NRKStudio wrote:
I use the A7r4 but pre-ordered the SL2. In the a7x/SL2 shadow banding tests, did your SL2 clip the exposure? My Leica m10-p has a setting to clip the DNG’s exposure at the high and low end. If this works like I think it does (as I always turn it off) the shadows can never exhibit banding or other irregularities when pushed, as the files will only show pure black in the darkest shadows regardless of pushing exposure/shadows.
Some of the shadows in the SL2 photos look like they are pure black as well. Was the exposure clipped on the SL2 by means of a setting in the SL2’s menu. My m10-p did it by default I think.
I’m pumped about the SL2, but will miss the Sony’s small size/weight when taking it out with the 24GM, 35/1.8 or the 55/1.8. The latter two lenses also can be purchased for $500-600 used. I’m not pumped about the price of the $4500-$5000 summicrons, though will be biting the bullet soon on one or two of them. No used market yet either unfortunately. The latest GM’s (24 and 135) are Leica-comparable definitely. The 85 GM for me bests the 75/2 SL only because swirly bokeh (including heavy mechanical vignetting) bothers me and the 75 is very swirly (at least when I rented it with an S1r). Glad though the 35/1.2 Sigma is offered for L mount, as well as the 28/1.4 Art (a very stellar lens for E and L mount). The 50/1.4 Planar may compete with the sheer resolving ability 50/2 Cron, but i appreciate the low light ability for indoor family shots especially with dim lighting and toddlers at home. Hopefully the 28 Summicron SL is not too far away either, as I’m sure it’ll be awesome.
Perhaps Leica will release some Elmarit lines of f/2.8, small sized, high resolving, less costly L mount lenses, but I’m not holding my breath. Or Techart may save the day with a good AF mount adapter, M to L mount, it’d def save me some dough. ...Show more →
I've been in touch with one of the more well known reviewers (who makes no apologies for being a leica fan) who uses many Leica products. He believes the Sigma 35 1.2 doesn't perform as well as other lenses on Leica bodies because the Sigma was primarily designed for PDAF sensors. Just relaying info, I have no experience myself. FWIW, he has very high regard for some of the Sony lenses on Sony bodies (135GM comes to mind).
saxguy wrote:
I've been in touch with one of the more well known reviewers (who makes no apologies for being a leica fan) who uses many Leica products. He believes the Sigma 35 1.2 doesn't perform as well as other lenses on Leica bodies because the Sigma was primarily designed for PDAF sensors. Just relaying info, I have no experience myself. FWIW, he has very high regard for some of the Sony lenses on Sony bodies (135GM comes to mind).
Unfortunate, however I have encountered my share of missed eye-AF with the 35/1.2 wide open on both the 7r4 and 7r3. I posted about this on the first page of the 35/1.2 FM thread on the weekend it was released a few months back, and I have experienced a little more miss rate than usual (compared with other Sony lenses) with it since those first days with it.
NRKStudio wrote:
Unfortunate, however I have encountered my share of missed eye-AF with the 35/1.2 wide open on both the 7r4 and 7r3. I posted about this on the first page of the 35/1.2 FM thread on the weekend it was released a few months back, and I have experienced a little more miss rate than usual (compared with other Sony lenses) with it since those first days with it.
Hmmm... I guess I have to order the APO Summicron 35 and the 50 now
I had something interesting happen with it this past weekend. My mom and my daughter were standing next to one another and Eye-AF locked onto my mom's eye, even though my daughter was standing slightly in front of her. I was taking quick shots so I didn't realize it until I opened the image at home. I can't imagine how that's a fault of the lens, but you never know.
saxguy wrote:
Hmmm... I guess I have to order the APO Summicron 35 and the 50 now
I had something interesting happen with it this past weekend. My mom and my daughter were standing next to one another and Eye-AF locked onto my mom's eye, even though my daughter was standing slightly in front of her. I was taking quick shots so I didn't realize it until I opened the image at home. I can't imagine how that's a fault of the lens, but you never know.
