rscheffler wrote:
Thanks. I kind of meant tongue-in-cheek you ask them why the US price is almost a grand more than the EU market (pre-VAT). Same with the 24-90 (about $900 difference). Or the batteries ($250 vs. ~$125)...
Maybe that is why we have Passport Protection through Leica USA/NA.
Oh, and that brings up a good point... Since the SL is being aimed a professional users, one would hope that Leica will improve their service support and considerably shorten the currently unacceptable service turnaround times...
I will believe it when I see it (it's about my only major gripe with Leica at the moment).
Yes it does. You got me going back to check my Passport Protection card for my WATE that I purchased directly from Leica Camera USA in November of last year. I called Leica and they want me to call back Monday after the show because the card is only showing 2 years and as far as we all know, it is supposed to be 3 years. So, hopefully I will get this resolved with Brenda on Monday.
DougDolde wrote:
Much ado for only a 24 megapixel camera. Seems dumb not to at least match the Leica S or Sony in resolution.
IMO, Leica never looks to be at the bleeding edge of sensor development. It makes sense that Sony does that because they build the sensors. Leica, IMO, seems to focus on the shooting experience and I think this camera with the exceptional EVF, and very quick, responsive, and simple interface will follow nicely in that Leica tradition.
Oct 23, 2015 at 01:55 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lee Saxon wrote:
I don't know, this shooting motion with still camera form factor nonsense makes sense when it's a significant cost and size savings. The way they were using it at first, which was using a 5D II when you had to shoot somewhere a giant Arri film camera couldn't fit and using a real camera the rest of the time, it made sense. Now, it's out of control, trying to use them full time. These giant franken-rigs that cost more than the GH4 or Pocket Cinema camera they're wrapped around (not to mention quadrupling their size), mounting Master Primes and using giant professional matte boxes (which ALSO cost more than the camera being used)...I'm not buying it. When we're talking about the cost of Ultra Primes, you might as well buy a camera that's actually designed for this. Hell, it's not necessarily even more expensive, a Red Raven's going to be cheaper than an SL.
Edit: And they just announced Raven was going to have an ~APS-C sensor size rather than the announced ~m4/3. No cost increase. Tell me more about how what Sony's doing with the annual iterations to change the grip size 10% is respectable practice. ...Show more →
Lee what you say makes a lot of sense, but there are still people who want a camera for both stills and video. You can also build a small less expensive real video kit--it doesn't have to be a big Franken rig. I think for wedding shooters in particular, being able to shoot good video with your second or third camera can make a lot of sense and if you are going to do so then getting a basic relatively simple set up that lets you focus manually instead of with AF, which IMO looks awful in video, that lets you change aperture without a blinking of a 1/2 or 1/3 stop abrupt change in lighting, and that has a fast aperture for nice depth of field control could be worth it. I am not a wedding shooter, but for part of what I do I hope to be developing my video skills and developing a nice capable video kit. I won't get an ultra prime--that is too expensive, but I might well get an Otus 55 and modify it for video. Shooting that on the SL with a simple rig would give a wonderful 80mm equiv, perspective.
Please explain to me how quick one needs the camera to be when shooting manual. Don't all modern cameras accomplish this? Or are you referring to a zero blackout time.
Steve Spencer wrote:
IMO, Leica never looks to be at the bleeding edge of sensor development. It makes sense that Sony does that because they build the sensors. Leica, IMO, seems to focus on the shooting experience and I think this camera with the exceptional EVF, and very quick, responsive, and simple interface will follow nicely in that Leica tradition.
mawz wrote:
E mount suffers some limitations from being designed as an APS-C mount initially, simply put, there's restrictions on lens design due to trying to fit the mount, contacts & rear element into a package that is ~18mm from the sensor and only ~3mm in difference from the sensor diagonal to the mount diameter.
The T mount is a superior physical design for FF usage, although E mount allows for more flexible design for APS-C bodies.
What about shading, internal refections, and increased torque tor heavy lenses with the narrow 46mm E-Mount design?
As can be seen in the photo, the new AF lenses for the SL do not and will not have aperture rings, aperture is adjusted totally electronically which Leica indicates I believe is both faster and more accurate.
davewolfs wrote:
Please explain to me how quick one needs the camera to be when shooting manual. Don't all modern cameras accomplish this? Or are you referring to a zero blackout time.
I am referring to the short blackout time; the high refresh rate on the EVF; the lack of any delay when pressing the shutter; fast fps if you want it; etc. Leica's Maestro II processor seems to have a lot of oomph and the reports are the camera is quite snappy in all its operations. That is quite noticeable when using a camera.
uhoh7 wrote:
When the Leicaflex SL was originally released it was twice the cost of the Japanese SLRs, and below cost.
