futurewah: For the life of me I cannot understand why Leica didn't source the 36mp sensor available from Sony. Sure, Nikon and Pentax use it too, and it's not as advanced as Sony's newer 42mp BSI sensor, but it's a proven sensor with good DR and ISO capabilities. I just think given the cost of this camera and its lenses, and its position in the Leica line-up, this would have been a smarter move.
Moving the S to Sony's 50mp and/or 100mp CMOS should be a no brainer too.
"speed" in this case is not FPS but rather the scanning speed of the sensor. The SL manages very competitive AF with only CDAF and 4K video as well. Both of these point to fast scanning regardless of how many full-quality frames the camera actually takes per second. The known Sony 24 & 36MP 135 format sensors don't scan that fast. The 42MP in the A7R2 might (without the heat constraints) but since only Sony uses it and the specs are not public we can only guess.
Speed. Sony's sensor are relatively slow scanning compared to whatever the SL has. Plus it would put pressure on the S and M cameras. This way they have somewhere to go in a year with the version 2.
abortabort: I will seriously consider one as soon as Zeiss starts making their Loxia and Batis lenses for the SL.
That would be very interesting. But the SL/T mount isn't open like the M mount and I doubt Leica will make that mistake again. The Batis lenses are good enough and so much less expensive than the Leica SL lenses they would be some serious competition.
Wait. Are they saying that this turns the aperture into a pseudo leaf shutter? I assumed everything above 1/8000 was all electronic.
joelR42: Now if Sony will just support write speeds faster than 30MB/s...
@Richard Butler as @photominion has illustrated Fuji (as well as Nikon and I believe Oly & Panasonic) have cameras with SD cards that write faster than the minimum spec. It isn't hard to design faster than there are serious benefits—especially when you've got a camera (A7RII) with 42MP that write 40-80MB raw files! Supporting the even the UHS-I max write speed would be a big improvement. A serious oversight on Sony's end.
Independent test have shown that Sony cameras don't write faster than 30-35MB/s regardless of the speed of the card. Faster cards will write faster but they won't break 40MB/s which is an issue with the large A7 file sizes. That is certainly NOT the case for other manufacturers.
Now if Sony will just support write speeds faster than 30MB/s...
TonyPM: Then how well will the Sony a7II models(s,7,r) work with lets say my 50 mm1.8 stm. Or the 24-105 f4. Or the cheap sigma 24-70 2.8. ???
I would actually not buy Sony lenses If this works like it should!
Sigma ONLY guarantees functionality with a limited set of recent lenses. If it isn't a Sigma Art lens I wouldn't count on it.
Jacques Cornell: If they're so serious, how come they didn't put a pass-through hotshoe on top of the transmitter? Honestly, I can't fathom how a radio trigger maker can do this. Have they never heard of event photography? Y'know, with on- and off-camera flashes at the same time? What they've made is a trigger for studio use only, and I'll bet event shooters outnumber studio shooters by a large margin.Ugh. The stupidity, it burns.
Might want to look at the Godox XT1 system. Has a pass through but the UI is not as nice and much more cramped.
Wait. You an't use the touchscreen to navigate or review images? That seems really odd.
bobbarber: I'd like to see a manufacturer offer a programmable camera, something along the lines of CHDK. Were I offered a choice between something like a Nikon D5500 or my ancient Olympus E-30 at the same price, with the former stock and the latter completely programmable, I'd choose the Olympus, despite a big giveaway in terms of dynamic range, FPS, etc.
My C7070 takes five photos at different exposures using a single remote press. My cheap Canon Sureshot fires on motion detection using CHDK. I have shot with much "better" cameras that won't do either of those things. Why? I should be able to tell MY camera what I want it to do, after I pay for it.
Custom art filters? Custom tone curves for jpegs? Leave your camera pointed at the bird feeder and have it fire on motion detect? A bold manufacturer would make a splash with a camera like that.
An extra half stop of noise at ISO 3200? Put me down in the "meh" column.
