rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.25 #6 · Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar... | |
Hiep, I was aware the M240 stack was slightly thicker, but thought it was still just below 1mm. Not that it probably makes a huge difference. IR contamination is IMO still a problem with the M240 (it has been a problem for me on some wedding shoots) and I see telltale signs of it in some of the SL DNGs I've processed.
Mitch, whatever color profile tweaks Leica applies to the final production SLs, I doubt it will be a considerable change from what we're seeing now. Proper color profile support in Lightroom and C1 will likely make more of a difference, but IMO, from processing the early SL DNGs, it reminds me a lot more of the M240 than the M9. I'd say it reminds me 80% of the M240 and very little, if anything, of the M9.
Bijltje wrote:
What I found intressting is the T lens 18-56. It fits the SL great, makes it compact and good to handle. If you like me only need a 24-90 equalivent AF lens for special occasions were there is no time to change a lens, or because the girlfriend doesn't like to manual focus  it can be a great alternative to the big 24-90.
Robert, thanks for the hands-on report. Sounds similar to Adam's in some respects. I think the biggest problem with the 18-56 is spending 1450 Euro on a rather unsexy 'kit' lens just to have a 10MP crop. Of course 10MP is fine for social snaps, etc., as you're suggesting. Just reinforces to me that I think the SL would combine nicely with a few relatively compact Summicron SL primes.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Edward,
Thanks for posting the link to the Leica forum thread. I found the examples from the three lenses tested there helpful, but I was surprised by how much the difference between the SL and the A7 II varied. With the 28 elmarit ASPH, neither lens was all that great even at f/8 and although the SL was clearly better the difference wasn't as dramatic as i expected. If 100% were an ideal image, I would say the SL was 60% and the A7 II was 30%. With the 35 summicron ASPH the difference in the cameras was striking. At f/4 I thought the SL image was quite good, perhaps 80% of ideal, whereas the A7 II was pretty awful maybe 20%. The 50 lux ASPH produced pretty dramatic results between the two cameras as well. At f/4 the image (these were corner crops, I expect a zone B dip with this lens at this aperture) was very nice on the SL again about 80% of ideal (maybe a bit better), and the A7 II it was maybe 30%. So these examples have me quite optimistic about the SL's performance, but it is clear, to me anyway, that we will have to see how each lens tests and ideally we would see how each lens tests on 4 different cameras--SL, M240, unmodified A7 series, and modified A7 series. But even these samples, which test the SL vs. an unmodified A7 II, tell me that I would likely be happy with the 50 lux ASPH, and the 35 cron ASPH, on the SL, but I would have some worries about the 28 elmarit ASPH, but that is just me and my standards.
...Show more →
I think a risk is we're seeing only extreme corner crops. It does allow us to compare the SL vs. a7II but definitely ignores aspects that can be influenced by sensor topping thickness, such as mid zone and edges. From the comparisons I did with the M9 and M240 against the first generation unmodded a7 cameras, mid zone characteristics definitely shifted somewhat on the Sonys vs. the Leicas.
While the corners of the 35 Cron ASPH look better than the 28/2.8 I wonder if it will be the same story for the mid zone, which likely is more important to overall imaging characteristics? Based on MTFs, this is where the 35 Cron seems to suffer compared to the 28/2.8.
But I agree, just like with the Sony cameras, it appears it will be a case of examining each lens individually on the SL to determine whether or not it meets your requirements.
|
, I have not observed any change drastic change in field curvature (such as going from bowing out to bowing in or vice versa). What I see is that the closer the focus, the less apparent DOF, the more pronounced that field curvature seems to be (make sense).