TL2 + L-mount : broken promise

[ruskkyle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@jaapv By that token they also do not need to be utilitarian to work perfectly. I also much prefer the TL design philosophy.

[Advertisement]

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

[Kim Dahl]

12 hours ago, Boojay said:

Such a shame... given that there was only around 4 months between the release of the TL2 and CL are we to expect the same to show up on the CL page I wonder.   The CL has faired a lot better with firmware updates, if I was a TL2 owner I would be a little miffed.

 

 

+1 I bought TL2 right when it came.  I have been and am happy with it.  But the confidence to buy new in APSC is getting smaller and smaller.  Should the ones they write be understood - that new lenses etc. will no longer be supported? Now I would like to replace my TL2 with Q2 - maybe.  But I have invested in lenses too so I do not really know what I do now?  Luckily I have my Leica M ❤️

[cdekter]

 

On 3/11/2021 at 12:46 AM, jaapv said:

I guess I am still annoyed at the silly Canon marketing campaign in the early 2000-s when they introduced the 1D and peddled the term full-frame to the gullible public that still falls for it.

The terms full-frame and half-frame predate digital cameras by several decades. It's certainly not Canon who invented this.

[jaapv]

Full Frame is 18x24 (cm) All the rest is miniature.

[NigelG]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Full Frame is 18x24 (cm) All the rest is miniature.

A little disingenuous perhaps 🤔

AFAIK the term “half-frame “ was only ever commonly used commercially  to refer to a 18x24mm negative which would obviously imply that a “full-frame” negative was 24x36mm...despite it being a “miniature format”

Edited August 18, 2021 by NigelG

[jaapv]

Could you point to a pre-digital source that calls the 135 film format "full frame" ? I cannot recall having ever seen the term in common use before 2001. However, the "miniature format" wars from the 1930-ies to the 1950-ies between the adherents of 6x9 and 36x24 are well known. 

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I keep getting emails from this thread so finally I can not shut up my opinion...

I bought a TL2 system and found it inadequate (quite a sophisticated word for the disaster I had).  As an overall statement I would say that the development money goes into full frame 35mm not into smaller frames.  Some particulars below: 

MENU: The menu system and customization was a great idea but not big enough to put the needed menu items where you wanted them so even after rearrangement you still didn't have the simple working system you hoped for. 

FOCUS PEAKING: The manual focus system was flakey in that the peaky lines were 'fat' slightly overwriting the edges they represented, so you might not be sure what was and was not in focus, yet they needed to be fat on the small screen to be seen.  Worse… sometimes they did not come up… so you could not trust the manual focus system.

SIZE: The body was so small and light, a good thing I thought when buying it, that any big lens dwarfed it so you were holding the lens not the body.  Putting 35mm lenses on it using various adapters, especially zooms, resulted in an unwieldy combination so you could not hold it still to shoot pictures.  Unwieldy is an understatement here since the size of an adapted lens made the camera body position "jumpy" not staying in place so you could not hold the screen still enough to see the framing or focus.  People complain about the Leica SL2-S size, that is holding it over a full day of shooting, but you may need the size to balance it with the new larger lenses.  The smaller Panasonic S5 should be contrasted here… send me an email if someone does this.  

CONCLUSION: All things kind-of worked but not constantly… the body would not consistently act in a predictable manner.  This was not a body I could depend on.  Cost me well over $1,000 USD to find all this out.  And the used accessories sold for about 25% of the nearly new price I paid for them so "the market knows" the value.  Having had poor experience with Leica body repairs, M9 new sensor fell loose and a zoom lens was sent back not fixed, I did not waste time sending the TL2 body in for repairs, instead I returned it to the seller.  Maybe one of you own it today?  I hope not. 

Please contrast my experience with a user that hates physically large equipment… they might love it if they ONLY bought the little small frame lenses made for it and did not try to adapt other lenses.  Still full frame is where the development money seems to go.  Does not Fuji make the best small frame camera?  Can anyone compete with a market leader?

