Chaemono Posted March 27, 2019 Share #161 Posted March 27, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) vor 6 Minuten schrieb mmradman: I suspect Summicrons L will be among the smallest AF L lenses. When I picked up the S1 last Friday, a gentleman next to me in the store had the box with the S1R on the counter in front of him. My salesman said that he had pre-ordered it and was one of five people to get it that week. Next to the Panasonic box were the 75SL and the 90SL, unpacked, and he kept picking them up and holding them. He was obviously trying to get a feeling about the their size and weight. I guess he later mounted them on his S1R. I left the store thinking ‘my kind of guy.’ 😀 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2019 Posted March 27, 2019 Hi Chaemono, Take a look here Is the S1/S1R a good backup camera for SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jon Warwick Posted March 27, 2019 Share #162 Posted March 27, 2019 I tried my M 75mm Summarit on an S1R in store recently. I only wanted to see if/how the edges of the frame with the S1R could handle this specific M lens. I was very pleasantly surprised, expecting to see some smearing, but I wasn’t struck by any obvious issues at all in this regard. What really struck me though was (1) amazing EVF - it was soooo easy to nail focus with the manual focus lens on the S1R; (2) I thought highlights seem very gently (“naturally”) handled by the sensor, more so than I can recall from my digital Ms. In terms of the high resolution mode, i think that mode gives the camera a massive boost in image quality for things like landscapes and citiscapes (based on samples I’ve seen and played with). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 27, 2019 Author Share #163 Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Very nice example photos of S1R with SL lenses made by Thighslapper. The S1R makes an even better impression with the SL 75 and the SL 16-35. Really great quality. Can the SL2 be even better ? The IBIS works very well with the lenses without OIS, so probably there is no reason to worry about the high ISO performance of the sensor. This entry plus the following. Edited March 28, 2019 by caissa 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 29, 2019 Author Share #164 Posted March 29, 2019 (edited) Several Lumix cameras are now available. The question is, which is for what ? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqw_Hc3wpXA And a review of Lumix S from Slovakia. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_7xa17dRrgE Edited March 29, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 31, 2019 Author Share #165 Posted March 31, 2019 (edited) In the discussion about the quality of M wide-angle lenses on the S1R (if they work ok or just as bad as on the Sony alpha cameras), I found a new possibility. There is since last year a “M-lens” from 7artisans, a 1.4/28mm. The new option is, that it is now available in two versions. Version 1 is classic, the lens correction is computed for M cameras. The Version 2 is corrected for the Sony alpha cameras with their thicker sensor cover glass. So this time not the camera (Kolani) but the lens has been adjusted. Everything else is still the same, so still with M-mount. Would be interesting to know if this adjusted version works also better on the S1R and S1 cameras. Here a report about this lens (beware, afaik the writer also is involved in distributing the lens, or maybe I mixed it up. Anyway, beware.). https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-7artisans-28mm-1-4-fe-plus/ There are more “M-lenses” available, even a fish-eye for M, if you ever needed that. Here the official site. http://m.7artisans.com/en/ Edited March 31, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted March 31, 2019 Share #166 Posted March 31, 2019 I have been using the 7artisans 28mm lately on my SL, works well. Not sure what version it is, might check. Gary Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 31, 2019 Author Share #167 Posted March 31, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Sigma has made a surprising move: They announced that their MC-21 adapter is not compatible with existing Leica L-mount cameras, speak the SL. (Contrary to their first announcement.) Open question, will it work on a future SL2 ? What is this ? Is this the beginning of the end of compatibility in the L-mount alliance ? It will be interesting what the next moves are ... more compatibility or more incompatibility statements ??? Edited March 31, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted March 31, 2019 Share #168 Posted March 31, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, caissa said: Sigma has made a surprising move: They announced that their MC-21 adapter is not compatible with existing Leica L-mount cameras, speak the SL. (Contrary to their first announcement.) Open question, will it work on a future SL2 ? What is this ? Is this the beginning of the end of compatibility in the L-mount alliance ? It will be interesting what the next moves are ... more compatibility or more incompatibility statements ??? mmmm ...... that is an exceptionally bizarre statement as it means it will not work on ANY of the existing cameras That includes the S1R, S1, CL, TL, and SL which all existed and were in use before this statement. I can only conclude it means older cameras will need a firmware update to comply with the L-Mount