The fault must be then either that of the mother or the daughter. The 35/1.2 can not err!
NRKStudio wrote:
Unfortunate, however I have encountered my share of missed eye-AF with the 35/1.2 wide open on both the 7r4 and 7r3. I posted about this on the first page of the 35/1.2 FM thread on the weekend it was released a few months back, and I have experienced a little more miss rate than usual (compared with other Sony lenses) with it since those first days with it.
Not my experience. Used it for several weddings so far with many many images and AF reliability was no different than using the Sony 35/1.4, which is great regarding AF.
Well if Leica have solved the banding issues they have always had at higher iso's that is a big step forward (I have had all the digital M's up too the 240 and the Leica Q) as this was one of the reasons I switched to Sony
Just an update to the Leica SL2 preorder people: I just bought an SL2 off of the Leica USA page without a preorder, deposit, or private link. I purchased it around 10am Central and it shipped about 30 minutes later. Good source of SL2's if you all are interested.
saxguy wrote:
I can't answer why it would be better than the S1R. Apparently there is a difference in the way the image is processed, one less layer of glass on the sensor, and micro lenses that help when using M glass on the SL2. I've run into some (very few) situations, where I can't grab focus in low light with my a7r iv, but I think part of that is because the PDAF isn't as good as an all contrast AF when trying to lock on to horizontal contrasting areas.
I had the Q2 for a short time and I didn't have a problem with focus. I did not, however, use tracking AF with the Q2. I do not expect the SL2 to perform as well as the a7r iv with respect to AF-C and, more specifically, Eye-AF.
I do have one on order with the 50 APO Summicron-SL. I still have my a7r iv, Sigma 35 1.2, 50 1.4 ZA and 85GM. I've put all my other lenses up for sale (not because I am set on moving away from the a7r iv, but rather because I use these three lenses more than any other). In the Sigma 35 thread I extended an invitation to anyone who wanted to try the SL2/50 Cron next to the a7r iv/50 1.4 ZA. I'm in NJ. Just bring a couple of SD cards and we can put both cameras through their paces. I'm very curious to see how the 50s will perform on their respective systems. ...Show more →
Thanks for the invitation but, the Leica system is of least interest to me. If I am to spend that level of money, I would do it on a MF system (the Fuji system seems very appealing). While, I care about image quality, I personally think Leica, Sony, Panasonic and Nikon (and even Canon to a degree) all offer worthy options (cameras and lenses) that are very close in IQ for all practical matters. This is particularly true for 50mm prime options across all these systems. I generally don't believe in non-quantified claims (magical renderings, 3D/4D pop, etc.) where the claimant doesn't even offer a side by side comparison. I went back and forth through the planar 50mm and sonar 55mm a couple of times. While I liked the planar a lot, I ended up selling mine and return to the 55mm even though the 50mm focal length was preferable. build quality, click-less option are all great but the difference in weight was too much to justify the difference in IQ. I have to say of all the great photos I see online, I see not that much of gear relevance. There are many amazing photos out there taken with mere medium or low quality gear far less expensive than my current gear let alone the super expensive Leica; and for me before all, I want to improve my photographic skills so someday, I will be proud of my achievement in the field regardless of the gear I used to take them.
I will be still looking forward to seeing great pictures taken with the Leica system and lenses (by you or others).
I count myself lucky as one who can see. However, after performing too many in person blind tests with my own gear and my own monitor with non-qualified/non-photographers family and friends, I know that some can see and some simply can't. It is what it is. Very controversial. Probably something to do with biology and psychology as in the now famous blue or white dress example:
I selected the Leica M system for a specific look as well as some specific Sony/Zeiss/Voigtlander lenses. The Voigt 65/2 in particular vs some of my Batis lenses are a good example of consistent nuances that I see, and what other non-qualified's see in my work. Always a pleasant surprise /thrill when I hear their reactions on both sides. I get this reaction more often than not with my Leica M system followed by the Batis 85/135 lenses ( very different looks between the two lens systems).