I believe it is because photographers are a very conservative lot. The industry would need a paradigm shift from digital CAMERAS (i.e. digital versions of the mechanical cameras of yesteryear) to digital IMAGING COMPUTERS. The hardware is there. The processors are almost all ARM based and several manufacturers use variations of the Linux/Android. No one is brave enough to open up the camera and no one (although Fuji comes close) is willing to release the kind of operation system upgrades we see on our tablets and phones—which run on the same instruction sets—that revamp and aim to improve the user experience on the same hardware.
Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson: it´s about the lenses ... like others have said ..
Respectfully I partially disagree. At typical print/viewing sizes many, if not most, modern lenses are pretty good. Most high end lenses have passed the point of rapidly diminishing returns. Don't get me wrong I've got a few nice (and pricey) lenses which I love for very specific reasons but most people don't notice or appreciate those reasons. They like or dislike my pictures almost strictly for the composition, content, and post-processing. Also digital lens corrections have advanced to the point where what would have been crippling compromises a generation or two ago are now insignificant or irrelevant.
XQD should but more than 35% faster than CF. Just sayin'
NAwlins Contrarian: Am I alone in thinking that a 4-element, 4-group lens is likely to have mediocre performance, especially wide-open? That's what it says for the 90mm. The others are not more than 6-elements in 6 groups (35 and 50mm) and 5 elements in 5 groups (75mm). As examples, the new, inexpensive ($110) Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM has 6 elements in 5 groups, and the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 VC has 10 elements in 9 groups. I am having a really hard time figuring out why anyone would want to pay $480 to $660 (especially instead of legacy lenses) for not-too-fast, manual-focus-only prime lenses that aren't likely to perform well until stopped down.
Not necessarily. The Canon and Tamron have to compensate for a mirror box and are a stop faster (the Tamron also has VC). The Leica Summarit 90mm is only 5 elements. Does that justify the cost? That I can't answer but the number of elements is not, itself, a sign of poor quality.
Chris Yates: It's because of Sony and it's A7 mirrorless lineup. Canon still doesn't get it.Put out a FF mirrorless and see sales skyrocket. there are countless people like me waiting on the sidelines. But once I pull the plug on another system it's over.
@rrccad actually just a few months ago DPReview reported that mirrorless sales ARE increasing faster than DSLR sales are decreasing and Sony is the far away leader there. So, yes, safe assumption that Sony is now selling a good deal of mirrorless cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6223902518/sony-rides-wave-of-us-mirrorless-sales-surge
graybalanced: Canon calls it "market shrinkage," but it's really about Canon not providing a good product in the camera markets that are rapidly expanding.
depends I suppose your definition of "rapid" Sony is reporting record profits in its imaging division because of the growth in ILC market. So the market isn't getting worse for everybody...
Robgo2: I used the Zeiss Contax G 21/2.8 Distagon on my beloved Contax G2, and it was spectacular. The rear element of that lens projected far into the camera body, thus making it virtually unusable on the modern A7 cameras. I wonder if the Loxia 21 is a completely new Distagon design. It certainly does not resemble any previous Zeiss 21/2.8 that I have ever seen, whether for rangefinders or DSLRs. Does anyone know its derivation?
@dbm305 you're right.
@Robgo2 actually I believe it is based on a ZM (Zeiss M-mount) design. I too was hoping for a variation/update of the 21mm Biogon. The 35mm Biogon got my hopes up but perhaps 21mm was just too wide for that near symmetric design!
RichRMA: Well that's odd. In Exposure Latitude, The Nikon D810 is worse at +6 than the Sony but the Olympus E-M5II matches (except for some blotching) the grain of the Sony with the Sony at +6 and the Olympus at +5. I'd have expected it to be a lot wider divergence there. Shockingly, the Nikon D7200 (APS) clobbers the Sony at +5 stops.
huh? The D7200 the colors are all off. The luminance noise isn't much worse (similar pixel size so not too surprising) but I wouldn't say better and the chroma noise is awful.
I dunno. To my eye the D810 looks decidedly magenta when pushed more. So the luminance noise may be similar but the color noise (IMHO) is worse on the Nikon. Plus at +6EV you aren't taking full advantage of the A7RII's improved high-ISO amplification circuits. I agree at +3ev they are head to head, small differences but within a margin of error.
There is also more to high-ISO than noise. There's color fidelity and gradations. Noise isn't really the biggest differentiator any more.