Lee Saxon wrote:
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.
Actually, I'm waiting for A9r with improved specifications of A7rII and SL:
- An improved sensor, like A7rII resolution sensor or less, without LP filter (or optical variable low-pass filter like RX1RII), an even better dynamic range, but with a very limited NR as Leica does well.
- Improved In-body 5-axis stabilization with discret electronic shutter.
- Tiltable LCD screen.
- Over 8Mpx EVF and high frequency response in low lights.
- 14-bit uncompressed RAW format!
- Stellar RAW converter software.
- Compact size.
- Leica SL long life batteries.
- Lower price < 3000 €/US$.
- with an adapter for Leica-R lenses which mechanically controls aperture.
Lee Saxon wrote:
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....Show more →
I'm also saddened by the disappearance of physical controls and mechanical linkages, but mechanical communication between the camera and lens is comparable to 1960s automotive engine controls: carburetors, mechanical spark timing etc. Easy to tweak with little more than a screwdriver, but limited flexibility, poor efficiency, performance and horrific emissions.
Metabones and Leica have shown that electronic adapters can maintain full function of lenses with electronic controls on cameras they were never intended to be used with. The same can't be said for mechanical lenses.
@teiki arii:
Why would you expect the Sony A9 (pro Model) to be less expensive than the A7?
Also, they could easily fit very strong batteries but something tells me that they just don't want to. I have 2'800 mAh Li-Ion batteries in my 1Ds III (which is 8 years old and the battery isn't THAT big!)
Why don't they offer a 3'000 mAh battery for the A7 RII?
If it was up to me, I would demand a GLOBAL shutter, not simply a rolling electronic shutter. Especially at >3'000 $ that is a must if you ask me.
On a happier note looks like the Dynamic Range of the Leica SL is on par with that of D810. Amazing feat. Shadow recovery looks awesome. So no worries there and no compromise on that front like one would have with Canon.
Early reports mention that the EVF is the best ever and to die for.
Oct 24, 2015 at 08:56 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Sneakyracer wrote:
On a happier note looks like the Dynamic Range of the Leica SL is on par with that of D810. Amazing feat. Shadow recovery looks awesome. So no worries there and no compromise on that front like one would have with Canon.
Early reports mention that the EVF is the best ever and to die for.
I haven't seen any reports of this, but it does make some sense. Do you have a source? I would love to see it.
I haven't read every post in this thread and tried the search window and I didn't see this mentioned but I read in the SL manual that Bulb mode one can shoot 30 min exposures with shutter speeds from 60s to 1/8000s without any ISO restrictions.
The current M is limited to 60s exposures.
I'd like to see this updated sensor and the Maestro electronics in the next M update.
adamdewilde wrote:
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).
The photographer has the option selected in Lightroom Catalog Metadata settings to "Automatically write changes into XMP". In the case of DNG files they're written into the DNG. This way if you ever have a corrupted catalog and have to reimport your originals you will never lose your edits. A big time saver.
wolfloid wrote:
Though still very large, the 24-90 is substantially smaller than Nikons 24-70/2.8. It is, however, at 1.2 kg much heavier than a bazooka.
Is it really? Google says:
Nikon 24-70 / 2.8:
83 x 133 mm, 900 g, 77 mm filter thread.
Leica 24-90:
88 x 138 mm, 1140 g, 82 mm filter thread.
So the Leica is definitely bigger and heavier, despite the fact Nikon is a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom vs f/2.8-4 on the Leica. Granted that it does have 20 mm extra reach. Mirrorless lenses tends to loose it's size advantage as the focal length increases...
Nikon 24-70 / 2.8:
83 x 133 mm, 900 g, 77 mm filter thread.
Leica 24-90:
88 x 138 mm, 1140 g, 82 mm filter thread.
So the Leica is definitely bigger and heavier, despite the fact Nikon is a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom vs f/2.8-4 on the Leica. Granted that it does have 20 mm extra reach. Mirrorless lenses tends to loose it's size advantage as the focal length increases...
Particularly for SLR and now Mirrorless lenses I would invariably expect Leica lenses to be heavier than the competition due to their choice of materials for construction.
telyt wrote:
I'm also saddened by the disappearance of physical controls and mechanical linkages, but mechanical communication between the camera and lens is comparable to 1960s automotive engine controls: carburetors, mechanical spark timing etc. Easy to tweak with little more than a screwdriver, but limited flexibility, poor efficiency, performance and horrific emissions.
I don't really see it. The Nikon D lenses which you left the aperture rings on "auto" (min aperture, actually) on a modern camera and didn't need to mess with it, but it was there if you wanted to use an older camera, worked perfectly fine. I don't believe the hype that they gave up on that for any reason other than cutting costs.
telyt wrote:
Metabones and Leica have shown that electronic adapters can maintain full function of lenses with electronic controls on cameras they were never intended to be used with. The same can't be said for mechanical lenses.
Disagree.
