Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/7/2022 at 10:51 PM, Le Chef said:

You’re making an assumption that smaller and lighter = cheaper. If you look at the car industry that’s the reverse. Want to take out 20kgs from your Porsche? Well the carbon fiber, lightweight glass and use of titanium will cost you a fortune. But there are people who will pay a premium for lightness. Bugatti scoffed at Bentleys as overweight lorries and argued that they were poorly engineered because the were overweight. The skill was making something both light and strong. Colin “Just add lightness” Chapman was mostly on the right path.

This is absolutely right. Lightness costs money. Chapman also understood that building cars smaller created a virtuous circle of smaller engines, smaller brakes, lower fuel consumption and better handling and driveability.

Designing smaller cameras brings problems of component miniaturisation, packaging and heat dispersal, among others.

High-end bicycles are another good example. Removing grams of weight is expensive. Bicycles are like ladies' underwear. The more you pay, the less you get.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tritentrue said:

Think about it for a minute, if you can:  how many CL users do really think want to carry around a two-kilogram-plus lens (deployed weight) for extra reach?

I don't mind doing so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, adan said:

Out of curiosity, what are the apertures of those lenses? The Leica SL 90-280 is f/2.8-f/4.0

Out of curiosity, how much of those lenses are made of light-weight composites or polycarbonate plastic?

Out of curiousity, what is the Leica SL 90-280 made of, primarily. Metal barrel? Brass? Aluminum?

What is the performance wide-open?

Canon's top-of-the-line equivalent zoom is the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM - weighs 1050g, while still being a stop slower throughout the entire zoom range than the Leica 90-280 SL. And with more color fringing.

If light weight is your only standard, you can even get a Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III that weighs 480g. Assuming you also want color fringing galore - and a plastic barrel. (I know - I sold 'em, I tried 'em, I tended to advise anyone with serious interest to get the heavier (but better) Canon IS USM or L IS.)

A cr*p lens that is lightweight is still a cr*p lens. ;)

You miss one thing: a long lens that is too light give instability. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Apple and pears. The GFX is a medium format camera, not a full frame camera, it sells well because it's playing in the medium format field and attracting full frame users who want the bonus of a medium format sensor without the size penalty of the average medium format camera. Also size wise the GFX is about the same as the SL, with the sensor real estate bonus.

Yup, desperation in trying to sell the SL. If a camera sells well, there's no need to add incentive after incentive, that's marketing 101 and a big red flag. Panasonic had the same issue, it was resolved only when the smaller S5 was released.

You're pointing to extremes with the 180 and 280mm. Lenses in a normal range, say 21 to 135, don't have to be so big. Look at the SL APO 28 and 35, they are REALLY chunky for their focal lenght - although in this case the decision to use the same form factor for all SL lenses is to blame.

I don't think that lenses in the 200-300 mm range are extreme, I consider them far too short for my purposes. And yes, the S5 is the first camera in this class that is of a practical size for me. But it is still a hefty lump compared to APS-C cameras and specifically the CL - That is one of the reasons that I like it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

The Sony A7C is full frame. It can be done.

I don't expect the SL3 to be that small of course. I think it will be more or less like a Panasonic S5 / Sony A7V size. I wish we could get a Q sized camera with L mount, but I doubt we'll see one.

https://bit.ly/3reVPnr
 

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!

The 

Well, there is some difference...

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I don't mind doing so...

Believe it or not, you and your R 105-280mm crossed my mind as I was writing that!  And I myself used to use the 280mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R on the CL regularly.  But I think you have to admit that neither of us is likely to fit the profile of a typical CL user.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Camera makers have more or less skills in designing portable telephotos. My Nikon 300/4 is anything but a crap lens and i used it much more than my superb but heavy Apo-Telyt 280/4. Same to a lesser extent for the Nikon 180/2.8 compared to the Apo-Telyt 180/3.4. Crap lenses they are not by far and i don't even refer to AF. 

Edited by lct
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

You miss one thing: a long lens that is too light give instability. 

You obviously refer to hand-held shooting and are speaking to photographers without an assistant / caddy / sherpa etc.

Most tele lenses have a tripod-mount, so a bottle-holder could be attached for that questionable purpose to the lens with a thermos bottle in it. Which can be refilled during the lunch break. 

Downside: about one hour before lunch and again in the evening, one would have to bump up the ISO :) 

(Seriously: the less a new tele-lens hurts the back -and the bank account- at identical optical and AF performance, the more chance it has to find a customer imo.)

Edited by tri
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tri said:

You obviously refer to hand-held shooting and are speaking to photographers without an assistant / caddy / sherpa etc.