[jaapv]

You should have gotten a CL...

[NigelG]

On 8/18/2021 at 3:01 AM, jaapv said:

Could you point to a pre-digital source that calls the 135 film format "full frame" ? I cannot recall having ever seen the term in common use before 2001. However, the "miniature format" wars from the 1930-ies to the 1950-ies between the adherents of 6x9 and 36x24 are well known. 

My point is that pre-digital cameras that used 18x24mm, notably the Olympus Pen from 1959 onwards were AFAIK described contemporarily as “half-frame” cameras both in photographic literature and reviews, not as a type of “miniature format”. The inference is clearly that if 18x24mm was at the time nominated as “half-frame” then by implication 36x24mm must (pre-digitally) have surely represent “full-frame” as commonly understood  - though that does not mean it was explicitly described as such.

[frame-it]

11 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

FOCUS PEAKING: The manual focus system was flakey in that the peaky lines were 'fat' slightly overwriting the edges they represented, so you might not be sure what was and was not in focus, yet they needed to be fat on the small screen to be seen.  Worse… sometimes they did not come up… so you could not trust the manual focus system.

i never used focus peaking, i simply looked for the shimmer in the EVF, never had any issues

 

 

[raadoo]

21 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

I keep getting emails from this thread so finally I can not shut up my opinion...

I bought a TL2 system and found it inadequate (quite a sophisticated word for the disaster I had).  As an overall statement I would say that the development money goes into full frame 35mm not into smaller frames.  Some particulars below: 

MENU: The menu system and customization was a great idea but not big enough to put the needed menu items where you wanted them so even after rearrangement you still didn't have the simple working system you hoped for. 

FOCUS PEAKING: The manual focus system was flakey in that the peaky lines were 'fat' slightly overwriting the edges they represented, so you might not be sure what was and was not in focus, yet they needed to be fat on the small screen to be seen.  Worse… sometimes they did not come up… so you could not trust the manual focus system.

SIZE: The body was so small and light, a good thing I thought when buying it, that any big lens dwarfed it so you were holding the lens not the body.  Putting 35mm lenses on it using various adapters, especially zooms, resulted in an unwieldy combination so you could not hold it still to shoot pictures.  Unwieldy is an understatement here since the size of an adapted lens made the camera body position "jumpy" not staying in place so you could not hold the screen still enough to see the framing or focus.  People complain about the Leica SL2-S size, that is holding it over a full day of shooting, but you may need the size to balance it with the new larger lenses.  The smaller Panasonic S5 should be contrasted here… send me an email if someone does this.  

CONCLUSION: All things kind-of worked but not constantly… the body would not consistently act in a predictable manner.  This was not a body I could depend on.  Cost me well over $1,000 USD to find all this out.  And the used accessories sold for about 25% of the nearly new price I paid for them so "the market knows" the value.  Having had poor experience with Leica body repairs, M9 new sensor fell loose and a zoom lens was sent back not fixed, I did not waste time sending the TL2 body in for repairs, instead I returned it to the seller.  Maybe one of you own it today?  I hope not. 

Please contrast my experience with a user that hates physically large equipment… they might love it if they ONLY bought the little small frame lenses made for it and did not try to adapt other lenses.  Still full frame is where the development money seems to go.  Does not Fuji make the best small frame camera?  Can anyone compete with a market leader?

You asked for a contrasting experience and it seems mine may just fit the bill.

I came from a big ol' chunker of a DSLR (Nikon D610) and assorted equally chunky lenses (Sigma 50mm Art, Sigma 150-600mm, Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8, you get the idea). After developing some quite severe back problems, I had to let those go and make [lack of] weight my primary concern 1. Being a big fan of lists, I literally went and did a comparison of weight (vs price) of every potential camera system at the time (the Nikon Z's and Canon R's were to be launched some months after my list began) and lo and behold, the Leica APS-C system was (and to my knowledge still is) the lightest interchangeable lens system out there 2.