My next adventure is to compare Leica SL system with Leica M and my Sony FE system. Do I see a difference or similarity? I was never attracted to the SL, but for some reason the SL2 upgrades speak to me to at least enough to explore and compare. The Sony A7rIV is more than enough high tech camera wizardry that I will ever need and IMO a perfect pair to the M10 which is equally more than enough special camera experience and unique look for me at the moment too.
Is the SL2 just another high tech FF camera with potentially mediocre AF and DR? Or did Leica figure out a way to create a unique look to the output of the SL2 + their highly corrected SL lenses? Something I'd like to see for myself, otherwise I agree. for the Leica SL price range MF might be a more distinct look. In my case I'd lean more toward the Hasselblad X1D II 50C over the Fujifilms.
A lot of people see ghosts, UFO's and other fictitious creatures. I find myself lucky as one who cannot see them, lol. However, I am not here to waste my time. I return to my corner to learn and improve my photography and leave it to 'believers' in their efforts to convince people about unicorns with magical rendering that the color blinded people can't see!
raminolta wrote:
A lot of people see ghosts, UFO's and other fictitious creatures. I find myself lucky as one who cannot see them, lol. However, I am not here to waste my time. I return to my corner to learn and improve my photography and leave it to 'believers' in their efforts to convince people about unicorns with magical rendering that the color blinded people can't see!
No need to go away. Your opinion is just as welcome as everyone else. Life/forums would be pretty boring if we all politely agreed on everything 😉
raminolta wrote:
A lot of people see ghosts, UFO's and other fictitious creatures. I find myself lucky as one who cannot see them, lol. However, I am not here to waste my time. I return to my corner to learn and improve my photography and leave it to 'believers' in their efforts to convince people about unicorns with magical rendering that the color blinded people can't see!
I definitely respect your opinion. There are other reasons for using the SL2 as well. For me, my hands are relatively gigantic. A larger body - although "defeating" the point of mirrorless, does make it easier for me to shoot comfortably for longer periods of time. The IBIS system in the Q2 (apparently the SL2 is even better) allows me to shot at much slower shutter speeds than my a7r iv. I like shooting in low light and if I can gain the advantage of keeping the ISO lower, I'll take it whenever I can. As mentioned before, I can't seem to get the colors of my a7r iv to match that of the Q2 - I've tried manual white balancing with a grey card as well as with some of the settings in the camera.
All that being said, I have gotten some amazing images with my a7r iv and the 50 1.4 ZA. I also got great images with my original SL. It's why I'm not selling my a7r iv and my 50 until I have a chance to use both systems side by side. Whichever ends up working the best for me in regard to shooting experience, color rendition and was of getting the results I want in post will be the one I keep. I want to try the Leica over the Panasonic for the reduction in glass layers over the sensor. I do plan to use some Leica manual lenses with it, and also believe (another topic for discussion) that for monochrome it may make a difference.
But I'm not a Leica or Sony fanboy - I just want to use the tool that will most easily get me the results I find most pleasing.
I have no intention of handling an SL2. It's a silly camera. The differences between it and, say, a Nikon Z7, are inconsequential...let alone camera with demonstrably superior IQ like the A7RIV.
Anyways, that's what I keep telling myself. See, I don't think the point of mirrorless is size. I think the point of mirrorless is to not have a mirror and to take advantage of that fact. I too have big hands and other than the Nikon D2/3/4/5 and Canon 1 series, every camera is a compromise in terms of handling and ergonomics. And while I haven't owned a Leica since the M6 TTL and I was prepared to ridicule the SL2 as I did (jokingly) above, man does it look nice. I really hate to say it...but it's very pretty, it's controls are simple and well thought out and the grip looks very nice. The lenses are way too big and everything is way to expensive...but I fully support anyone with the means picking one up. If I had access to unlimited funds for my hobby I totally would. I'm generally pretty impervious to frivolous glamour cams and the baseless claims that devotees make..but me likey the SL2.