specification changes Sigma has implemented in its lenses ...... specifically to allow the lens AF data to resident in the lens rather than the adapter and accessed directly ..... and that that depends on Leica and Panasonic implementing it. It's a sensible move as presumably the reason why the Novoflex adapter is so crappy is because it uses very limited 'average' AF data which it applies to all Canon/Sigma/Nikon lenses. ps. I see there is now clarification singling out Leica as the only L mount cameras that are incompatible...... which makes it even more curious. It does make me wonder if Leica have stuck a spanner in the works deliberately ..... it makes no sense for Sigma to adopt a strategy that precludes sales of their lenses to Leica customers. It will be interesting to see if native mount (or converted) L lenses are fully compatible ...... it would be daft if they weren't. Edited March 31, 2019 by thighslapper 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron777 Posted March 31, 2019 Share #169 Posted March 31, 2019 "L" Alliance Who benefits from this alliance, other than the consumer? Is it Leica, Panasonic, Sigma or others? From where I sit, the logic is a tad fuzzy. However, if Leica plans on selling more bodies because of a greater preponderance of available lenses (Leica and non Leica) the approach might hold some water. Furthermore, if their intent is to share technology (read: employ the technology of others to avoid the R&D costs) it too makes sense. But given their pricing history, and unless their new body/s are much more advanced than, for example, Panasonic’s offerings, where is the incentive, other than the historical red dot? I’ve witnessed the failure of this business approach in other industries, where one organization—with economy of scale in mind—either merges with or shares proprietary info with another, essentially creating their own competition and ultimate demise. Is this in Leica’s future? Only time will tell. In the meantime, we can reap the benefits of the many available options and keep those shutters popping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted March 31, 2019 Author Share #170 Posted March 31, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, thighslapper said: mmmm ...... that is an exceptionally bizarre statement as it means it will not work on ANY of the existing cameras That includes the S1R, S1, CL, TL, and SL which all existed and were in use before this statement. I can only conclude it means older cameras will need a firmware update to comply with the L-Mount specification changes Sigma has implemented in its lenses ...... specifically to allow the lens AF data to resident in the lens rather than the adapter and accessed directly ..... and that that depends on Leica and Panasonic implementing it. It's a sensible move as presumably the reason why the Novoflex adapter is so crappy is because it uses very limited 'average' AF data which it applies to all Canon/Sigma/Nikon lenses. ps. I see there is now clarification singling out Leica as the only L mount cameras that are incompatible...... which makes it even more curious. It does make me wonder if Leica have stuck a spanner in the works deliberately ..... it makes no sense for Sigma to adopt a strategy that precludes sales of their lenses to Leica customers. It will be interesting to see if native mount (or converted) L lenses are fully compatible ...... it would be daft if they weren't. I would have expected an additional note of the type "future versions of SL with updated firmware will be supported". The first bizarreness is probably my fault (I should have written L-mount camera made by Leica). But still it is bizarre. Currently only one of my lenses was affected (the 2.0/24-35) which is not so important anymore after the SL 16-35 is there. But currently it means that all existing Sigma lenses (with exception of the few working with Novoflex adapter) will only be compatible with Panasonic cameras. So instead of a big step forward for the idea of L-mount this announcement is now just a big disappointment. A very weak announcement in my eyes, an anti-climax in marketing. And I wonder, will this be the final version or will they improve it later .... (or is it the first kick of Sigma into the ass of Leica). Edited March 31, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted March 31, 2019 Share #171 Posted March 31, 2019 13 hours ago, thighslapper said: I can only conclude it means older cameras will need a firmware update to comply with the L-Mount specification changes Sigma has implemented in its lenses ...... specifically to allow the lens AF data to resident in the lens rather than the adapter and accessed directly ..... and that that depends on Leica and Panasonic implementing it. ""At the time of the initial announcement Sigma said the adapter would work with 'any L-mount camera body.' Sigma is now saying that the MC-21 won't work with existing Leica L-mount camera bodies due to 'specifications [that] have changed.'" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 1, 2019 Share #172 Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, caissa said: I would have expected an additional note of the type "future versions of SL with updated firmware will be supported". The first bizarreness is probably my fault (I should have written L-mount camera made by Leica). But still it is bizarre. Currently only one of my lenses was affected (the 2.0/24-35) which is not so important anymore after the SL 16-35 is there. But currently it means that all existing Sigma lenses (with exception of the few working with Novoflex adapter) will only be compatible with Panasonic cameras. So instead of a big step forward for the idea of L-mount this announcement is now just a big disappointment. A very weak announcement in my eyes, an anti-climax in marketing. And I wonder, will this be the final version or will they improve it later .... (or is it the first kick of Sigma into the ass of Leica). I suppose ..... looking at it entirely logically ..... the alliance commits to interchangeability of L mount lenses ...... not interchangeability of L-mount adapters to use non L-mount lenses on the cameras themselves, so they can theoretically do what they like with regard to compatibility. The fact the clarification has come very late in the day tends to suggests to me that they have designed it to the latest specification and only discovered when they tried it on the SL that there were issues...... so possibly we have cock-up rather than conspiracy at the root of this. It's a bit of a joke if Leica are not compatible with their own L-mount specification ....... always assuming that is what this statement means. Of course it may mean Sigma have changed THEIR specification for some reason to make the adapter incompatible ....... and then you have to ask was it Leica or Sigma that intervened. Edited April 1, 2019 by thighslapper 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted April 1, 2019 Share #173 Posted April 1, 2019 Even single companies sometime struggle with compatibilities across different product lines. Alliances/joint ventures are never easy despite what management likes to think or present to outside world. Difficulties are on interface boundaries, for usual reasons, different technologies, cultures, languages, working practices, procedures, corporate aims, etc, etc. In one respect announcement of L Alliance grabbed the headlines, now the hard work of delivering lies ahead. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share #174 Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) L-mount compatibility is maybe still a bit "unclear" and needs discussion ?! For convenience the links to the (latest) compatibility document and also the latest firmware (v 3.5) which assures compatibility and (as usual) improves the performance of the SL (whatever that means). In english they even promise "improved handling" (is this good or bad ?). International: http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/Leica-SL/Firmware?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firmware+Update+SL+3.5+CL2.2+_L-Mount+Kompatibilität German: http://at.leica-camera.com/Fotografie/Leica-SL/Leica-SL/Firmware The improvement is in the handling of M and R lenses (related to the "loupe function"). But the description is unusually short. Edited April 2, 2019 by caissa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share #175 Posted April 2, 2019 I decided to wait, before I load this new firmware. The description is very short (I cannot see that it solves any open problems, just compatibility is mentioned. And this is not urgent for me.) And some users reported “noises” with the 24-90 lens, where there had been no noise before. No idea what this means, but I decided to wait for clarification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted April 3, 2019 Share #176 Posted April 3, 2019 I think that it was v3.5 that upgraded the 24-90 firmware to v.16 I haven't noticed any noises. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2019 Share #177 Posted April 3, 2019 22 hours ago, caissa said: I decided to wait, before I load this new firmware. The description is very short (I cannot see that it solves any open problems, just compatibility is mentioned. And this is not urgent for me.) And some users reported “noises” with the 24-90 lens, where there had been no noise before. No idea what this means, but I decided to wait for clarification. Can you supply a link where users reported “noises” with 3.5 firmware please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted April 3, 2019 Author Share #178 Posted April 3, 2019 It was discussed in the German forum. Some users heard it, others not. I do not know if it is to be taken seriously (we are still close to April first). https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295800-fw-35-erschienen/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron777 Posted April 3, 2019 Share #179 Posted April 3, 2019 Version 3.5 and no noise with 24-90mm here as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted April 4, 2019 Author Share #180 Posted April 4, 2019 More discussions of M lenses on the Lumix S cameras at diglloyd. But keep in mind that this is just a superficial short hands-on test, and that probably some misunderstandings about the effect of a “new micro lens array for the S1R” are hidden in there. Is it for better M lens performance, as claimed by a reader of diglloyd, or rather for improved (general) light collection, as understood by others. Or is it maybe even positive for both ? Until Reid Reviews or a similarly serious source publishes an in depth test, the question is (in all fairness) still wide open. https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/20190330_1904-ReaderComment-PanasonicS1R.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now