uhoh7 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Is a Sony A7r II kit smaller and lighter than a Leica SL (601) kit? | |
philber wrote:
I remember the time, not so long ago, when many Leica shooters derided the A7 family for its lack of native lenses. They pointed to a paper by Roger Cicala (LensRentals), highlighting how any imperfection, however slight, with the then-necessary adapter, ruined IQ.
Now that the situation has reversed itself, with good native glass for the A7, and only one very large zoom for the SL, the adapter issue that was supposed to doom adapted lenses on the Sony is no longer discussed.
But back to the main topic. Early on, the Sony mirrorless approach (NEX) was very Smart-like (reduce to the max!). RX-1 followed, even more spectacularly small for a FF camera. Small had become beautiful, and a valid reason for leaving heavy DSLRs behind.
Then the ground shifted, and the A7 was introduced. Actually no longer quite that small nor light, and the second generation even less so.
So why do people buy A7, if absolute smallness isn't that important any more? Sony sensors and related hardware (IBIS) on the one hand, EVF for MF lenses on the other. And also the ablity to mount the largest possible array of adapted lenses.
That is pretty much the target that Leica seem to have had in mind with the SL. While Leica touted its compactness with the M, small size is clearly not the SL's credo, but EVF and adapted lenses are.
That is where the issue gets more complicated. An EVF is a huge help with MF lenses, and much less so with autofocus glass. And all adapted lenses are MF. Oh wait, that is no longer true. Electronic adapters offer good AF on Sony's A7R II for Canon and soon Nikon glass. At which point the last ring-fence protecting legacy manufacturers is breached. So small is no longer the only way to be beautiful for mirrorless.
The question is then, in this new head-to-head confrontation, will the SL have enough native lenses, and enough performance with adapted lenses, and enough hardware performance, and enough "Leica factor", to justify its not inconsiderable price tag?
...Show more →
What did that Otus cost, again? And why did you need it?
The only reason for "native" on the SL is AF. How does that work with the Otus and Batis?
The leica adapter recognises the M lenses and corrects. They are "native" on the SL. While there are some differences vis a v M, overall they shoot great by all reports. That 28 lux (better)? What would you rather carry, Otus 28 on A7r2 or 28 Lux on SL?
What adapter are you talking about, Philippe? You mean the 2mm "glass in the path"?
As for lenses, the SL can shoot a ton great. M: LTM, R, soon S. And Nikon too. The Sony loves one 21 one 25, a couple 35s, two 55s, an 85 and a 90. Some have remarkable copy variation. Yes there are good adapted lenses, but 50 lux and 75 lux it doesn't like that much, I guess, not to mention the issues 35 and wider.
What do you do wider than 21? CV 15 v3 is pretty good, but better on the M240. Where is the ZM18? Coming someday.
If you like lens variety, it's no contest, without modification for the Sony. But the files are looking much nicer these days, when somebody like you puts the right lens on there
But I do agree, a smaller SL would be nicer yet. All great cameras and their makers can stand some honest critique. Do we really have to pretend they are perfect?
|