I initially had the CL and the Leica ultra wide and telephoto zooms. Fine lenses, both of them. A fine camera, despite the wandering focus point issue, even though I never experienced that one (sorry, @jaapv). And I sold all of that really fine kit to move towards what I'm currently shooting 3: 

• Leica TL2
• Leica M-Adapter L
• Leica Visoflex 020
• Voigtlander VM 10mm f/5,6
• Voigtlander VM 40mm f/1.2
• Voigtlander VM 75mm f/1.5

And I couldn't be happier. The Cosina M lenses are excellent, light, bright and balance well on the TL2. Comparing cost, the TL2 kit was quite a bit cheaper than the CL kit.

 

I have had no problems with the focus peaking, I enjoy the TL2's diminutive size and good ergonomics and while quirky I've come to appreciate the 020's ability to tilt and save my neck from some awkward and painful positions. But really, most of the time I actually focus on the back screen. Which seemed blasphemous to me even as recently as last year!

I'll put an image where my words are and share with you an image I took as part of a concert shoot I did a couple of weeks back. Really crammed and poorly lit underground (both literally and figuratively) punk venue. Most images that night were taken - as is the one attached - with the 40mm f/1.2 using the 020 and focus peaking.

 

1. I was and will likely continue to be solely focused on ILCs. I am aware that something like the Q or a single all-purpose zoom lens would be eminently usable, but it's just not my thing. I guess I'm masochistic in liking to switch primes in and out.

2. I mean with a sensor size greater or equal to APS-C. I shoot exclusively in available light and a tiny m4/3 or even 1" sensor gets all mushy when the lights dim. 

3. And also because I'm really hoping the CL2 will have IBIS so I don't have to keep lusting over an SL2-S.

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!

[Tom1234]

Glad to see you made this work raadoo 

I just had too many bigger piggy lenses that did not balance at all with the camera.  If I had stuck to the concept of small kit and quit trying to adapt lenses from other systems I probably would have been okay with it. 

I like your picture which has a great tonal structure for color in low light.  Great fall to black in the background.  How native to the camera is this picture? Any comments about editing adjustments to make that happen?

[raadoo]

2 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

Glad to see you made this work raadoo 

I just had too many bigger piggy lenses that did not balance at all with the camera.  If I had stuck to the concept of small kit and quit trying to adapt lenses from other systems I probably would have been okay with it. 

I like your picture which has a great tonal structure for color in low light.  Great fall to black in the background.  How native to the camera is this picture? Any comments about editing adjustments to make that happen?

I could try and tell you what the edits were or even just to say that they were quite general and not that significant. But it seems a whole lot more honest to just show you what the unedited, straight out of camera RAW looks like, as exported from Lightroom (with the Adobe Color profile set).

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!

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, raadoo said:

I could try and tell you what the edits were or even just to say that they were quite general and not that significant. But it seems a whole lot more honest to just show you what the unedited, straight out of camera RAW looks like, as exported from Lightroom (with the Adobe Color profile set).

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!

This only makes sense if you tell us what your Lightroom default settings are. Mine are probably completely different. 

[Tom1234]

Edit changes on my adobe-rgb Benq monitor are minimal… added clarity and slight color adjustment to the forward positioned arm in the first shot you showed (on left below).  Arm washed in red light tint in the Raw shot on the right (Raw shot also affected by Lightroom defaults as noted by Jaapv) .  Both effects are sensible to me.

Adjusting the arm skin color to more natural adds some realism (left shot).  The other option (Raw right shot) is to leave the whole shot washed in the red light which is more atmospheric and accurate to the venue.  

The comparison of these two is a great study of the two affects… the shift to fantasy when all looks red (right raw) and an assaulting reality when the arm is shifted back to normal skin color (left modified).  Of course you just pick the effect you want… no right or wrong here.  