So, I shall not touch one. Self preservation.
saxguy wrote:
I definitely respect your opinion. There are other reasons for using the SL2 as well. For me, my hands are relatively gigantic. A larger body - although "defeating" the point of mirrorless, does make it easier for me to shoot comfortably for longer periods of time. The IBIS system in the Q2 (apparently the SL2 is even better) allows me to shot at much slower shutter speeds than my a7r iv. I like shooting in low light and if I can gain the advantage of keeping the ISO lower, I'll take it whenever I can. As mentioned before, I can't seem to get the colors of my a7r iv to match that of the Q2 - I've tried manual white balancing with a grey card as well as with some of the settings in the camera.
All that being said, I have gotten some amazing images with my a7r iv and the 50 1.4 ZA. I also got great images with my original SL. It's why I'm not selling my a7r iv and my 50 until I have a chance to use both systems side by side. Whichever ends up working the best for me in regard to shooting experience, color rendition and was of getting the results I want in post will be the one I keep. I want to try the Leica over the Panasonic for the reduction in glass layers over the sensor. I do plan to use some Leica manual lenses with it, and also believe (another topic for discussion) that for monochrome it may make a difference.
But I'm not a Leica or Sony fanboy - I just want to use the tool that will most easily get me the results I find most pleasing. ...Show more →
The SL2 is just another digital Leica.. IQ and AF Miles behind Sony.. I totally get the Idea of a Leica M. But if i choose a modern Computer ( any mirorless Camera ), i take one with great AF IQ and DR. None of that is present in the SL2 compared to like an A9 or an A7RIV. That so called Magic in Leica Cameras is gone in the digital World, the only Magic i can personally see is, how someone can pay twice as much for half of that.
And here in Europe you almost get two A7RIV for the Price of one Leica SL2
I feel that it’s the choice of Lightroom profile that makes the most difference. Leica's embedded profiles for LR are just much better than Sony’s. The colors out of the camera are much more natural for skin tones when both files are viewed with the Adobe Color profile as well.
Leicas M files are more yellow, but with sliding the yellow saturation slider down, skin tones are near perfect. after owning an A7r3 and an A7r4, I just can not make the “Sony Embedded” profile or the ARW file with “Adobe Color” profile look great and natural with skin tones with ease. It’s obviously not impossible but it’s def tougher. Maybe I’m not just that good at adjusting the colors, but I don’t think I’m the only one here.
The SL2 profile I’ve used over the last few days is pretty solid as well. Def more saturation and vivid colors, it feels like halfway in between Adobe Color and Adobe Vivid profiles.
Anywhere that one can download real-world samples of raw files from the SL2? I'm perfectly happy with the colors I'm getting in LR from my a7S, mostly just curious to play with a couple on a non-scientific level.
GiuseppeL wrote:
The SL2 shares some technology with the S1R - the excellent IBIS, the EVF (from Sony), the DFD technology, the USB power supply, the EVF optics (from Leica), the mount (from Leica), etc.). The SL2 offers 20 fps while the S1R offers only 9 fps. Do you really think this is possible if they share the same CPU and buffers ? Probably the sensor is related as it has the same resolution, but is maybe a newer version (double the frame rate ?!) ... And it has a thinner protection layer (good for vintage lenses, like M, R etc.)
The magnets were already implemented in the SL, but then nobody was interested in this detail.
The AF was at the time of the dpr review a preproduction software (and dpr successfully forgot to mention that). It is now at level 1.0 and much better. See e.g. the video from Robin Sinha (a tutorial) I expect further improvement with each new firmware release.
What remains is that the SL2 is as fast (20 fps) as the a9 II, but at double the resolution. Or twice as fast as the a7 IV (at almost the same resolution 47 Mp vs 61 Mp). And with a much faster Maestro III processor (visible in the video specs).
And the short battery life is no problem as external USB power packs (Anker and others) can be used to run the camera off them. (for days in a row if you need to)....Show more →
The S1R could likely do 20 FPS but there's not much point in it - it's only with AF locked and more importantly, only with the electronic shutter which makes it unsuitable for many of the scenarios it would be used for - action shots (unsuitable due to the rolling shutter on its slow sensor readout).
