charles.K wrote:
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.
I've added a shot from the A7R2 for comparison to the other two.
You're right about there being many factors. I haven't mentioned the banding yet.
hiepphotog wrote:
I think this has to do with the tone curve. It just means that the highlights get blown-out more in the M.
Could be. They're all blown by at least three stops though. There's simply nothing there to recover in any of them. It's a torture test i do with all my gear. But the A7R2 is worse and has much better highlight recovery than the SL (I have done the side by side tests for myself already). The SL doesn't have significantly better DR than the M. It has slightly less PF and slightly more banding than the M.
I don't do my personal tests to see how good/bad a sensor/camera/lens is. i just want to know the limitations so I can work within them. So far I'm really liking the SL but it sure is far from perfect. Especially a few of the layout choices which are just bizarre.
flash wrote:
Could be. They're all blown by at least three stops though. There's simply nothing there to recover in any of them. It's a torture test i do with all my gear. But the A7R2 is worse and has much better highlight recovery than the SL (I have done the side by side tests for myself already). The SL doesn't have significantly better DR than the M. It has slightly less PF and slightly more banding than the M.
I don't do my personal tests to see how good/bad a sensor/camera/lens is. i just want to know the limitations so I can work within them. So far I'm really liking the SL but it sure is far from perfect. Especially a few of the layout choices which are just bizarre.
I noticed this behavior in stock Sony vs. modded Sony as well. The modded cam is better at suppressing purple fringing than the stock even though they're literally the same sensor. I just think the sensor glass does change the tone curve (contrast). Of course all three have the fringing, the difference is in the amount. And I think subtle change would be enough.
I'll need to use it more to determine it's worth to me. I sure wish that Leica had released the 50LuxL. It probably would have made me feel better about my purchase.
As far as IQ is concern. The S-system (006/007) still beats the pants off of anything I've used. And I'd suggest if you don't need fast AF and high ISO, to get a S-006 over a SL.
BTW - My SL body has less banding then the M240-P cameras I have, so I'm not sure if your camera is performing as it should Gordon.
Nov 26, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
How is the SL with S lenses or is the S adapter still not available? I am hoping that SL plus S glass might be a very nice combo.,
That's my hope as well. The S-adapter isn't available yet. I doubt I'll even get to borrow one beforehand. So we're looking at about April 2016. And I'm sure the adapter will be around $1,800
adamdewilde wrote:
So far I'm not a fan of the SL + zoom.
I'll need to use it more to determine it's worth to me. I sure wish that Leica had released the 50LuxL. It probably would have made me feel better about my purchase.
As far as IQ is concern. The S-system (006/007) still beats the pants off of anything I've used. And I'd suggest if you don't need fast AF and high ISO, to get a S-006 over a SL.
BTW - My SL body has less banding then the M240-P cameras I have, so I'm not sure if your camera is performing as it should Gordon. ...Show more →
I'm happy enough Adam. In normal use I don't have any banding issues. I did another torture test with a 5 stop shadow push and the M was "marginally" better than the SL. Nothing to worry about in real life though. Neither was close to the A7R2 and that was bested (just) by the Fuji XT1 which doesn't band at all. One of my favourite things about the M9 was the way you could thump the shadows.
I didn't get the zoom. I'm purely manual at the moment. *If" I settle on the M/SL combo as my main system I'll need it and I was pleased with the low light AF at the launch. But for now I have many zooms in the 24-XX range (Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Canon) and I don't love any of them (the Fuji is the best). I'm currently selling all of them except the Fuji one. Usually if I need a zoom I don't need more than 16mpix. For the higher res sensors I think the move to all primes yield a higher end result.
My workhorse set is a 28, 50, 90 and 135 (35mm). I too would prefer the Summiux. For now I'm just happy to have a camera that takes my M lenses and allows an EVF and flash at the same time without all the brackets required on the M.
The EVF may be the headline but I think the ISO 50 and the very lovely shutter are my favourite things about the SL. The SL reminds me so much of my a99 (which I still have) just without the lens range.
Gordon TY so much for those. I did not realize the purple fringe was increased on the 240 over the M9. Why would this be?
Also Gordon, how are your M favorites performing in comparison on the SL vs 240?
charles.K wrote:
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.
TY for this Charles
That's wild, I would have expected the A7r2 to be equal to the A7s. Why would they be so different?
I need to compare M9 and Kolari
hiepphotog wrote:
I noticed this behavior in stock Sony vs. modded Sony as well. The modded cam is better at suppressing purple fringing than the stock even though they're literally the same sensor. I just think the sensor glass does change the tone curve (contrast). Of course all three have the fringing, the difference is in the amount. And I think subtle change would be enough.
Wow I would have thought the opposite
adamdewilde wrote:
So far I'm not a fan of the SL + zoom....
As far as IQ is concern. The S-system (006/007) still beats the pants off of anything I've used. And I'd suggest if you don't need fast AF and high ISO, to get a S-006 over a SL.
.
The zoom is not knocking me out either, but I'm no expert on how it compares to others.
Interesting remark about 006 S which I see for 5K now. What are the best lens values for that system?
uhoh7 wrote:
Gordon TY so much for those. I did not realize the purple fringe was increased on the 240 over the M9. Why would this be?
Also Gordon, how are your M favorites performing in comparison on the SL vs 240?
TY for this Charles
That's wild, I would have expected the A7r2 to be equal to the A7s. Why would they be so different?
I need to compare M9 and Kolari
Wow I would have thought the opposite
The zoom is not knocking me out either, but I'm no expert on how it compares to others.
Interesting remark about 006 S which I see for 5K now. What are the best lens values for that system?...Show more →
All of them.. Honestly you can't go wrong. With the S-system, it truly is a pick your favourite focal length kind of deal.
I will say this, the lenses are slower then what you'd be use to using an M. And I do have my favourite (100S).
The 100S cannot be beat for the look I like. The 45S also takes the cake for best looking 35mm lens. But I'm also a big fan of the 120S (macro) which is good for beauty shots as well as fun for walking around (a bit slower to focus then the rest though)..
Really curious to see if the S-adapter makes the lenses focus faster. Like the S-007 (makes the lenses focus faster).
Just to update... The camera looks great with all the M lenses (took me a while to test, I have a LOT of M lenses).
I'm not really a landscape shooter, so I don't care much for corner performance at infinity. But from my quick and dirty tests, the 21Lux seems the same in the corners at various F/stops, and overall IQ is same, if not better on the SL (colors are nice with M lenses). And all my other lenses just get better from there since they're all more tele then the 21mm.
I'm a lot happier with the SL after testing the M lenses.. Unfortunately I'm just not happy with the zoom. Hopefully the 50LuxL is a phenomenal lens... That or I hope the S-lenses focus faster on the SL then they do on the 006/007. I might jimmy rig an adapter so I can test out the S lenses for the heck of it. Just to see if colors etc are nice.
Also want to note that the sensor tends to have a problem with slightly blown highlights. You really need to underexpose by half a stop to be safe. Luckily I've not had any banding issues bringing up the shadows. Though I did notice on the higher ISO settings (anything after 12500) that the shadows shift to green. Something I didn't notice on the Q (similar to the M240 in that sense).
My lack of happiness with the zoom has me not wanting to do a proper review. I'm going to try and go to the Zoo on Monday (if the weather holds up, and I have the time). And if I like the results I get with the zoom, I'll write a review. If I don't.. Then I think I'll skip writing one
But I don't mind answering specific questions.
A few weird body quirks. And a few glitches (I've found).. But other then that, it's pretty solid and works well.
Minor annoyance: The first frame after switching M lenses gives you a long blackout time. Like 2 seconds.. I guess while the camera is trying to figure out what lens you have on.. Not smooth at all, and hopefully something Leica fixes in a firmware update.
A couple other things, nothing worth mentioning unless the problems persist.
Adam, what are the controls to focus zoom. Eg if shooting wide open with noctilux how do you focus and see if image is in focus if button is on left by default. Can this be changed to something reasonable eg right side or front DOF button?
Also, how can you change exposure when in aperture priority mode? Does it take to long or is it reasonable to do?
davewolfs wrote:
Silly that Leica doesn't allow the zoom function to be moved from left side.
This continues to blow my mind. Seriously?
I could understand on the M, where they clung to some kind of RF purity thing. Seemed dumb, but whatever. But for a camera like the SL, it just seems absurd.
davewolfs wrote:
Adam, what are the controls to focus zoom. Eg if shooting wide open with noctilux how do you focus and see if image is in focus if button is on left by default. Can this be changed to something reasonable eg right side or front DOF button?
Also, how can you change exposure when in aperture priority mode? Does it take to long or is it reasonable to do?
It's only the bottom left button for now. I suspect they could change it to the little nubby button since in MF mode it doesn't do anything.
IF you mean exposure compensation. It's holding the video button (not the record button, but the button that changes the camera from a stills camera to a video camera [bit of a dumb button if you ask me]). And if you mean, just adjusting settings on the fly.. You can do that while in A/T/P mode by jogging the dials.
None of the above takes long.
joakim wrote:
I am starting to see low prices on the S 006 (and the S2) as well, very dangerous
Edit: low is of course a very relative term here
I wouldn't think twice.. I'd snap up an S-006 in a heartbeat if I were you. At $6k it's a no brainer.. I have a brand new one (4 months old, full 3 year warranty). I'd wouldn't sell it for less then $8,500 over here.. At $6k it's a STEAL warranty or not.
uhoh7 wrote:
Gordon TY so much for those. I did not realize the purple fringe was increased on the 240 over the M9. Why would this be?
Also Gordon, how are your M favorites performing in comparison on the SL vs 240?
I said IR was worse on the M240 not PF. They're both prone to pretty mad PF. The M9 had a heavier IR cut filter at the sensor after the M8 fiasco. Then of course everyone complained about that as well. The M240 is somewhere in-between. Fine for most but I need IR filters on each lens. This doesn't seem to be an issue with the SL so far.But it's early on.
As for M lens performance, so far so good. I don't have many lenses that would be considered "problem" lenses. The two that are very poor on the A7R2 that I have are the 28mm Cron and 50 'lux ASPH. Bothe are fine on the SL. Some corner softness wide open but very god stopped down. Even the 28 'cron is excellent in the corners at f5.6-8. The Noctilux is a particular joy on the SL. I balances just perfectly and focusing is mostly super easy wide open. Corners are mushy at 0.95 and never get great. But 80% of the frame is great. Longer lenses like the 90mm and 135APO are wonderful. But they are on almost anything. The 135 is far more reliable to focus on the SL than the M, of course. I think my MATE is better on the SL than either the A7R2 or the M (by a small hair on the M).
Someone at Leica needs to get off their arse and get the 5 way controller involved with zoom focus for M lenses. It's a massive oversight. You'd think that when there's only one native AF lens at launch and huge hype over M lens compatibility that they wouldn't make it such a pain to use some M lenses by putting a button in the wrong spot. Sure it's easy to focus a Noctilux wide open but focusing the WATE is frustrating at best.
And why can't I have both the level and focus peaking at the same time? And the app doesn't show the spirit level on your tablet.
Other than the above I'm really, really liking this camera. It solves a huge issue for me which is having a real M lens solution that allows the EVF and a flash at the same time without brackets and cables and a hope and a prayer. The build quality is astounding. The shutter is sublime.
Terribly disappointed with the battery life... I don't know how the Q could give me around 2k in shots but the SL can't manage 1k with a battery twice the size!
Maybe the battery needs to work itself in.. Jesus I'm starting to think this SL is more like the A7 series then just the outer appearance.
Also on that note, the JPG files get really funny when slightly blown out. Not impressed if you consider the M9/S-006 and Q jpg files. It's even worse then the M240 jpg files Very Sony of Leica...
Again, first impressions.. I might learn to work around the quirks. Or Leica might adjust things in new firmware.
Thank you guys for keep us posted!
Adam, I appreciate your feedback, you know I trust your judgement.
unless its day and night difference between A7R and A7RII or SL, Past few days shooting with A7R AGAIN confirm my take between OVF and EVF. No comparison.
I am thinking buy back D810, the idea made me spent a few hours process the file from D810, Nice!
zhangyue wrote:
Thank you guys for keep us posted!
Adam, I appreciate your feedback, you know I trust your judgement.
unless its day and night difference between A7R and A7RII or SL, Past few days shooting with A7R AGAIN confirm my take between OVF and EVF. No comparison.
I am thinking buy back D810, the idea made me spent a few hours process the file from D810, Nice!
The EVF in the SL is far better then the A7RII. But obviously nowhere near as good as the OVF of the S-system (assuming one prefers an OVF to an EVF).
I've had no problems focusing any of my M lenses on the SL.. At portrait distances. I would think you would notice a difference between the Sony and the SL (I sure did). But you probably would still prefer an OVF after handling the SL. And with that said, why bother spending the money on the SL when you're more then capable of producing good results with your current lineup?
zhangyue wrote:
Thank you guys for keep us posted!
Adam, I appreciate your feedback, you know I trust your judgement.
unless its day and night difference between A7R and A7RII or SL, Past few days shooting with A7R AGAIN confirm my take between OVF and EVF. No comparison.
I am thinking buy back D810, the idea made me spent a few hours process the file from D810, Nice!
SL EVF is much better than A7r ii although A7r ii is not bad either. Nowaday, I use A7r ii and SL more than D810 though. I use D810 only when I know that EVF is not going to make it such as moving object faster than slow walking pace. Trying shooting flying pigeons out of my window this morning with SL was quite painful. I think they all can produce perfectly good files but they all have their own advantage and disadvantage. Luckily for now, I am able to keep them all so I just use whatever that suit the task best or whatever my mood strikes me.
