JaKo wrote:
Again and again, why some Leica users really need to bring Sony into Leica thread discussion? No one cares about 0.1mm on under-resolutioned M8/M9/M24 MP [just check LUF images sized to camouflage] so skip the 'sony envy' please.
I'm having mixed feelings reading between the lines to determine whether I should feel slighted by your comments...
That 0.1mm seems to be relevant if it's the thickness difference between current M cameras and the SL and turns out to be the primary factor in why the newest M lens actually performs better on the SL.
As an M user who is interested in the 28 Lux, yes, I do consider this somewhat of a betrayal by Leica if it was indeed intentional. Maybe future M bodies will have thicker sensor glass, as speculated, and that future M glass will be designed to this specification is only logical, if unfortunate for those unwilling or unable to upgrade. Though of course the new glass will deliver very usable, if not optimum image quality, on past digital M bodies.
Anyway, I agree about looking forward to real world, real user results from the SL...
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well there was a rumour this week on Leica rumours posted earlier in the thread that Leica will be coming out with a new 28 cron. I think that is certainly a distinct possibility, but we will know more before long. The 28 cron is 15 years old and it was designed 5 years before the first Leica digital M, so I think it is safe to say it was designed to be used on film...
On the other hand, Leica may issue a "newish" Summicron-28 merely to replace the atrocious lens hood that the current one comes with. As for the advantages of lenses designed for digital, whatever that means, I find it hard to find a 50mm more to my liking than my 1959 DR-Summicron.
uhoh7 wrote:
This guy is pretty savy, I have been a member on his forum for years, though I rarely post. He may be on to something.
He has been using the DSLR sonys for a long time, and those guys are usually clear eyed about the A7x.
.......
Steve Huff is now smitten:
If I understand David Kirkpatrick's comments correctly on the innovative design philosophy of a tolerance lottery, Zeiss will need to design their FE mount, manual focusing lenses with hard stops that focus past infinity and deploy the engineering euphemism of 'thermal expansion'. I'm guessing that Zeiss's marketing material for their FE mount lenses won't feature the catchphrase 'To infinity and beyond' as the connotations are too painful.
Ah, the Huff vid seemed to spend no little time explaining the SL engineering qualities and the prospect of a 5-10 year camera life of joyful photography, apparently alien concepts to his followers, who do appear to be getting somewhat 'chippy' in their comments.
Nov 26, 2015 at 04:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Can you you move the magnification function from the bottom left to the top right or better yet the front button?
Hi Steve,
No you can't. But I don't see why it couldn't be built into a later version of the firmware.
Personally I don't think magnification is as necessary with the SL as it is with other EVF cameras.
No you can't. But I don't see why it couldn't be built into a later version of the firmware.
Personally I don't think magnification is as necessary with the SL as it is with other EVF cameras.
Hi Adam,
I don't know about that. I missed focus with the camera and my tripod mounted Leica R 280mm f4 Apo Telyt lens when we tried it at PhotoPlus on October 22.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Here is what we know from various tests. The 28 elmarit ASPH shows worse corner performance on the SL than the M240. We know this from 3 sources. Jono Slack has posted images showing this on the Leica Forum. Another poster in the link that Hiep originally posted and I reposted found the same thing, and those who have seen it say Sean Reid has shown the same thing. We also know that the 35 cron ASPH has worse corner performance on the SL than the M240. We know this from the link I reposted earlier and from Sean Reid. We also know than the 28 cron doesn't perform quite as well on the SL as the M from the link I reposted earlier. We also know that the 28 Elmarit ASPH was designed in 1993, the 35 cron ASPH in 1997, and the 28 cron in 2000. All designed more than five years before Leica came out with the M8, so it seems reasonable to assume those lenses were designed with the plan they would be used on a film camera not a digital camera.
So do we know that the SL has thicker cover glass? There is no source for it yet, but the impaired corner performance on these three lenses compared to the M240 is certainly evidence consistent with the idea that the SL has thicker cover glass. No we don't know this yet, that is why I said it appears to me, and it does appear to me that the SL has thicker cover glass based on its performance with those three lenses.
In addition to the above we also have evidence from Sean Reid that the new 28 lux ASPH shows notably better performance on the SL than the M240. Several people have commented on the test from Sean Reid and all report seeing fairly clear evidence that this lens performs better on the SL. Given that the 28 Lux ASPH came out this year and performs better on the SL that also came out this year, I don't know what you want to call it but I don't think it is unreasonable to say that it is likely that the 28 Lux ASPH was tested on the SL and that Leica knew it performed better on the SL than the M240. Now maybe you wouldn't call that being designed for the SL, but I would. It certainly appears to me that the 28 Lux ASPH was designed to work with the SL.
Putting these two lines of thought together it does certainly appear to me that the SL has a bit thicker cover glass (at least optically) and that the 28 Lux ASPH was designed to work with the SL (and its cover glass). That does make me wonder whether as Leica renews the 28 cron ASPH and the 35 cron ASPH (and maybe a slower 28mm) if these lenses won't work much better with the SL. I am optimistic they will, and further I expect the new M to have cover glass much like the SL....Show more →
The 28 lux was released last year as part of a limited edition M set in May I believe. This year it was made available more widley apart from a set. Hard to say or speculate if the Lux's design was for the SL imo given it's original special edition M set release. In a way,that would seem odd.
