telyt wrote:
I find direct cost comparison ludicrous at best. There are numerous areas where the Sony a7-series camera leave much room for improvement and unless the SL has the same problems price comparisons are apples/oranges.
For example (using my a7II for comparison):
The a7II's first viewfinder magnification step is too big; I'd prefer the SL's 3x/10x steps
The a7II's RAW bit depth drops in multi-shot mode and the RAW file compression is lossy, compromising file quality
The a7II's EFC feature makes the camera more responsive and quieter but with my adapted lesns it's useless at shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec and switching EFC on or off requires menu-diving
The a7-series cameras leave a lot of room for improvement and I'd like to see how the SL compares in these problem areas before drawing any conclusions. BTW, how do the a7-series cameras do at 11 frames/sec?...Show more →
How are any of your points relevant to the post I made? I was simply providing a counterpoint to the resale value argument. I did not bash the SL.
As for what you have written, obviously these are different cameras and different features will appeal differently to different users. The SL has a lot to like, but some will not like it's size, some will find the price too high, and some will love it. I personally think perhaps the biggest omission is IBIS and that omission will likely make the Sony A7r2 and A72 better as a practical matter with R lenses than the SL. I personally would have liked to see higher resolution as well and I do t have a need for 5 frames per second let alone 11, but for some reason, they did not design the camera for me!
By the way, the lossy compression problem is being fixed and only affects a tiny percentage of files. I certainly have not seen it in my images, tho perhaps it is there and I have just not recognized it.
Luvwine wrote:
How are any of your points relevant to the post I made? I was simply providing a counterpoint to the resale value argument. I did not bash the SL.
As for what you have written, obviously these are different cameras and different features will appeal differently to different users. The SL has a lot to like, but some will not like it's size, some will find the price too high, and some will love it. I personally think perhaps the biggest omission is IBIS and that omission will likely make the Sony A7r2 and A72 better as a practical matter with R lenses than the SL. I personally would have liked to see higher resolution as well and I do t have a need for 5 frames per second let alone 11, but for some reason, they did not design the camera for me!
By the way, the lossy compression problem is being fixed and only affects a tiny percentage of files. I certainly have not seen it in my images, tho perhaps it is there and I have just not recognized it....Show more →
I would love IBIS too, but you have to keep in mind that Leica's obvious tech partner in this camera has been Panasonic and they don't do IBIS, so it isn't too surprising that it did not end up this camera. I think it is likely that Panasonic brought many nice things to this camera, (e.g., likely the AF system), but I don't think they have IBIS (ready at least) to contribute.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well it still find your original quote to be seriously misleading in how you describe Juno's assessment, but your decision is your decision and I won't belabour the difference in our assessments any more.
With regard to alt, this post makes it even more clear how we have different views of Alt. For me third party AF is not a real criteria for Alt. When I think Alt, I think manual focus and can you use a lens not whether it is AF and that has historically been a common view on this board. I realize that is a very idiosyncratic view and appreciate that others might really like third party AF. It just isn't my thing. So, I didn't conveniently leave it out. It just isn't part of my idea of Alt. Like I said we have different views of Alt and both those views have been pretty common on this board. So, it isn't surprising we would crown different champs.
By the way, I still don't think anyone will make an S adapter for Sony, but we will see and all I care about with the S adapter is that it allows MF and that the MF of the S lenses is excellent. That it delivers AF couldn't matter less to me, but that too is part of how I view Alt....Show more →
Agree to disagree then . Whoever is set on buying this camera is not going to be dissuaded by a little more smearing with the M. This camera has a lot more to offer. Personally, I will stick with Sony and possibly get the next iteration of the M.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would love IBIS too, but you have to keep in mind that Leica's obvious tech partner in this camera has been Panasonic and they don't do IBIS, so it isn't too surprising that it did not end up this camera. I think it is likely that Panasonic brought many nice things to this camera, (e.g., likely the AF system), but I don't think they have IBIS (ready at least) to contribute.
Panasonic certainly does do IBIS, albeit not the better 5-axis kind. The GX7 and GX8 both feature IBIS.
Oct 21, 2015 at 09:05 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mawz wrote:
Panasonic certainly does do IBIS, albeit not the better 5-axis kind. The GX7 and GX8 both feature IBIS.
