edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
I think this has turned out to be true, but I don't agree at all that that leads to the conclusion that sticking with the mirror was a good decision. Maybe in the short term, insofar as EVFs aren't really any good yet. But they will be. Long term, WYSIWYG is the future and "gee, is this ground glass even aligned properly? and does it matter since it's probably f/2.8 and I'm using an f/1.4 lens" is the past, even if it makes no difference whatsoever to lens design.
The lesson here, for me, isn't that Nikon/Canon were right to stick with the mirror, it was that Sony was wrong to try to make the camera bodies so goddamn ridiculously small when the lenses were going to stay just as big and throw everything off balance. The SL, were it anything approaching reasonably priced, seems to have corrected that mistake.
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.
Military bazookas weigh between 5lbs - 20lbs. Seems legit
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.
That nobody has gone beyond a simple manual ring speaks volumes to me. The mechanical linkages are too complex, too bulky and in many cases would require leverage and torque for the lens that is simply unavailable from the camera.
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
sebboh wrote:
still looks huge to me...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.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion that "almost as big as the D810" is too big (which I of course disagree with, especially since it's becoming clear that high performance mirrorless lenses aren't going to be smaller than DSLR equivalents).
My point was that the first pictures made it look bigger than it actually is.
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
IMHO there are many advantages mirrorless has over SLR without considering any size advantage. However a mirrorless camera (a7II) has allowed me to reduce the size and more importantly, the weight of my basic 300mm lens kit. Because the a7II's viewfinder is well-suited to manual focus and because of the adaptability of the short flange-to-sensor distance, I have been able to use the Canon FD 300mm f/4 L which weighs significantly less than most AF 300mm lenses. The a7II + FD 300/4 L is half the weight of some comparable SLR cameras.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
@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.
I'm talking about the next Sony EVF reference that I called myself A9r...
Less expensive because after six months, discount usually is 25% off.
pandorf wrote:
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.
Yes, I've used this option in the past. But when I did it. It would create an XMP file to go along with the DNG. No XMP file in the folder at the time of import, no corrections.
Adobe builds it into your DNG now while you work? Or do you have to re-export as DNG after making changes?
Also Leica or the photographer who shot this event, didn't do the SL any favours by putting his XMP info into the file. I don't like editing anyones else's work. Which is why I wouldn't post the files that I edited. But let's just say I'm more impressed with the images after zeroing them out and applying a very simple correction.
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...
You're going to want to compare new to new. Go look at the stats of the Nikon 24-70E.
sebboh wrote:
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.
Hi Derek,
I will say that the SL and the new zoom are extremely solidly built from my handling of the system. It is also heavy compared to the A7 series or the M240. But, no question, the camera and lens are built to standards not seen by Sony, Canon and Nikon. Yes the camera and lenses are going to be larger and heavier than many of us want to use.
I forgot to mention earlier how nice and smooth and really quiet the shutter and shutter release are for the SL. Unfortunately the size, weight, MP, and the cost of the new SL camera system is more than 95 to 99% of the photographers can afford and would be willing to spend. As much as I like the camera and I am sure that the performance will be stellar as we see more results, it is probably more money than I wish to spend on a camera body.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion that "almost as big as the D810" is too big (which I of course disagree with, especially since it's becoming clear that high performance mirrorless lenses aren't going to be smaller than DSLR equivalents).
My point was that the first pictures made it look bigger than it actually is.
i didn't say too big, i said it was huge. as big as the d810 is big. period. if that's what you want it's not too big.
for me the q is too big.
i didn't find that first pic to be non representative of actual size, but ming's does a much better job.
sebboh wrote:
i didn't say too big, i said it was huge. as big as the d810 is big. period. if that's what you want it's not too big.
for me the q is too big.
i didn't find that first pic to be non representative of actual size, but ming's does a much better job.
Seems like you're going to be getting an RX1rII?
It's sure to be a great camera. I hope you have fun with it. The first one was pretty nice!
I would almost be tempted by it if my brain could appreciate Sony colors and Zeiss rendering.
I don't see the SL as big. I don't even see the S-system as big. I might change my mind after 10-15 hours of raising it to my eye at a wedding. But we won't know that until sometime in December
I'm over the size/weight. And I'm over the ugly look. The price still annoys me. And the fact that the 50LuxL isn't out annoys me. BUT it also has me wondering. Even for a AF 1.4 design. The 50LuxL seems rather large. It's Otus large. Which either means that they REALLY needed to design around a specific set of AF parameters (to get optimum AF speed). Or they're making one heck of a good lens. Let's just hope it's not overly sterile with plastic bokeh, like most modern lenses have become.
adamdewilde wrote:
Seems like you're going to be getting an RX1rII?