Most tele lenses have a tripod-mount, so a bottle-holder could be attached for that questionable purpose to the lens with a thermos bottle in it. Which can be refilled during the lunch break. 

Downside: about one hour before lunch and again in the evening, one would have to bump up the ISO :) 

(Seriously: the less a new tele-lens hurts the back -and the bank account- at identical optical and AF performance, the more chance it has to find a customer imo.)

IndeedI do. It is the lot of wildlife shooters in the field. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two things we Leica lovers have a hard time accepting.  1. other brands (Canon, Nikon and Sony etc.) today make lenses that are exactly on the same level as Leica in sharpness.  2. AF is generally much better in other brands.  And IF Leica should be a very small smuggler better then it will be even worse if the focus is not right with leica.  Leica's small camera is much more successful than when they've tried big ones. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, there is some difference...

 

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!

Sure, but one is full frame, the other is not.

Now compare it to the SL2. I don't expect Leica to be able to produce a A7C sized camera, but somewhere in the middle of the gargantuan SL2 and the A7C would be very welcome

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me asking: is there an engineer in the room :) ?

What is the birthdate of the newest APS-C sensor on the world-market?

How WAS that new sensor different (back in that year) from its predecessor?

Who spends a four digit sum for a new camera body with technology from the year 201X ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kim Dahl said:

1. other brands (Canon, Nikon and Sony etc.) today make lenses that are exactly on the same level as Leica in sharpness

But not in microcontrast, aberration-free resolution, etc, except for similar prices. They are able to produce lenses that appeal to our photographic wishes, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tri said:

Pardon me asking: is there an engineer in the room :) ?

What is the birthdate of the newest APS-C sensor on the world-market?

How WAS that new sensor different (back in that year) from its predecessor?

Who spends a four digit sum for a new camera body with technology from the year 201X ??

No engineer sorry but what about BSI CMOS sensors (Fuji, Pixii...)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lct said:

No engineer sorry but what about BSI CMOS sensors (Fuji, Pixii...)?

The German - links - Google shows an announcement from 7th of September 2021 of the soon to come new APS-C sensor from Fujifilm.
Any camera on the market yet with the new sensor? Showing the results of various reputable testers, that it is significantly better than its predecessors? 

Sure, it’s to be expected from Fujifilm, since they have APS-C and 33x44mm cameras, but no 24x36.

Let‘s please first see the market introduction of the rumoured new Fujifilm APS-C camera models with the new BSI CMOS sensor.
And after next Christmas their success. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tri said:

Any camera on the market yet with the new sensor? Showing the results of various reputable testers, that it is significantly better than its predecessors? 

No more various than reputable nor tester here :D but Pixii does it if i understand well. Some DNG files can be downloaded here (link).

Link to post
Share on other sites

pixii.fr Quote:

DXOMARK states:

Pixii….. 90

Leica M10…… 86

= Pixii being APS-C tops Leica M10 which is FF!

Lucky me, I‘m well stocked with cameras. 

Otherwise being impulsive and always up to date, my new Pixii would be here very soon.

(Thank you lct: I‘ll keep an eye on it.)

ps: my problem to understand why Fujifilm sells their new sensor to Pixii, even before their own new cameras have that improvement.

Edited by tri
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two types of SL lenses: zooms and primes. I have both and I have the CL and SL2-S.

I have put the 35SL on my CL by accident, thinking it was the 35TL. I didn't notice - it balanced just fine in my hands. I tried the zooms in the early days: just unbalanced - I couldn't keep the body stable - the weight was too far forward.

If we ended up with a smallish full frame L-mount camera, I could live with the SL primes. And primes from other brands. No, it wouldn't be a APS-C CL3, but it is not unthinkable.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

There are two types of SL lenses: zooms and primes. I have both and I have the CL and SL2-S.

I have put the 35SL on my CL by accident, thinking it was the 35TL. I didn't notice - it balanced just fine in my hands. I tried the zooms in the early days: just unbalanced - I couldn't keep the body stable - the weight was too far forward.

If we ended up with a smallish full frame L-mount camera, I could live with the SL primes. And primes from other brands. No, it wouldn't be a APS-C CL3, but it is not unthinkable.  

It‘s people with APS-C LEICA lenses, who are reminded of the situation way back, when Leica discontinued analog SLRs.
They had a bagful of R lenses and Leitax adaptors didn‘t exist yet. A déjà-vu of an unhappy situation.
(The flange back distance of APS-C lenses making them not suitable for any adaptors). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...