If you're given access to the right SDK (or hack it), yeah, you can do it electronically. But there's absolutely no guarantee you will be. Remember, even Zeiss didn't originally have access to the Canon data to make the ZE lenses, or even enough info from Nikon to transmit just EXIF data. And Metabones still only has electronics working for Canon not Nikon (Red has Nikon, but apparently it was an incredibly complex undertaking and most people don't have as much money to throw away as they do). And those are for modern, still-in-production, extremely-widely-used systems. Mostly you're SOL. Hell, not all cinema cameras can even read the LDS system.
With a mechanical linkage, you can always just build something. Metabones Nikon G adapters with an aperture ring are one basic example. But you could go further than that. No one has bothered because of ROI, but you could absolutely build an adapter that mechanically held the aperture of a Nikon F or Leica R lens open until you fired a photo. The only "communication" with the camera that would require would be detecting an electrical discharge, same as a flash sync cable. Maybe you'd need a cord connected to the hotshoe or another port on the camera, but I bet you could do it right from the lens mount.
Nikon 24-70 / 2.8:
83 x 133 mm, 900 g, 77 mm filter thread.
Leica 24-90:
88 x 138 mm, 1140 g, 82 mm filter thread.
So the Leica is definitely bigger and heavier, despite the fact Nikon is a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom vs f/2.8-4 on the Leica. Granted that it does have 20 mm extra reach. Mirrorless lenses tends to loose it's size advantage as the focal length increases...
But one of the main points of Mirrorless ILC's is that the short flange focal length distance of the lens mount allows for smaller, lighter and potentially better lens designs since it poses much less of a design constraint to lens designers compared to SLRs. So in short, the Leica zoom should be significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon lens, more so given that it is a variable aperture design. I mean, look at the 18-55mm f2.8-4 Fuji, its tiny! (yes I know it's for a smaller sensor but it even has OIS as well).
Had the Leica lens been a true T-2.8 (il allow T3) lens throughout the zoom range then I would not mind the size/weight. It would at last be justified. Maybe even the price...
Sneakyracer wrote:
But one of the main points of Mirrorless ILC's is that the short flange focal length distance of the lens mount allows for smaller, lighter and potentially better lens designs since it poses much less of a design constraint to lens designers compared to SLRs. So in short, the Leica zoom should be significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon lens, more so given that it is a variable aperture design. I mean, look at the 18-55mm f2.8-4 Fuji, its tiny! (yes I know it's for a smaller sensor but it even has OIS as well).
Had the Leica lens been a true T-2.8 (il allow T3) lens throughout the zoom range then I would not mind the size/weight. It would at last be justified. Maybe even the price...
The new Leica zoom has 18 elements in 15 groups, 4 Aspherical Elements, 11 Anomalous Partial Dispersion Elements, Optical Image Stabilization, and Dust and Moisture-Resistant Design.
I think it has been shown that the biggest hurdle against designing smaller lenses in the digital age is not the mirror box, but the sensor inability to deal with oblique rays and the thick cover glass. So ultimately mirror less advantages over DSLR are not as important as previously thought, and maybe canikon were right to stick with the mirror.
Nikon 24-70 / 2.8:
83 x 133 mm, 900 g, 77 mm filter thread.
Leica 24-90:
88 x 138 mm, 1140 g, 82 mm filter thread.
So the Leica is definitely bigger...
Go ahead and add an adapter (or mirror box) to the Nikon, which will make its shooting length and volume larger than the Leica. Not that it really matters -- they're both large but hand-holdable and just pushing the boundary for all-day-event-carry kits -- but if we're going to be looking at the millimeters then we ought to look at the whole system.
---------------------------------------------
Sneakyracer wrote:
...one of the main points of Mirrorless ILC's is that the short flange focal length distance of the lens mount allows for smaller, lighter and potentially better lens designs since it poses much less of a design constraint to lens designers compared to SLRs. So in short, the Leica zoom should be significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon lens, more so given that it is a variable aperture design. ...
So you rule out smaller and lighter. By your own logic, that leaves Leica the option for "potentially better lens designs." Looking at sample images, I think that's exactly what they've done.
Every lens design involves compromise. Getting the last bit of performance seems to require larger lenses. Still, it seems from many examples that designing lenses smaller is certainly possible with excellent but less than ultimate performance. Historically I have always associated Leica with making the best lenses with simpler and smaller designs. The Erwin Puts article quoted above is interesting as it alludes to the "Japanization" of Leica lens design for the new SL. The lenses are larger, more complex designs.
uhoh7 wrote:
Some nice views of the camera by Kristian Dowling:
Lee Saxon wrote:
Funny how much smaller it looks when you hold it correctly :P
still looks huge to me, maybe that guy is pretty small though? looks like he might have to stretch his fingers quite a bit for some buttons?
ming thein has a wonderful picture that shows the relative size of the camera: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5790/21615453253_1c85b372e2_c.jpg
it's a bit wider than a d810 but not as thick. the camera + lens is noticeably larger than the d810 + 24-120 VR and the d810 is pretty much as big as dslrs come without built in vertical grips.
No matter how I spin it a 24-90 f/4 that weighs 1100 grams is not exciting to me. Highly practical but not necessarily enjoyable. Nikons f/4 can be had for $599.
The pro mindset is obviously different as the zoom becomes a potential necessity.