It's sure to be a great camera. I hope you have fun with it. The first one was pretty nice!
I would almost be tempted by it if my brain could appreciate Sony colors and Zeiss rendering.
i've been shooting with the rx1 for a couple years and love it's rendering and hate it's focus and the need for a clip on evf. comparatively the q seems overly large and i don't like the lens rendering or length as much. the ergonomics and evf seem much nicer though. the new rx1rII looks like a great improvement, but i wish they'd put a real focus ring with a distance scale on it. i'll wait a year or so and get the new rx1rII at presumably a $1k or so discount.
adamdewilde wrote:
I don't see the SL as big. I don't even see the S-system as big. I might change my mind after 10-15 hours of raising it to my eye at a wedding. But we won't know that until sometime in December
I'm over the size/weight. And I'm over the ugly look. The price still annoys me. And the fact that the 50LuxL isn't out annoys me. BUT it also has me wondering. Even for a AF 1.4 design. The 50LuxL seems rather large. It's Otus large. Which either means that they REALLY needed to design around a specific set of AF parameters (to get optimum AF speed). Or they're making one heck of a good lens. Let's just hope it's not overly sterile with plastic bokeh, like most modern lenses have become. ...Show more →
i'm all about small because i don't really want anybody to know i'm carrying a camera when i'm not using it. most of my photography is incidental as i go about my life, so i want something i can carry with me without thinking about. there are lots of film cameras that fit this size limitation but very few digital cameras. being very particular about my what i want doesn't help.
the look of the SL is growing on me, but the size is too big for my general use. it's an ok size for me to use for birding, but i'm not gonna spend $7k on a camera for birding only, especially since i think the a7rII would perform better in that capacity.
none of the lenses interest me just as i'm not interested in the otus due to size. i'm more of a fan of leica's less than perfect but small m lenses.
sebboh wrote:
i've been shooting with the rx1 for a couple years and love it's rendering and hate it's focus and the need for a clip on evf. comparatively the q seems overly large and i don't like the lens rendering or length as much. the ergonomics and evf seem much nicer though. the new rx1rII looks like a great improvement, but i wish they'd put a real focus ring with a distance scale on it. i'll wait a year or so and get the new rx1rII at presumably a $1k or so discount.
i'm all about small because i don't really want anybody to know i'm carrying a camera when i'm not using it. most of my photography is incidental as i go about my life, so i want something i can carry with me without thinking about. there are lots of film cameras that fit this size limitation but very few digital cameras. being very particular about my what i want doesn't help.
the look of the SL is growing on me, but the size is too big for my general use. it's an ok size for me to use for birding, but i'm not gonna spend $7k on a camera for birding only, especially since i think the a7rII would perform better in that capacity.
none of the lenses interest me just as i'm not interested in the otus due to size. i'm more of a fan of leica's less than perfect but small m lenses.
This is going to sound a bit odd.. But SL + Summarit line would be a killer combo. I feel every one of the Summarit lenses is stellar in their own right. They're cheap and small. The only drawback is minimum focusing distance. And that's an M lens problem. Sure you could do the same on the M240 but the iso limits you, and if you don't like RF focusing your only option is SL or A7 series.
I quite like the rendering of the 35 and 75 (older versions). And they can be had for under a grand each if you get lucky. So not a real expensive way to have the Leica ergonomics and UI in a what I'd consider semi-complete package... Then again if you like the handling and colors of the A7 series cameras, why not just buy an A7?
And you could get the 90-280 for birding and I'm sure you'd be quite happy. Though of course with birding you're never close enough. So there would obviously be limitations to the kit. But anything over 300mm from Canon is going to be HUGE anyway, and I thought that's what you wanted to avoid.
Yeah I love my little 50APO. It's probably the best lens I'll ever own. BUT using the 100S and 45S these last few weeks (totally neglecting the other S lenses right now). But WOW I don't mind the size and weight for optics like the S provides. That's the main reason I'm so hopeful the 50luxl will be awesome.
He seems to agree with the sentiment that Leica is overlapping their lines.
He is meandering like a glacial stream in the flats in that one. I always learn things when I read him, and make notes to try later to understand what he is saying
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...
I think you have a serious point here. That constant aperture 2.8 is simply the benchmark for the majority of pros today. Do we think this Leica outperforms it, for sure? Those stats I want to see. Vs both the Canon and Nikon fast zooms.