Why is it so difficult for any camera maker using an EVF to show both a zoomed version and actual composition on same screen. Silly that Leica doesn't allow the zoom function to be moved from left side.
I'm not buying the zoom not necessary argument. At least for my eyes.
rscheffler wrote: I'm having mixed feelings reading between the lines to determine whether I should feel slighted by your comments...
You shouldn’t, unless you’re one of those who constantly claim that every Sony A7x model is flawed by design because it is not perfectly working with some Leica-M lenses, or one of those who attach names to Sony and its designers because they create sensor stacks that work best with Sony lenses instead of other brands.
Adopting alt lenses on x-platform camera bodies is our hobby and we can’t blame hardware manufacturers for our failed hopes. This has been written long time before the release of Sony mirrorless FF two years ago.
Now it seems that Leica SL takes the heat for its compatibility with older M glass. SL, just like the S was designed to work with its own line of lenses. Perhaps the M --> SL adapter gave wrong hopes, but the new Summilux-SL 50 should be a clue.
Bummer, as the SL would be a better option for me than Kolari-modifying each new Sony A7x model. Betrayal? Not really, but surely disappointing from alt POV.
Nov 26, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
No you can't. But I don't see why it couldn't be built into a later version of the firmware.
Personally I don't think magnification is as necessary with the SL as it is with other EVF cameras.
Thanks Adam. I do hope they fix that with an upgrade. I think it depends on the lens whether you will want/need magnification. In the 35 to 90 range at f/2 or narrower you might do just fine without it, but I suspect Rich is right for a lens like the 280 Telyt APO. It might be useful for wide angles as well.
Individual ability and vision might matter too. I suspect I will want to use magnification even with the excellent EVF, because my vision is only about 20:40 close up even with correction, but I am not surprised that you can get good results without using it. Anyway, thanks for the report.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Charlie, the benefits of a slightly thicker cover are quite obvious. Better IR filtration, less breakage tendency, auto sensor cleaning. The thin cover has caused Leica huge problems with the M8/9.
But no problems at all with the M240. And Kolari is now using .8mm
The M9 simply had the wrong glass and interface with the sensor. Looks like they have now solved it but we will wee.
Auto sensor cleaning is a non-issue. My A7.mod requires no more and cleaning than the original, and a blower is better than the shaker anyway.
As to IR, where are the problems with M240, or D810? Sure in certain studio circumstances, tungsten light some might want a filter. It can be added. If this was a huge issue the camera would not be loved by so many. The upside is great clean files in most natural light.
"I do see some IR contamination when very deep shadows are opened up, but the M isn’t alone in this regard, and I’m talking six stops or more below 18%." Michael Reichmann
Do you have a problem with this, Edward?
As to breakage, yes the thin glass will break easier. It happens, but rarely, so one must take care.
Decisions, choices have upsides and downsides. The upsides for improved handling of steep ray angles outweigh the downsides, both today and in the future. Today, we can use all our favorite film lenses to best advantage, and tommorrow we can have some small fast zooms
The very fact we are all chasing this trait should tell us something.
JaKo wrote:
Charlie, perhaps this is a good point in time [2015] to consider that Leica M glass enthusiasts who admire Leica glow, Mandler’s look, hazy/painterly transitions may not necessarily be the primary target for Leica’s new opening stores.
You and many alike may be troubled by the possibility of Leica is going forward and this time they maybe parting with the idea of compatibility with old M39/M lenses. But let’s face it, it’s all about $$$ after all and Leica is frequently ‘Under New Management’ to stay in business.
Consider this; some new Leica digital camera buyers get brand spanking new M240/MP and ask for recommended lenses; what do you expect the [Leica] sales staff will suggest? Getting 35mm 1118xxx from a specific batch and in yellow side print or 50mm Lux 11xxx from years 19xx-19x8 and with a pull out hood will just make the average buyer run out screaming in confusion (and Leica staff short of commission). Not everyone must be Puts Compendia ‘educated’ or willing to get 30 years old used glass for their new camera. Some do, not all. Check how many images posted in FM Leica thread are taken by new Leica owners shooting Mandler’s or older lenses? Most likely many new M/x buyers will purchase their brand new Leica lenses that match camera bodies; M/S or whatever it’s, and are available at the stores with full warranty.
Maybe Leica feels that their core users already have more than plenty of M lenses for their film M and digital M8/9/240 and not many owners want to trade for latest & greatest? Are you willing to trade you ‘character’ 28, 35 or 75-Lux lenses for the ‘new and improved’? I hope you don’t, but Leica maybe targeting different market ignoring [or not directly considering] hordes of old collectors who already own Leica M glass.
Hard to say, but many who got their Leica lenses for their unique look may want to stick to their cameras the lenses were intended to or compatible with as Leica may just march forward.
Perhaps, as mentioned somewhere on FM recently, old and circa 2003 lenses simply limit the progress of higher resolution Leica cameras/sensors and Leica simply needs to come up with new Leica cover glass/lenses/bodies.
