sgoldswo

sgoldswo

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Solicitor
Joined on Jan 14, 2012
About me:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

Comments

Total: 302, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Robert Kempen: I have an answer for this one:

When DPR announces a Leica product, just add: "this article is not for people who cannot afford Leica"

All the haters can then look elsewhere and comment on their usual 'blah-blah' I can get something cheaper and have fun, even while they admit that they have never used or tested Leica kit themselves - I believe they are selling more Leica kit with their BS than any marketing that Leica can do themselves!

Happy M240 user with Leica glass

Rick, just a thought but all of the R glass is now old. Leica has moved on too in the last 10 years.

Having used quite a bit of the M mount glass, it isn't magically better than that available for other brands (in some cases there are optical weaknesses too, see the inconsistent field shape of the 35 Summilux for example), but it does have a very attractive combination of contrast, resolution and retention of colour information that's only seen in a few lenses for DSLRs. Another factor is the feel or haptics of the lens in use, which is top notch, only the older Zeiss ZF/ZE glass comes close to it. This year I treated myself to an APO-Summicron 50. It's excellent and, having used it more, I rate it more highly than my 50 Sigma Art on the D810 (the Leica is sharper at wider apertures, has much better bokeh and more importantly puts more emphasis on local contrast).

Other amazing lenses from Leica include the 21mm SEM, the 35 Summilux and the 75 APO-Summicron.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.

Paul, thanks for your comment.

It's certainly true that putting a rear element closer to the sensor can (not will) result in optical issues such as mushy corners or coloured shading, as anyone who has tried to use wide angle M mount glass on a mirrorless camera will know. However, it's also the case that moving the lens away from the sensor as happens in DSLRs makes it harder to correct optical aberrations and makes certain designs less practical (e.g. sonnar type designs for WA lenses). In particular it's harder to build a sharp, corrected WA lens that is sharp in the corners with a larger flange back distance such as seen in DSLRs. A great deal of correction is required and this is evident in comparing to lenses such as the Nikon 14-24 or Tamron 15-30. This accounts in part for the very large difference in size between rangefinder and DSLR glass.

This is one of the reasons that WA lenses for the Sony FE system can also be relatively small and light compared to 35mm equivalents.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.

Be sure to give 100% crops...

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 11:45 UTC
In reply to:

photominion: I'm still looking for someone to lend me an old 50mm Summilux or Summicron (or Nokton, for that matter) lens to make my comparison with Nikon's and Canon's and company.

speaking as a Nikon and Leica user rangefinder glass has different design pros and cons to DSLR glass. Could I always tell the difference from results taken with DSLR lenses? Not always. Is the colour magical? It's certainly different, but different brands of DSLR glass (e.g. Zeiss vs native Nikon glass, show that too). The main differences are the extreme loss of size and weight vs DSLR glass, sharper corners at all apertures (similar to mirrorless its simpler to design a lens for sharp corners if its closer to the sensor) and extreme central sharpness at optimal apertures matched only by the best DSLR designs (which will be considerably bigger and heavier in order to match the performance of the relevant rangefinder glass). Aside from that, the haptics and build quality are only really matched by the likes of Zeiss and the few AIS lenses Nikon still manufactures.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 11:00 UTC

Looks very interesting, would love to own or trial this lens. I'm a big fan of the 28mm focal length and the existing summicron 28 f2 asph is a work of art, but perhaps not capable of the absolute heights of resolution the newest 35mm summilux lenses can manage. The most interesting question for me is field shape, especially wide open, given the 35mm Summilux FLE's performance in this regard.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2015 at 06:51 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

the decent exposure: I'm really a Leica fan, I like the design, "Leica way" of taking pictures. But I would never buy a d-leica. Back in teh days I always wanted to own a M6 but didn't have the money at that time. Now I don't have the mony for the digital ones but even if I would have the money I would not invest into the Leica because, I don't see the Leica way in the picture.
Sorry to say, I can't see any Leica colors, in these days the colors are coming out of LR or C1 and you can say this or that is a Leica picture because of the colors. No way! The same with the black and white version. I have seen a lot of examples of the new and the old black and white Leica. And people are comparing it with the Bayer sensor and the huge visible difference, sorry I don't see this difference. And if you are a pp expert you can get wonderfull b&w pictures out of every sensor. Same with the super duper sharp Leica lenses, there is no way that you can see on a print a difference to the Sony/Zeiss FE 55mm for example.