You do get more range, but the bulk is.....well, old school. Now with the Otus all this gigantisism is the rage, and if the lens is THAT good......well guys like philber will break down and get one, as he did get an Otus and loves it.
I am not at all convicined with this 'oh now we know the lenses must be large because of the oblique rays' line. Sensor advances combined with thin covers, I guess, can handle more than anybody has yet tried. We are shooting short register UWAs with no problem on M240 already, we can't have a small, light 24-70/2.8? Say 500 grams? I don't buy it. ;(
The SL is what it is, a gorgeous bridge from S007 to M, and the new R. Fine. I like it.
But the real new warrior has yet to be built: 70% mass of the A7r2, well built, friendly sensor, and a new line of smaller good AF zooms. That niche is wide open. I think a BSI with thin cover is already enough, but there are tricks in the pipeline which may help more. We know the Sony zooms are big, but we know why. Obviously 30% can come straight off those builds with the thin BSI.
Maybe the video is making it hard, but jeez one small dedicated FF still body, lean mean and M ready (made by Leica or not), with a few nice small AF zooms; this is beyond obvious at this point.
adamdewilde wrote:
This is going to sound a bit odd.. But SL + Summarit line would be a killer combo. I feel every one of the Summarit lenses is stellar in their own right. They're cheap and small. The only drawback is minimum focusing distance. And that's an M lens problem. Sure you could do the same on the M240 but the iso limits you, and if you don't like RF focusing your only option is SL or A7 series.
I quite like the rendering of the 35 and 75 (older versions). And they can be had for under a grand each if you get lucky. So not a real expensive way to have the Leica ergonomics and UI in a what I'd consider semi-complete package... Then again if you like the handling and colors of the A7 series cameras, why not just buy an A7?
And you could get the 90-280 for birding and I'm sure you'd be quite happy. Though of course with birding you're never close enough. So there would obviously be limitations to the kit. But anything over 300mm from Canon is going to be HUGE anyway, and I thought that's what you wanted to avoid.
Yeah I love my little 50APO. It's probably the best lens I'll ever own. BUT using the 100S and 45S these last few weeks (totally neglecting the other S lenses right now). But WOW I don't mind the size and weight for optics like the S provides. That's the main reason I'm so hopeful the 50luxl will be awesome. ...Show more →
i borrowed the 75 summarit from a friend for a while. it has a beautiful draw and it's just the right size and focal length for a portrait lens for me. my one complaint was that it is a little too perfect wide open, it'd be nice if it could open up to f/1.8 or something to get some extra flare, glow, and vignetting. wish it had a little longer focus throw too. i haven't played with the 35 m summarit, but the draw looks very nice. if leica would come out with a compact FF camera i might try it out (i'm pretty sure i like the rx1 draw better though from what i've seen of other peoples pics), it doesn't play well with my current cameras.
i do shoot an a7 now, my "bigger" camera. size is ok, wish the viewfinder was on the left corner, wish it had a better shutter, and wish it had thinner cover glass (will be sending it for that mod soon). if the rx1 had a real focus ring or stellar AF i'd almost never use the a7 at 35mm, but when i need to shoot anything moving i mostly use the a7 with a 35 lux pre-asph or if it's just around the house a c/y 35/1.4 (about to go up for sale). for portrait focal length, i've been switching between jupiter-9, 90 cron pre-asph, and contax g 90. my really compact birding setup has been with the 70-300 DO and the rokkor 500/8 mirror lens. the DO kinda sucks (you know it's bad when a mirror lens kicks it's ass for sharpness and contrast), so i'm replacing it with a pentax A* 300/4.
i've shot with enough perfect lenses to come to the conclusion that i don't really like them much and certainly am not willing to pay a big size penalty for them. even though it doesn't have a size penalty i'm not crazy about what i see with the m 50 APO – i like the focus transitions, but the bokeh really bothers me in the corners.
telyt wrote:
IMHO there are many advantages mirrorless has over SLR without considering any size advantage. However a mirrorless camera (a7II) has allowed me to reduce the size and more importantly, the weight of my basic 300mm lens kit. Because the a7II's viewfinder is well-suited to manual focus and because of the adaptability of the short flange-to-sensor distance, I have been able to use the Canon FD 300mm f/4 L which weighs significantly less than most AF 300mm lenses. The a7II + FD 300/4 L is half the weight of some comparable SLR cameras.
Doug, from the above I take it you're no longer shooting with the DMR, whose color rendition is stellar and which can be seen in what you've done. How do you find the color that you get from the A7II, and do you find that you can get close enough to what you did with the DMR?
While it's too early to know how the color rendition of the Leica SL will be, I suppose it will be close to that of the Leica Q, which seems to be somewhere between that of the M240 and the M9. I am neither of the school of those who say that "everything can be fixed in post" nor of those who don't adjust color in post (I do extensive post-processing) — but my feeling is that which has been articulately stated by by "fotografz" (Marc Williams), who feels that there is something about the oranges and reds of the M240 that makes it impossible to get the skin tones that he wants — even with his extensive post-processing skills. Granted that your concern may not be skin tones, what are your thoughts about the color from the SL?
I don't have plans to get an SL, but may eventually be interested in it, together with the 90-280 lens, for the next time I go to Africa. The last time I went to Botswana I had a Nikon D300 and the Nikkor 70-200/f2.8, a lens that I liked a lot. As I have the M9-P and the MM, I doubt that I would use the SL otherwise — in that case I would resell it after the Africa trip.
—Mitch/Chiang Mai
Oct 24, 2015 at 08:54 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
sebboh wrote:
i didn't say too big, i said it was huge. as big as the d810 is big. period. if that's what you want it's not too big.
for me the q is too big.
i didn't find that first pic to be non representative of actual size, but ming's does a much better job.
Well, the D810 is about the same width (the Leica SL is 1mm wider), but it is quite a bit taller (19mm and quite a bit deeper probably about 25mm, and it weighs 133g more). To you that may seem the same, but fir me the D810 is clearly bigger. The dimension that I hate most in DS:R's is the width, but I may be alone in that. Anyway on width both my Sony and the Leica SL are similar and considerably better than my DSLRs. I actually like that the Leica SL is taller than my Sony, but I am glad it isn't as tall as the D810. So, on height I really like the size of the SL, but on width it is wider than i need my Sony A7 II is plenty wide enough for me. But we are unlikely to ever get exactly what we want and i would be happy with both the Sony A7 II series and the Leica SL for size and weight.
adamdewilde wrote:
You're going to want to compare new to new. Go look at the stats of the Nikon 24-70E.
Yes, the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR has dimensions of 88mm X 154.5mm (D X L) and weighs 1070g. So it has the same diameter, is considerably longer, and weighs just a bit less than the Leica 24-90.
Mitch Alland wrote:
Doug, from the above I take it you're no longer shooting with the DMR, whose color rendition is stellar and which can be seen in what you've done. How do you find the color that you get from the A7II, and do you find that you can get close enough to what you did with the DMR?
The DMR has put on a lot of weight and I have some persistent wrist and shoulder injuries that don't react well to mass so my choice was to use a lighter weight camera or no camera. The a7II + FD 300/4 L is half the weight of the R8/DMR + 280 APO.
I'm still struggling with the a7II's color quality after using DMR/280 APO combination. If I had never seen what the DMR + 280 APO can do I'd probably be delighted with the Sony.
OTOH one benefit of the FD 300 L is reduced color moire. It's well matched to the a7II's resolution after correcting for lateral chromatic aberration. The 280 APO cuts right through the Sony's AA filter. I still have the DMR but it's going to be sacrificed to help fund an SL purchase.
telyt wrote:
The DMR has put on a lot of weight and I have some persistent wrist and shoulder injuries that don't react well to mass so my choice was to use a lighter weight camera or no camera. The a7II + FD 300/4 L is half the weight of the R8/DMR + 280 APO.
I'm still struggling with the a7II's color quality after using DMR/280 APO combination. If I had never seen what the DMR + 280 APO can do I'd probably be delighted with the Sony.
OTOH one benefit of the FD 300 L is reduced color moire. It's well matched to the a7II's resolution after correcting for lateral chromatic aberration. The 280 APO cuts right through the Sony's AA filter. I still have the DMR but it's going to be sacrificed to help fund an SL purchase....Show more →
Hi Doug,
Perhaps having had the R8 and then going digital through a series of smaller format cameras with my Leica R lenses without having had the DMR may have made it easier for me to go to the Sony A7r and to work from Sony colors than you have experienced going from the DMR to the Sony A7II.
Like you I have wrist issues since 1993 when I broke both while I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle. So now I do not hand hold nearly as much as I might and I shoot mainly when my camera and lenses are tripod mounted (though that was frequently my method of working prior to that). Add to that I had Quadruple Bypass Heart Surgery 2 years and 5 months ago.