I hadn't realized that, (thanks for the correction) but M 4/3rds IBIS and FF IBIS are likely very different in terms of requirements, so there is reason to hope it might be added by Leica in the future, but it was probably beyond what was possible with this release.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would love IBIS too, but you have to keep in mind that Leica's obvious tech partner in this camera has been Panasonic and they don't do IBIS, so it isn't too surprising that it did not end up this camera. I think it is likely that Panasonic brought many nice things to this camera, (e.g., likely the AF system), but I don't think they have IBIS (ready at least) to contribute.
What you say makes total sense. I suspect sourcing and costs and quality of available products affect many design decisions. Lack of available IBIS made a lens based IS system mandatory and this contributes to the size/weight of the lenses and so on.
I am confident that the SL will be a great camera. Whether it is the right camera for me, I doubt due to lack of IBIS, cost, and resolution. Still, it has many lovely features including weather sealing, ISO 50, a great EVF, fast autofocus, good to excellent M wide compatibility, et al.
The fact that the SL raises the bar in some areas is a good thing. A rising tide lifts all boats, after all, and other manufacturers will doubtless see what Leica is doing. It is an exciting, albeit expensive, time to be a photographer. The changes and options are dizzying. We all have to decide for ourselves what the right tool is for us, and for how long. To the extent that new toys, er, tools, inspire us to go out and shoot and make better images, they are successful.
Luvwine wrote:
...To the extent that new toys, er, tools, inspire us to go out and shoot and make better images, they are successful.
Are we out? . Since yesterday, I have been glued to my computer reading reviews and discussions on this damn Leica SL. I love Leica (and Zeiss) glass, but I don't see this one fits into my style. I already move away from the big DSLR game, don't want to go back.
hiepphotog wrote:
Are we out? . Since yesterday, I have been glued to my computer reading reviews and discussions on this damn Leica SL. I love Leica (and Zeiss) glass, but I don't see this one fits into my style. I already move away from the big DSLR game, don't want to go back.
Agreed! We should all be out taking pics rather than endlessly debating the minutiae of the merits of each new (or even rumored!) camera or lens. Of course, that would make these boards less interesting. We all seem to want the "best" camera, whether that makes a difference in our photography or not. I suspect we would all be better off spending 1/2 of what we do on gear and applying that money to travel expenses for photography....
Luvwine wrote:
The changes and options are dizzying. We all have to decide for ourselves what the right tool is for us, and for how long. To the extent that new toys, er, tools, inspire us to go out and shoot and make better images, they are successful.
I actually don't think the changes or options mean much anymore. We've reached a plateau where basically every camera north of about $600 will do a good to great job for most applications.
This Leica just tweaks the edges a bit, as do most cameras nowadays from the perspective of going out, shooting and making better images.
Luvwine wrote:
Agreed! We should all be out taking pics rather than endlessly debating the minutiae of the merits of each new (or even rumored!) camera or lens. Of course, that would make these boards less interesting. We all seem to want the "best" camera, whether that makes a difference in our photography or not. I suspect we would all be better off spending 1/2 of what we do on gear and applying that money to travel expenses for photography....
True . I mean the last couple of weeks has not been good for me, and I don't think it's going to get better any time soon. As a Zeiss/Leica shooter on a Sony platform, all the recent announcements from Zeiss and Leica (even Sigma, Canon and that Mitakon) just flooded in right before PhotoPlus. Then now we have Sony's announcement after Photoplus . I'm telling myself I only need 4 lenses after my major cut down last year, but interesting things keep popping up. This is probably my last post in this SL thread (or I hope so).
Lee Saxon wrote:
Okay, I just noticed this can output 10-bit 4:2:2 over HDMI. The price seems less outlandish when you look at other devices with that feature.
I'm not saying I believe that's fair, or that I have any interest in that feature; just an observation.
This is Panasonic technology, I think what most intrigues me about this SL is what it portends for Panasonic, there can't be a FF mirrorless Panasonic too far around the corner. . .competitively priced . The question is whether it would share the T mount, I don't think Leica has ever done that before (shared a mount with another manufacturer).
re: my original post about prices. Back when I was in the Leica system-mid 80s to mid 90s I never bought a Leica body, R or M mount brand new in a sealed box (except maybe the CLE), like a lot of people I trolled the local used market (which was substantial) and did the occasional Shutterbug deal. The last M body I owned, an M4P was purchased absolutely mint in the box for $850, that was the going price $800 to $900 for a clean one, my R's were less, about the same as an F3 with a motor. Leica lenses were always more than Nikon for the good stuff.
