Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, Cronilux said:

No 14bit with 30fps. Not interesting to me then. That’s why I asked for the 5fps setting. This is also a big bummer to me, that this has not been improved. 

Why do you care whether it is 14 or 12 bit especially when you are probably shooting high fps at ISO a couple of stops above base ISO?

12 bit has probably twice the readout speed of 14 bits.

Edited by SrMi
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, Cronilux said:

No 14bit with 30fps. Not interesting to me then. That’s why I asked for the 5fps setting. This is also a big bummer to me, that this has not been improved. 

The SL2-S didn’t shoot DNG above 5fps! 12 bit DNG is just fine for the sort of thing you would want to shoot at 30fps!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 13 Minuten schrieb hdmesa:

I only need 1 fps because I have flawless timing. All you 30 fps people need to practice more 🙃

Follow a moving BVG bus on Kurfürstendamm at night! You are invited :)  

SL3-S on 24-90 at ISO 20k 

@jonoslack sorry please Jono for posting this guy!

 

Edited by mpauliks
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Hi There - definitely a mistake! Where do I say that?

best

Jono

You never did Jono! You write at first sentence of review: " It has a 24mp sensor as opposed to the 47mp of the SL2." So, maybe good for a morning before coffee? lol

 

 

5 hours ago, SingingSnapper said:

You state that it is a 60mp, but it is still 24mp isn;t it?

 

Jono did never ever say so for SL3-S! What are you saying! Please think twice! Explain you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Markey said:

I know that is the line which I was referencing when I said   "as the other attempts made by Leica to provide an alternative platform to the M" .

I thought that much was clear 

Wasn`t the R an alternative to the M ?

No - it was an attempt to stem the flow of SLRs from Japan - Not an M substitute; these were rebadged  -to be fair partly re-engineered- Minoltas, it did not quite have the succes that was aimed for. The public went for cheap - like Praktika.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, jaapv said:

No - it was an attempt to stem the flow of SLRs from Japan - as these were rebadged  -to be fair partly re-engineered- Minoltas it did not quite have the succes that was aimed for. The public went for cheap - like Praktika.

No. The vast majority went to Canon and Nikon, which proved to produce very reliable workhorse for decades and whose cameras where used to produce countles master pieces. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, la1402 said:

 

No. The vast majority went to Canon and Nikon, which proved to produce very reliable workhorse for decades and whose cameras where used to produce countles master pieces. 

Yet, the old R-mount cameras seem to be in higher demand/appreciation than the old Nikon cameras. Is it because of the lenses?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Yet, the old R-mount cameras seem to be in higher demand/appreciation than the old Nikon cameras. Is it because of the lenses?

The R lenses are delightful. I have used them on my SL3 and enjoyed their rendering. I know a few professional videographers that use those lenses on the SL2-S to great effect. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

No - it was an attempt to stem the flow of SLRs from Japan - as these were rebadged  -to be fair partly re-engineered- Minoltas it did not quite have the succes that was aimed for. The public went for cheap - like Praktika.

It could have been both .... or why would a manufacturer of RF`s be concerned about the flow of SLR`s from Japan.

Anyway whatever .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, la1402 said:

 

No. The vast majority went to Canon and Nikon, which proved to produce very reliable workhorse for decades and whose cameras where used to produce countles master pieces. 

Forgetting Asahi Pentax, Konica, Minolta and Olympus. Both Canon and Nikon produced rangefinders as well, BTW.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Yet, the old R-mount cameras seem to be in higher demand/appreciation than the old Nikon cameras. Is it because of the lenses?

Yeha its the lenses. Luxury brand + scarcity drives value. And some of them where very special.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, la1402 said:

Yeha its the lenses. Luxury brand + scarcity drives value. And some of them where very special.

R lenses became very popular back when the Canon 5D and 1D were the primary full-frame digital option. R lenses were, on the whole, better than anything with an EOS mount, and very solidly built. They were also relatively cheap at the time. You could mount them with a simple adapter, or buy a kit to swap the mount.

They are also very popular with cine shooters, partly because of build quality, and partly because they have a consistent signature from lens to lens. That's important with video content because you don't want to edit together two shots that have different contrast, colour, flare, etc. You can correct for that "in post" to a certain extent, but that wastes time. It's much better to have a matching lens set to begin with.

I don't think that the luxury aspect had much to do with this. People first tried adapting R lenses because of their reputation, but they delivered, unlike most other brands. If you spent your younger days in the film era, you probably remember long pointless conversations about whether Leica's R lenses were any good, with the common trope that they were just prettier/pricier Minolta lenses. Digital put a stop to that, and we quickly found-out that the reputation was justified. Contax/Zeiss lenses went through the same re-evaluation.

On the other hand, some formerly legendary lens lines were re-evaluated the other way. To be fair, all classic SLR lens lines contained a few jewels, but most of them also had a lot of so-so designs that haven't held-up in the pixel-peeping era.

Edited by BernardC
typo
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jono! As expected - up to your always superbly high review standard. Very informative overall, and especially regarding the multi-shot features. Much appreciated..

Cheers,    -Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you've captured the state of things well, Jono.  The SL3s are quite a tough sell, when compared to the top of their line competition.  I enjoy the SL3 almost as much as I enjoyed the SL when it first came out.  I quite like the SL2 (despite its tendency to clip.). But the Sony A1 II, which on paper looks like a minor spec bump over the A1, is also an enjoyable camera to use because of it is a refined A1.  The quality of the Summicrons is the main reason to stick with the SL line (as well as the build quality). But the Sony-compatible lens line is hard to compete with, unless you are interested in historic lenses.  12-24f2.8, or 28-70f2 anyone?

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...