hiepphotog
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Leica SL images and specs. Looks somehow familiar... | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
hiepphotog wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
OK, I will make a case for the Camera.
Advantages over the Sony A7r II:
Better EVF: high magnification and the reviews suggest it is excellent
Faster frames per second: 11 fps vs. 5 fps
Deeper buffer: 30 shots vs. 23
Dual card slots
Better compatibility with Leica M wide lenses
Compatibility with Leica S lenses
Perhaps auto aperture with Leica R lenses
Lower base ISO--50 instead of 100 but probably won\'t translate to better base ISO performance
Perhaps faster operation.
Touch sensitive LCD
Longer shutter speed available -- will this translate into better long exposure?
Better weather sealing
Advantages of the A7r II over the Leica SL
More resolution; better high ISO signal to noise ratio (overall better sensor)
IBIS
Better AF with phase detect
Smaller size
Tiltable LCD
Probably better video
Less than half the price
My best guess is that the Leica may have a better shooting experience, but the Sony has a better sensor and IBIS. Both will be very nice cameras and for price performance the Leica will not stand up (since when does Leica ever stand up to a value proposition). Still I think people could like this camera with the right glass and I think they will like the responsiveness and the EVF, and many people will like the interface.
Here are some excellent lenses that will work much better on the Leica: Leica M 18 SEM; Zeiss ZM 18 f/4; Leica M 21 SEM; Leica M 24 Elmar; Leica 28 Summicron ASPH; Zeiss ZM 35 f/1.4; Leica M 50 lux ASPH; Leica M 50 cron AA. These Leica M wide and normal lenses should all work well on the Leica SL, and all have trouble on a stock A7r II, and on the modified camera you will have colour balance issues (that can be fixed with a profile in processing) and you sacrifice the dust shaker.
Leica S 100 f/2; Leica S 120 f/2.5 Macro APO. These excellent S lenses are not useable on the A7r II and they are exceptional and for the speed and focal length (even though they cover a MF image circle) are not ridiculously big. The macro is quite special and really has no peer, IMO.
Leica R 180 f/2 APO; Leica R 180 f/2.8 APO; Leica 180 f/3.4 APO; Leica R 280 f/4 APO; Leica R 400 f/2.8 APO; Leica R 70-180 f/2.8 APO. These longer R lenses are fantastic and although you can shoot them on the A7r II, the bigger size of the Leica SL will be a bonus for these lenses and they may come with auto aperture on the SL when the new adapter is ready.
So in my mind the king of alternative lenses (the Sony A7r II) has been dethroned. The Leica SL will allow you to shoot more lenses and more lenses better and some are pretty unique and special ones even if they are pricey.
A lot to criticize and a lot to like might work with a $2000 camera. But for a $7k+, I\'m not sure I would be willing to make too much compromises. I admit I really like the 50 ISO thing, big EVF, dual slot (mainly because of UHS-II support). I\'m not sure about its responsiveness yet, but the GUI does seem to get more complicated. I read most of the reviews out there right now and some said because of the amount of customization, the menu system is similar to Sony\'s now. However, the lens system is what really kills it for me; too big and heavy.
Again, I thought Leica is the master of making small lenses with high IQ. I guess Karbe is not in the team. Paying this much a camera would require a viable ecosystem into the future, not just to adapt stuff. Sony is already excellent at this, big lens can always be used with a gripped A7. And the future of SL system is medium format size and weight with a competitive FF IQ (but not the top). To me, the look of the camera is irrelevant. I can put up with the ergonomics for light lens, but for big lens, I don\'t know if that grip (contour-less) is going to be comfortable. In the end, I would consider buying it if it\'s not for what Jono Black said in his review that its M compatibility is good but not as good as the M240. Again, sound to me like a modded Sony cam (for less than half the price). If anything, the next M with this same tech would be a big hit for Leica.
Sony only gets dethroned when this camera is adopted more by the mass. The difference is academic when Leica can only sell this to a few individuals.
I think you are mischaracterizing Jono Black\'s review. He said he thought the edges and corners were *slightly* better on the M240, but that was without side by side testing. He also said he shot tons with the a number of M lenses and that, \"Results have been excellent, and compare well with those from My Leica M240.\" So, from this review there is no indication of problems with M lenses. They seem to work well.
This camera seems to work well with Leica lenses that the Sony cameras do not and it works with Leica S lenses that the Sony camera cannot use. So for alt lenses it does seem to work with more lenses that the Sony A7 series. In my book that makes it the champ for alt lenses, but YMMV.
Let me quote that whole paragraph to see if I mischaracterize it:
\"For me then, the $64,000 dollar question was whether the Leica SL would perform well enough with Leica M lenses. To that end I dusted down my tripod and headed to the Suffolk coast with my Leica M240, the Leica SL, and my son Silas’s Sony A7 mark 2, together with a selection of Leica lenses which have proved problematic. I took a leaf out of Sean Reid’s book, and did this properly, shooting at f2.8, f4, f5.6 and f8 with each lens, with focus bracketing for each set. I am intending to post the original files and the comparison between the Sony A7 mark 2 and the Leica SL in a later article, but suffice to say, that although the edges and corners of the M240 were slightly better than the SL, the results for the SL were hugely better than those from the Sony A7 mark 2. Sadly, I didn’t have a Sony A7r mark 2, but the cover glass is the same thickness as that on the A7, and there is no reason to suppose that the results will be any better than the A7 mark 2.\"
He actually used his tripod to do an aperture test, instead of the usual Steve Huff\'s \"non technical\" opinion. I think that is pretty conclusive there. I just paraphrased what he said really.
So the champ of Alt lenses? If we actually list all the non-native platforms each camera can actually work with (in the case, you will see. We have working AF adapters for Contax N, Canon EF, Nikon F (prototype), Contax G, Contax 645.
As soon as Leica releases their working Leica S to L adapter, we would no doubt have one for Sony soon by reverse engineering. Sony will be, at least in the near future, a much more popular platform that third party adapter makers would spend more R&D on it. It\'s hasty at this point to say Leica SL can do more. We\'re not even sure if it\'s going to last long. The difference is again academic at best since this Leica is not going to dominate the market by any measure.
|
