Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.11 #1 · Official: Leica SL3 Released! | |
Goodrich wrote:
diglloyd must be the unluckiest fuzz tester on the planet. (His Mac tests have a similar character to his camera / lens tests.) I have subscribed to him, but didn't find that he provided me with actionable information. Even his lens tests -- scenes shot at varying apertures, nicely embedded in a web page for easy comparison -- did not seem to show what his text claimed to show, particularly when he was comparing Leica and Zeiss lenses. And after doing half a dozen comparative scenes, there was no conclusion. "If you want ultimate image quality go with a, but be aware that that lens is heavy and suffers from x and y, so b may be a better compromise for your use." After all his testing, he still doesn't tell you whether a lens suffers from field curvature (rather than just being poor in the corners), and he is only interested in sharpness. The fact that his Youtube videos are inaudible, makes you question his competence as well as his luck.
Anyway, I have been fortunate enough not to suffer from image corruption on my SL3 either.
You are right to pause before springing for one. In comparison to the Sony A1 or AR5, the build quality is much better, but the camera is heavier and bulkier. This also applies to the Leica APO lenses that are, in my view, the main reason for sticking with the system. The Sony has the technological edge when it comes to AF, however. The 9Mpx Sony viewfinder is, indeed a bit better, than the Leica's, but the SL3's viewfinder is the same as the SL2's and that was regarded as class-leading in its day. (It certainly isn't milky, as diglloyd seems to claim.). The Leica's Perspective Correction feature is fantastic for city shots, although only Lightroom seems to act on the correction information provided.
If I was contemplating upgrading from the SL2, I'd do so for the image quality, which is the biggest step forward; the pictures are more malleable, too. The other features are less of an improvement in practice than they might appear on paper, at least for still shooting.
That said, the newest Sony lenses are both light and almost as good as the Leica ones. (The GM f1.4 is light and very sharp, but the Leica, which is much heavier, produces more appealing results.). The L-mount brings in some more exotic and some lighter Sigma lenses, as well as a 300g Panasonic 100m macro, which performs above expectations. (But Sigma's L-mount lenses are also available for Sony.). If you shoot M mount lenses, then the SL3 is, presumably better than a Sony; I have not tried much as my lenses are now so expensive to replace I don't take them out as much as I should (and I prefer AF, admittedly).
The other feature that potential buyers should take into account is that Leica seems a bit more adventurous in its firmware development -- it is more likely to add features -- then Sony. Sony cameras perform well, but the software ecosystem is more "corporate". Just check out how many times you have to click to get at Sony's (primitive) software. Sony still doesn't offer firmware upgrading off the card....Show more →
The SL2's sensor doesn't have the best dynamic range available, but it still delivers excellent images. I plan to keep using the SL2 until Leica irons out the firmware for the SL3. No hurry for me.
|