Time will tell, but for now, let’s enjoy shooting classic M glass on whatever we have, regardless if 0.8/1.0 or 1.91003mm ...Show more →
I always enjoy your posts, and they usually have me thinking Here is one vey obvious clue that Leica will not desert the M lovers with collections big and small: Look at the M240. Look at the M262. Spitting image really of the M2. Now I really don't care about that, it's the lens friendly aspect which is paramount, but obviously Leica is terrified to leave this look. That should tell you something.
If Leica wants a fully "modern" camera, the M mount itself has to go. Now, Sony has proven some will just accept they need a whole new bunch of lenses. Fuji has made a system from the ground up. There is the Leica compact.
The most forward thinking move would be to make a very compact T mount or a new mount with an entirely new lenset, on the "interchangeable Q" theme, which would still do M, but allow for modern light sealing and AF, etc. That's a bit ambitious, though.
@Steve
Well I think we have perhaps settled on a common belief when it comes to the ray angle issue, and now I understand your views, and nuances better
uhoh7 wrote:
But no problems at all with the M240. And Kolari is now using .8mm
The M9 simply had the wrong glass and interface with the sensor. Looks like they have now solved it but we will wee.
Auto sensor cleaning is a non-issue. My A7.mod requires no more and cleaning than the original, and a blower is better than the shaker anyway.
As to IR, where are the problems with M240, or D810? Sure in certain studio circumstances, tungsten light some might want a filter. It can be added. If this was a huge issue the camera would not be loved by so many. The upside is great clean files in most natural light.
"I do see some IR contamination when very deep shadows are opened up, but the M isn’t alone in this regard, and I’m talking six stops or more below 18%." Michael Reichmann
Do you have a problem with this, Edward?
As to breakage, yes the thin glass will break easier. It happens, but rarely, so one must take care.
Decisions, choices have upsides and downsides. The upsides for improved handling of steep ray angles outweigh the downsides, both today and in the future. Today, we can use all our favorite film lenses to best advantage, and tommorrow we can have some small fast zooms
The very fact we are all chasing this trait should tell us something. ...Show more →
As someone who shoots people more than hills it's certainly an issue for me. Even with UV/IR filters on my lenses I get uncorrectable shots with IR contamination. Furthermore some lenses, especially ultra wides can't use IR filters. Landscape photographers like Reichman won't see it but street and portrait photographers will have to deal with it, often.
Also, and I don't know if it's related, I have significantly lower levels of purple fringing on my Noctilux (and Summilux) on my new SL than any of my M's. I was actually close to selling my Noctilux because I wasn't using it on the M's. On the SL it's so much better. Some slight blue fringing but very little nasty purple fringing at all. It's a fantastic combination.
flash wrote:
As someone who shoots people more than hills it's certainly an issue for me. Even with UV/IR filters on my lenses I get uncorrectable shots with IR contamination. Furthermore some lenses, especially ultra wides can't use IR filters. Landscape photographers like Reichman won't see it but street and portrait photographers will have to deal with it, often.
Also, and I don't know if it's related, I have significantly lower levels of purple fringing on my Noctilux (and Summilux) on my new SL than any of my M's. I was actually close to selling my Noctilux because I wasn't using it on the M's. On the SL it's so much better. Some slight blue fringing but very little nasty purple fringing at all. It's a fantastic combination.
Gordon, that's very interesting and might explain some of these choices. When you have a chance can you post some examples of IR contamination from the 240?
I'll have to hunt for samples. Most of the uncorrectable ones get deleted pretty quickly. All the M's have IR issues. The M8 was the worst and well documented. The M9 is the best but not great. The M240 is somewhere in-between the M8 and M9.
Here's an example of the difference I'm seeing in finding between the M and SL regarding purple fringing. Both with same Noctilux at 0.95. Crap photos but they'll give you an idea of the differences. M is on top.
I don't know about that. I missed focus with the camera and my tripod mounted Leica R 280mm f4 Apo Telyt lens when we tried it at PhotoPlus on October 22.
Rich
I said "I don't think magnification is AS necessary". Of course results may vary. Individual scene, skill level, luck etc. But it's not AS necessary as with other EVF cameras I've used.
Gordon - I'll have to test for this.. Sounds promising from what you've been describing.
flash wrote:
Here's an example of the difference I'm seeing in finding between the M and SL regarding purple fringing. Both with same Noctilux at 0.95. Crap photos but they'll give you an idea of the differences. M is on top.
Excellent news! The SL does appear to have less purple fringing/CA issues and very usable.
With my 50 Nocti f/1.0 and 75 Lux, the M9/MM were the best, some CA on the M240, at times unusable, fine on the A7s but the worst on the A7rII where the CA/purple fringing in effect made the image unusable with any back lighting.
There are obviously many factors that affect the performance of lenses in combination with the newer sensors and not just the sensor glass cover thickness.
flash wrote:
Here's an example of the difference I'm seeing in finding between the M and SL regarding purple fringing. Both with same Noctilux at 0.95. Crap photos but they'll give you an idea of the differences. M is on top.
