Leica SL2 + Panasonic 24-70/2.8

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 minutes ago, BernardC said:

What I think is a fake notion is the whole idea that there is a mid-range zoom out there that is materially different from other mid-range zooms in the same price range, and that this difference will be revealed by looking looking at an "aperture series" at 200% magnification. "What they don't want you to know" is that there isn't much of a difference between Sony's $2,000 mid-range zoom and Canon's $2,000 mid-range zoom. Pick the one that fits on your camera, or the one that has a better UX. There isn't one that will make you a better photographer.

I think many readers, me included, are just nerds, and like to look at gear and tech details from that point of view. A bit like some people buy sports car magazines, but they don’t own 3 Ferraris and 2 Porsches, and probably their only car is a Fiat. 

As for the mid range zooms, well, I’m not the one purchasing 4x priced Leica rebadges hoping for some extra fairy pixie dust that is not there. I’m perfectly happy with the originals. 

28 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Anyone can tell from the very first shot that it's not a "sharp" lens, so why bother with the charade of showing multiple ultra-magnified crops? Did we learn anything when we saw that it was substantially the same at 5.6 and 8.0?

Because that’s the way he tests all lenses, and it makes sense to have a consistent standard format, for the same reasons above, because many love details. Besides, there should be a standard way that gives the reader an overview. Is it a useless comparison for the Heliar? I agree, but for other lenses it makes sense. I also agree that the Heliar is a specialty or novelty lens, that perhaps shines in portraits (spoiler: it doesn’t, imho). Go to page 2 and 3 and further down and there you have plenty of bokeh samples that will give you a good idea on how the lens performs for portraits. 

[Advertisement]

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

[NightPix]

8 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

I think many readers, me included, are just nerds, and like to look at gear and tech details from that point of view. A bit like some people buy sports car magazines, but they don’t own 3 Ferraris and 2 Porsches, and probably their only car is a Fiat. 

I confess to being a technology nerd so I don't mind folks doing these detailed evaluations of cameras and lenses. Having the latest  and greatest technology is not - for me at least - what photography is all about. First of all, almost all lenses and cameras these days are pretty darn good technology-wise. That's why reviewers have to look so hard to find minor differences. It's more fun - and challenging - to try to coax a bit more performance from my current gear than to just buy new gear every six months that might be incrementally better than my current kit. As photographers, aren't we supposed to make the magic happen with our creativity? I have taken crummy pictures with top of the line gear, and great pictures with cheap "beginner's gear. The nerd in me likes to follow the technology development, but the photographer in me wants to create great images with whatever camera I happen to have at the moment. The subtle differences between modern lenses these days (as discussed in this thread) seldom matters in real life.   

[BernardC]

There's nothing wrong with being a camera nerd. The problem happens when lens performance is just "resolution."

The long and short of it is: if resolution is the limiting factor in your images (it probably isn't), you should get a better tripod, work on your technique, or use a larger format. Buying a slightly better version of whatever lens came with your camera will not make a meaningful difference, even if said lens tests 5% better. In our specific case, the difference between mainstream 24-70 lenses from Sigma, Panasonic, Leica, or Canon/Nikon/Sony will be minimal. I find it funny that people pore over minute differences between these lenses, but when you mention that APO-Summicron-SL lenses are sharper at every aperture than any zoom at any aperture, you get lots of pushback.

That being said, geekery that closely examines flare, distortion, lens handling, and overall "look" is welcome any time. We get a lot of that in the M lens forum, which is great. Those things are hard to measure, but they have a big effect on your images.

[jlehrer]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:49 AM, Simone_DF said:

True that, but there are also more objective reviewers around. Fred Miranda comes to mind. His reviews are very throughout, and corroborated by plenty of images. Users on the FM forum also add images and point out pros and cons of lenses. Other honest reviewers are Dustin Abbot, the gang at Phillip Reeve's website, Sean Reid. I'm sure there are more, but these 4 are already enough for me. If you then decide to go watch some random youtube video of an influencer, then that's a different issue.

At their very best, the Miami store guys are simply embarrassing with their bias. Call me a cynic, but I watched one of their videos, and I'd trust Mr Burns from The Simpsons more than these guys.

I may be embarrassing but at least the content is free!