The left side modified shot scares me more… has a more assaulting rock-&-roll atmosphere… the right side shot puts the singer more in a fantasy land that is easier to take, less scary.  Why scary?  He is a tough guy it looks for sure. Would not want to meet him in an alley alone.  And this is what the arts are about… experiencing different environments without the full consequences of going into that world... the mediated reality is safer.  Example:  Film Noir movies are about crime which you only experience through the media without the real consequences of being there. 

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!

 

[Tom1234]

 

On 8/17/2021 at 9:06 PM, NigelG said:

A little disingenuous perhaps 🤔

AFAIK the term “half-frame “ was only ever commonly used commercially  to refer to a 18x24mm negative which would obviously imply that a “full-frame” negative was 24x36mm...despite it being a “miniature format”

 

On 8/18/2021 at 3:01 AM, jaapv said:

Could you point to a pre-digital source that calls the 135 film format "full frame" ? I cannot recall having ever seen the term in common use before 2001. However, the "miniature format" wars from the 1930-ies to the 1950-ies between the adherents of 6x9 and 36x24 are well known. 

A NEW CAMERA CONTROL - DOF control:  It might be time for Leica and others to add a control that would allow easy switching and indication of the sensor size format before taking the picture.  I am not familiar enough with all the digital bodies to know if this exists. 

Smaller formats give more Depth Of Field so you could pick them for some situations.  Larger formats give shallower DOF.  A DOF control. 

This sensor size DOF adjustment phenomena could be, in modern times, with high resolution lenses and sensors that deliver sharp pictures regardless of sensor size, a bonafide menu or dial/switch option.  

Just turn the dial for more DOF or less, by changing the amount of the sensor used more or less (of course indicate this on the electronic viewing monitor).  Some users would want the viewing screen to just show frame lines for the smaller sensor and others would want to fill the viewing screen with the cropped or full frame sensor.  
The body would best have a medium format size sensor and then allow selection of DOF by varying the sensor size with a body switch.  

Of course this is happening in video already with only using part of the digital sensor on still cameras, but I am saying make it an official feature with its own vertical or horizontal switch that looked different than a dial.  

Would this work or do I not understand the optics?  Or can you just crop and get this effect anyway?  I want an external switch selector for DOF!

Edited August 21, 2021 by Tom1234
mid format to medium format

[Kim Dahl]

On 8/20/2021 at 8:55 PM, jaapv said:

You should have gotten a CL...

yes, but CL came a few weeks after TL2 - and in the best Leica style - no one told about it even though CL came two weeks after the TL2…

[LocalHero1953]

2 minutes ago, Kim Dahl said:

yes, but CL came a few weeks after TL2 - and in the best Leica style - no one told about it even though CL came two weeks after the TL2…

+1. I owned the TL2 for a couple of months then traded it for the CL at launch. (OK, I bought it again a couple of years later.....and sold it again....)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Kim Dahl]

7 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

+1. I owned the TL2 for a couple of months then traded it for the CL at launch. (OK, I bought it again a couple of years later.....and sold it again....)

👍🏻 +1 I think Leica should be a little more open about what's going on.  Especially when making two aps c camera at such short intervals.  It's not ok.  Said with great love for Leica.  I have burned my fingers and think twice before buying a new Leica.  Leica m is ok but too expensive for ordinary people. Pity. 
Would otherwise like to spend money on a new Leica APSC if I just knew a little about what Leica wants with APSC.

[raadoo]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

This only makes sense if you tell us what your Lightroom default settings are. Mine are probably completely different. 

I'll try my best to cover all the defaults:

• Profile: Adobe Color
• Light: all settings at 0
• Color: White Balance As Shot, everything else set to 0
• Effects: all settings at 0
• Detail: Sharpening at 40, Radius 1.0, Detail 25, Color Noise Reduction 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50, everything else set to 0
• Optics: Remove Chromatic Aberration enabled, everything else at 0
• Geometry: all settings at 0

I don't think I missed anything but if I did, let me know and I'll look it up.