People cried about the price back then. Alot. I would not be surprised if the margin on digital SL is quite small.
For big, great Manual Focus lenses, this is the best body ever made, I think.
The Sony has more pixels and 3-axis IBIS, which are not nothing. But this sensor is going to shoot very clean files in a proper RAW format, with anything. I'd love to try my two new big Nikors, 300/2.8 and 500/4 on it.
OK now here's a question: Jono remarks on the E-mount width of 46mm being a disadvantage to T-mount at 50mm, but does not elaborate. What specifically are the advantages of the wider mount?...Show more →
A few advantages.. Mainly in lens design. Take a look at the Canon 85 1.2L rear element. You'll understand after seeing it.
Even with A-mount lenses, the E-mount can be too narrow. The Minolta 200/2.8 on an A7II vignettes in the corners even at f/11. It's not the adapter - you can see it through the lens. Now it's not much. Cropping off the dark bits leaves you 22 of those 24MP, but it's real.
I don't mean to seem insensitive. But a lot of people complaining about the grip must have stubby fingers. And it seems that way in some of the pictures I'm seeing. Now I'm not saying my hands are big, but I get finger cramps from all the gear I hold because my fingers can not be fully wrapped around any camera. You've all seen that image of me holding the Q. It happens the same with the M and to some extent the D750. I make due. The S my fingers have a comfortable wrap around effect. And although I don't have the SL in hand. It seems like it's shaped perfectly for me.
The weight might cause me to have tendon pain from the ninja like grip (thin and long). But I have a feeling it'll feel good in my hand for at least 7 out of the 10-15h weddings.
I still feel Leica is being shitty about the price. And I'm annoyed that not ALL adapters are available at launch. And I'm really quite pissed that I have to wait 1 year for the 50LUX-L because that's the only lens I really want. But I'm kinda excited to see if I can train myself to be quick with the M lenses on this camera.
Really not much more to say until I have it in hand.
Yes IBIS would be nice. NO I don't need more MP. I have it in the S-system, and it's nice to have. But not for what I think I'd use this camera for.
rscheffler wrote:
Not sure if this has been posted anywhere already - Sandy from ChromaSoft posted a SL DNG analysis.
Points of interest: - In the DNG I looked at, which was shot with a "VARIO-ELMARIT 1:2.8-4.0/24-90mm ASPH. OIS" lens, lens correction is done by a single "WarpRectilinear" operation in the DNG.
- In addition to the lens correction op code, there is also a "FixBadPixelsConstant" opcode, whose function is exactly as the name states. This is the same as in the Leica Q.
Something to note is that the sensor appears built on identical technology to the Leica Q sensor. The color matrixes, black levels, etc are all identical.
He also says he's not sure if M lens corrections are baked into the DNG like with the M cameras or if they're part of the opcode like for the SL lenses......Show more →
Leica has DNG files available on their website. Something weird going on though. When I open the DNG in LR. It already has a bunch of horrid corrections and things applied. I have to use a ZERO action I made to zero everything out (even profile colors, curves and other nonsense). Once I do that, the flatter image looks much better. Then I applied my basic actions and the images looked pretty decent. Not how I would frame/shoot but allowed me to play for a bit (7+ images available).
mgrayson3 wrote:
Even with A-mount lenses, the E-mount can be too narrow. The Minolta 200/2.8 on an A7II vignettes in the corners even at f/11. It's not the adapter - you can see it through the lens. Now it's not much. Cropping off the dark bits leaves you 22 of those 24MP, but it's real.
uhoh7 wrote:
Some nice views of the camera by Kristian Dowling:
Funny how much smaller it looks when you hold it correctly :P
Even the 24-90 isn't really all that big. I don't think it's any bigger than Nikon or Canon's 24-70/2.8's. A 24-90/2.8-4 being around the same size as a 24-70/2.8 seems fairly reasonable, I think. If it's very good, that is.
naturephoto1 wrote:
As can be seen in the photo, the new AF lenses for the SL do and will not have aperture rings, aperture is adjusted totally electronically which Leica indicates I believe is both faster and more accurate.
I don't know why they're shooting themselves in the foot on this.
For one thing, I can't be the only one who refuses to buy lock-you-into-a-system / non-investment / planned-obsolecence lenses which require electronic communication - especially among Leica's customer base.
But more than that, I imagine the market which would buy a Leica lens to adapt to their A7r II or other mirrorless camera is quite a big larger than the market which would buy an SL. Why deny yourself those sales if you have the reputation for building the best lenses everyone wants? Hell, if I were Leica, not only would I have put aperture rings on the the S, SL, and T lenses for those customers, I would have build the [whichever] to E mount adapters myself instead of handing that profit to Metabones.