If you think Leica's colour rendering is the same as other manufacturers based on pictures you see on the net, you are sadly wrong. They can end up looking similar, but the rendering is not the same. Speaking as someone who has used the Sony lens you describe too, its a nice lens, but not really in the same league as some of the Leica glass. All the best.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: If I catch someone holding a Leica M out at arms length like a goddamned tourist, I will steal it from them.

Liveview replaces the assortment of VFs people used to put into their hotshoe. Nothing wrong with using it with wider than 28mm lenses and TBH I use it with my 28 and 35 as well when I'm wearing glasses, as noted above, for framing, not focusing.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

UnitedNations: My Nikon DF has better sensor than this camera...and better low light ISO ability...... Leica sure is expensive.

I own both too. I'm with Mark on this.

PS the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZF.2 isn't even a very good zeiss lens (I prefer the 50mm F1.2 AIS). The Otus 50mm gets close to the APO-Summicron but is obviously, larger heavier and much more expensive.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: I'm always curious, who buys this stuff?

Photographers who enjoy photography:
http://wp.me/p2wMAg-FA

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

sgoldswo: It's a pity they went for speed with the wide angle, which will have made it bigger. An F2.8 that was smaller would have been far more interesting. It's time manufacturers for Mirrorless systems stopped trying to compete with DSLRs and focused on there strong points such as smaller wide angle lenses (due to the short flange back distance).

Rishi, those are lovely photos and good examples of a style of photography. I'm still not persuaded that the A7 series needs an F2 UWA lens, but that might be because of my use case (largely landscape), I accept that. However, I do feel (strongly) that there's a trend away from optically excellent slower small primes from all manufacturers (bar Leica) which I see as a negative generally. What's wrong with giving people a choice of speed or size?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

sgoldswo: It's a pity they went for speed with the wide angle, which will have made it bigger. An F2.8 that was smaller would have been far more interesting. It's time manufacturers for Mirrorless systems stopped trying to compete with DSLRs and focused on there strong points such as smaller wide angle lenses (due to the short flange back distance).

Rishi, call me old fashioned, but I don't get trying for subject isolation with a 25mm lens and a F2 aperture. It's hard enough with my Nikon 24mm F1.4. I get the wider aperture for astro, but F2.8 is OK for that purpose. Also, one of my favourite 25/24mm lenses ever is the Zeiss Biogon 25mm F2.8 ZM. I marginally prefer the Leica SEM these days (because I'm a bit more 20/21 than 24/25), but slow but small UWA lenses can be really great when paired with small cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Only twice as much as their Nikon counterparts. That's progress, I guess.

@Sangster, Nikon make an optically excellent 85mm F1.8 that retails for approx $500

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

sgoldswo: It's a pity they went for speed with the wide angle, which will have made it bigger. An F2.8 that was smaller would have been far more interesting. It's time manufacturers for Mirrorless systems stopped trying to compete with DSLRs and focused on there strong points such as smaller wide angle lenses (due to the short flange back distance).

@adengappasami, I think you misunderstand me, I am arguing for the lens to be F2.8 or slower to keep the size down. Fast/wide aperture UWA lenses are unnecessary for most photographers and the widest aperture has become a marketing tool that is unnecessarily inflating the size of our gear.

The main reason Leica lenses are costly is the fact that they are hand made in Germany, not their size. Taking your example of Leica, the "best" lens they produce IMO is also one of the most reasonably priced, the 21mm Super-Elmar-M F3.4, which is tiny but optically excellent.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 16:30 UTC

It's a pity they went for speed with the wide angle, which will have made it bigger. An F2.8 that was smaller would have been far more interesting. It's time manufacturers for Mirrorless systems stopped trying to compete with DSLRs and focused on there strong points such as smaller wide angle lenses (due to the short flange back distance).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 08:38 UTC as 24th comment | 17 replies
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

nikkornikon: I just Rented the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8VC for 10 days. I was not impressed with it as much as others. Here are the known issues.

While the front of the Tamron is weathered sealed.the back is not. A potential problem of moisture and dirty could easily rendered the Lens useless quickly. When you have the lens off.you can actually see the electronics of this lens. And A mishap of water and dirt could damage the lens.

When the lens was delivered to me...The Lens was on 15mm..but would not focused. Stayed out of focused. Not until I started moving around the lens..manually. Then it snapped into Auto Focus.