Of course in those days you could buy a pre-owned camera body and unless it had gone scuba diving you could drop it off at your local service shop and get it back a week later freshly tuned. A concept lost in the dust of history.
Another potential advantage to the new SL system that I hadn't considered in my first post is the association with Leica's geomatics division. The only files I touch these days that say "Leica" anywhere in the metadata have originated in Leica laser scanners, they are still a big player in geomatics, arguably in the top echelon. 3D photogrammetry would be way way easier if you had an up-to-date camera with decent GPS built in or a workpath for tagging shots with output from your portable dgps. I can see a technical version of this camera that shares the same mount. Then I could write it into a grant proposal
hiepphotog wrote:
Are we out? . Since yesterday, I have been glued to my computer reading reviews and discussions on this damn Leica SL. I love Leica (and Zeiss) glass, but I don't see this one fits into my style. I already move away from the big DSLR game, don't want to go back.
Yeah, certainly was a great way to kill a day!
I can now better appreciate how the SL might appeal to some who don't mind DSLR size and handling, but would prefer an EVF experience. It's got me wondering if Leica will release an 'ML' or 'QL' iteration. EVF only M-sized body with L mount... which I guess many here were hoping the SL would be.
michael49 wrote:
Seems like everyone is blaming the dpreview product shots for making the SL look huge, but it is huge - look at it vs the A7 here!!
I was wondering if they went looking for the smallest employee to hold the camera...
the Sony indeed is tiny..
I can't imagine using this for "serious" work, as in actually carrying the camera and shooting photos with a fast / long (or even a fast tele!) lens attached to it.
On a tripod, the camera surely performes very nicely with great resolution and DR and what not, but not in my medium sized hands..
While I find the Leica ridiculous (it looks like a "prototype" made by a kid) I'm pretty sure that it will balance better with larger lenses.
As one of the local Leica haters, my take on the SL is pretty ambivalent.
They got some stuff definitely wrong. No articulated LCD, the grip design is somewhere between lousy and utterly terrible and too much of the S UI is in here (I have a serious dislike for the S's controls, it's the worst of classic and modern UI's IMHO). They're also overselling the speed, This is a 6fps camera, not an 11fps camera (since 6 is max with full AF and AE).
They got some stuff right. Fast CDAF, a great EVF by all reports, a solid mount design, and really snappy electronics (a major issue for them prior to the Q). Also probably best in class 4k support.
Would I buy one? Not now for sure. one giant lens, no real adapter support today, much higher IQ options out there for a fraction of the cost.
In a year? That's another story. I view the SL as more of E mount to the S's A mount. It's the smaller, lighter option for S shooters. But that needs a fully-coupled S adapter. If a fully coupled R adapter comes it will be a big deal for R shooters too.
It's fugly and overpriced for sure (at the price it is, it should be more than 24MP), but not nearly as much as people make out. For a low-production, 4k capable body from Leica, I'd say $6k is where it probably should be. The 24-90 however looks terrible for the cost and size, it's decidedly weak at the long end from the samples I'm seeing. Hopefully Ming got a weak sample, but the MTF doesn't impress either.
Right now I don't see a real reason to worry about it either way. Unless the 90-280 is a real stunner I'd suggest skipping the SL until you can get S and R adapters and the Lux. If you need M compatibility, an M240 is cheaper and I'm sure a new M with this sensor and processing chain will be along for photokina.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It may well be a mistake, but its how Leica has always operated so hardly a surprise. They would be a very different company if they went for volume sales at lower prices.
Not always though. I'd say the Q is quite competitive with the RX1r II.
I don't think anyone expected Leica to build a mass market product, but building the SL as a luxury product for the 17 people who buy the M240 when there definitely seemed to be real interest (actual sales) to be had in an interchangeable-mount Q, is just shooting themselves in the foot.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Not always though. I'd say the Q is quite competitive with the RX1r II.
I don't think anyone expected Leica to build a mass market product, but building the SL as a luxury product for the 17 people who buy the M240 when there definitely seemed to be real interest (actual sales) to be had in an interchangeable-mount Q, is just shooting themselves in the foot.
Is it impossible for them to introduce at a later stage a smaller prosumer model with the same mount? I don't see why not?
. Whoever is set on buying this camera is not going to be dissuaded by a little more smearing with the M. This camera has a lot more to offer. Personally, I will stick with Sony and possibly get the next iteration of the M.