen a post full of contradictions like this one. Price, at SL's price point, is the least of a factor for a professional photographer to consider. It pays itself off after the first project. And some "pros" "receive an SL from Leica" and "are completely price unconscious" however "at this point ... the price prevents SL from taking over the pro market" ...  It does not seem that you are aware of a current situation with what photographers get paid for their projects. Even in advertising things are not as good as they used to be. I am not a photographer. I earn my living as a creative consultant, and photography is just something that I have to do as a part of it. This, however, does not prevent me from knowing of professional photographer needs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted July 16, 2017 Share #28  Posted July 16, 2017 M10 + 50 Apo Summicron (lower pixel density) vs. Sony a7r II + Planar FE 50/1.4 ZA (higher pixel density) at ISO 10000. The M10 has much better high ISO performance than the Sony IMO. On dynamic range, I'll have to use the same lens on both and try, again. In the first set the Planar is stopped down to f2 to match the Apo Summicron wide open. In the second set, both are at f4. The M10 captures the tones much better. In the link below there are a couple more. There, the Sony does appear to have more dynamic range but, as I said, I will try using the Apo on both, the M10 and the a7r II, and compare.  https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-fkWh8k/  M10 + 50 Apo Summicron at f2, 1/500, ISO 10000 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!  Sony a7r II + Planar FE 50/1.4 at f2, 1/500, ISO 10000 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Sony a7r II + Planar FE 50/1.4 at f2, 1/500, ISO 10000 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/274322-if-the-replacement-for-the-sl-were-to-use-the-tl2s-pixel-density/?do=findComment&comment=3316624'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted July 16, 2017 Share #29  Posted July 16, 2017 M10 + 50 Apo Summicron (lower pixel density) vs. Sony a7r II + Planar FE 50/1.4 ZA (higher pixel density) at ISO 10000. The M10 has much better high ISO performance than the Sony IMO.  Full resolution here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-fkWh8k/  M10 + 50 Apo Summicron at f4, 1/125, ISO 10000 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!  Sony a7r II + Planar 50/1.4 at f4, 1/125, ISO 10000 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Sony a7r II + Planar 50/1.4 at f4, 1/125, ISO 10000 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/274322-if-the-replacement-for-the-sl-were-to-use-the-tl2s-pixel-density/?do=findComment&comment=3316625'>More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted July 16, 2017 Share #30 Â Posted July 16, 2017 Thanks Chaemono. Your comparing pics between Leica vs Sony says it all. It clearly shows that higher pixels does not necessary = better pics quality! Â So based on pixels and specs sheet to compare on pricing is again meaningless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted July 28, 2017 Share #31 Â Posted July 28, 2017 Not exactly on topic, but this could be Nikon's FF mirrorless counterpart to SL2: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/07/27/new-nikon-patents-24-68mm-f2-8-4-fullframe-mirrorless-lens-and-a-multifunctional-hot-shoe.aspx/ (rumoured be announced/released in 2018). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted July 28, 2017 Share #32 Â Posted July 28, 2017 Your comparing pics between Leica vs Sony says it all... What it says to me is that all current equivalent sensor sized cameras are roughly equal in performance. And that the marginal differences are irrelevant to real world photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted July 28, 2017 Share #33 Â Posted July 28, 2017 This is not entirely correct. From Leica's company perspective, limitations of the human eye make it unnecessary to engage in the megapixel arms race. For any size of the image there is an optimal viewing distance. From this distance anything higher than 24 mpix in resolution looks no better than 24 mpix. Â .... Â The limitation of human eye is reached already at 17Mpx, roughly (there are naturally differences in human quality of vision), Therefore you already can crop a bit using a 24MPx sensor. Â Remember: if you want to increase resolution just by a factor of 2, you need 100 MPx instead. Only useful for cropping or for wimmelpictures. And often you will get equal results by merging 24MPx pictures. Â And in addition: shooting panorama pictures using a 50MPx sensor would be a nightmare in postprocessing.... Â For the next generation of SL: if Leica increases resolution from 24Mpx up to 36Mps, you will hardly see any differences, except you do a detailed side by side comparison. You will never ever recognize the difference in resolution if the picture is hanging on a wall. Â I hope for different bodies: one will stick to 24MPx and the other may get 50MPx at least. This would serve all of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted July 28, 2017 Share #34 Â Posted July 28, 2017 How about 10 MP vs. 24 MP (same sensor) here:Â https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9nGdxM/ Â By the way, the Sony a7r II really shines with the Summicrons. The best alternative for shooting M lenses next to an M or the SL. Some would say better than the SL. The dynamic range of the Sony is impressive. That's where the SL2 needs to close the gap IMO. I still prefer the overall look of the SL, though. Love how the SL feels, handles, and the shutter sound. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted July 29, 2017 Share #35 Â Posted July 29, 2017 ..The best alternative for shooting M lenses next to an M or the SL... Â True except for M wide-angle lenses, like the excellent Super Elmar 21mm or the Summilux 35mm, they show significant smearing and color shift in egdes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeri Posted July 29, 2017 Share #36 Â Posted July 29, 2017 If you shoot 30 weddings per year, plus another 30-50 big assignments per year, you don't want 50 Mp. I already struggle with the fact that the SL DNG files can't be compressed in camera. It makes editing on a 3 year old highest spec MacBook Pro slow enough to make me want to buy the Mac Pro or iMac pro to be released...Plus, I never, never felt the need for more Mp, nor did my clients. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx1713 Posted August 4, 2017 Share #37 Â Posted August 4, 2017 If you shoot 30 weddings per year, plus another 30-50 big assignments per year, you don't want 50 Mp. I already struggle with the fact that the SL DNG files can't be compressed in camera. It makes editing on a 3 year old highest spec MacBook Pro slow enough to make me want to buy the Mac Pro or iMac pro to be released...Plus, I never, never felt the need for more Mp, nor did my clients. Â Agreed. With the exception of cropping freedom, my needs are met with 24mp most of the time. Nonetheless, Ad agencies do have a big impact on the cropping to meet specific output. I've moved away from dealing with them, thankfully. So my needs have become simpler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx1713 Posted August 4, 2017 Share #38  Posted August 4, 2017 I've an unproductive habit of shooting too much, 2-3000 images  per week to cull 800-1200 of the best. So as fast as my computer is, that volume has a considerable impact on my performance and hard disk space. That said, I think Leica will have a higher density sensor because I believe their lenses can handle it and more importantly quite a few user have expressed their desire for it. Having a 54mp camera is not as unusual as having a monochrome only camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted August 13, 2017 Share #39 Â Posted August 13, 2017 36 MP are a blessing. Had it on my d800 before I swiched to Leica M and SL. The one thing I loved most was being able to swich to APSC and still have 18 MP resolution. This meant that I basically had two lenses on when using a prime. A 50 and a 75 for example, at the press of a single button (well, Leica still denies us that custom APSC shortcut, so you need to go through the menu or put it on one of the user presets, but it would be possible to implement in a simple firmware upgrade). Â Who wouldn't enjoy that liberty for the sole price of slightly bigger files? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx1713 Posted August 13, 2017 Share #40  Posted August 13, 2017 36 MP are a blessing. Had it on my d800 before I swiched to Leica M and SL. The one thing I loved most was being able to swich to APSC and still have 18 MP resolution. This meant that I basically had two lenses on when using a prime. A 50 and a 75 for example, at the press of a single button (well, Leica still denies us that custom APSC shortcut, so you need to go through the menu or put it on one of the user presets, but it would be possible to implement in a simple firmware upgrade).  Who wouldn't enjoy that liberty for the sole price of slightly bigger files?   I'd enjoy the freedom of additional time. There are stretches where I have a need for the high resolution but more often than not, I don't. Thus I save time and enjoy my photography as needed by my clients.  The APSC toggle is in my favourites menu so switching is relatively quick in just 2-3 seconds for me. At 36mp, I would rather pick a MF like the S system, which I think is more suitable image wise for very large enlargements. My background is 4x5 film, 6x6, 35mm so it's never really left my mental silos that the optics/sensor size do have an impact image wise. Quite probable I'm wrong here in today's context  So if Leica were to sell a 50mp SL, I might get one.  Nonetheless, 24 mp is a very nice place to be. I recently shot a group picture of 1200 people and the SL seems quite adequate to the task. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.