Picture Quality? I was not impressed. While yes..it took a good picture with my Nikon D810.mostly centered. the other areas where not as sharp as Granger..others have said. While I did like the VC..and it would helpful on this lens.if you were held holding it.

I would Highly Suggest to others, Rent First. Then decided. And this might be chalked up to...I might of gotten a Bad Copy!

Oh I see - but why do you think the exposed electronics have anything to do with weather sealing? They are inside the gasket when mounted. If you look at the equivalent section of the 14-24 all you have is a baffle which is hardly impermeable.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 01:42 UTC
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

nikkornikon: I just Rented the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8VC for 10 days. I was not impressed with it as much as others. Here are the known issues.

While the front of the Tamron is weathered sealed.the back is not. A potential problem of moisture and dirty could easily rendered the Lens useless quickly. When you have the lens off.you can actually see the electronics of this lens. And A mishap of water and dirt could damage the lens.

When the lens was delivered to me...The Lens was on 15mm..but would not focused. Stayed out of focused. Not until I started moving around the lens..manually. Then it snapped into Auto Focus.

Picture Quality? I was not impressed. While yes..it took a good picture with my Nikon D810.mostly centered. the other areas where not as sharp as Granger..others have said. While I did like the VC..and it would helpful on this lens.if you were held holding it.

I would Highly Suggest to others, Rent First. Then decided. And this might be chalked up to...I might of gotten a Bad Copy!

I just took a look to see if you had seen something I missed. I don't see that. Sorry. I just see a sealed lens with a gasket around the mount.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 23:31 UTC
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

nikkornikon: I just Rented the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8VC for 10 days. I was not impressed with it as much as others. Here are the known issues.

While the front of the Tamron is weathered sealed.the back is not. A potential problem of moisture and dirty could easily rendered the Lens useless quickly. When you have the lens off.you can actually see the electronics of this lens. And A mishap of water and dirt could damage the lens.

When the lens was delivered to me...The Lens was on 15mm..but would not focused. Stayed out of focused. Not until I started moving around the lens..manually. Then it snapped into Auto Focus.

Picture Quality? I was not impressed. While yes..it took a good picture with my Nikon D810.mostly centered. the other areas where not as sharp as Granger..others have said. While I did like the VC..and it would helpful on this lens.if you were held holding it.

I would Highly Suggest to others, Rent First. Then decided. And this might be chalked up to...I might of gotten a Bad Copy!

Doesn't sound like mine at all. I think you are are wrong re weather sealing too...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 21:26 UTC
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (88 comments in total)

I've been very, very impressed with this lens since I received it. Defintely optically superior to the Nikon 14-24 in the range they overlap.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2015 at 13:10 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (814 comments in total)

Seems like a fair review to me and about where I'll come out when I post a write up on my blog. I'm probably more positive about the redesign than DPR, I wasn't a big fan of the original A7 series design (for example which some loved the old grip I hated it) but more critical of the RAW output being weaker than many other 35mm sensor cameras. In particular, comparisons with the D750 are warranted given the sensors in both, and its an area where the A7 falls down. All of that needs to be balanced with the introduction of stabilisation and generally faster operation of the camera.

That's ultimately pointing towards a camera that's very good, but not excellent.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 08:26 UTC as 70th comment
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (814 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: The review reads like it was written by a Nikon D750 owner and manages to skilfully bury almost all that's good about the A7ii under faint praise and exaggerated weaknesses.

What's funny is no one considering buying the A7ii is going to buy a D750 instead. A7ii buyers are trying to get away from cameras like that.

And if you want to compare them properly the D750 doesn't come off that well at all. Not surprising considering the A7ii is a higher-specced camera. It has a faster shutter, faster flash sync, twice raw buffer size, higher video bit-rate, focus peaking and IBIS as well as all the advantages of a mirrorless.

And where the D750 outperforms the A7ii at high ISO you fail to mention the contribution of the IBIS which you found conferred '2-3.3 stops of 'hand-hold-ability', so any high-ISO advantage is essentially eliminated.

Also the D750 can't shoot any wider than f1.2 either whereas the Sony has a range below f1. It can even shoot the rangefinder only Nikon 35mm f0.95. :)

Just for the people quoting terrible AF in liveview. You can stop, really. No one is buying DSLRs because they think live view focus is better than mirrorless cameras.... If it also helps the few times I've used LV with the D750 I've actually had very decent performance/results from it ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 08:16 UTC
Total: 302, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »