 |  |  |  |  |
| Family portrait by Minas_Eye from Three of.... | Bubbles by jonestheroad from Foam and Bubbles - Macro Challenge | Eastern Blizzard by DHAPhotography from cold | Concert building Amsterdam by Edith Das from What do you miss? | Passion Flower by Minas_Eye from What passes for normal |
saxo2: I believe, it must be a nightmare to focus an 1:2 90mm lens with the 40Mpx M10 Monochrom rangefinder, not to mention the new 1:1,5 90mm or the noctilux or any fast lens above 35mm.
I use Leica M cameras since the M-4P came to market, including several lenses, from21 to 135mm.
Already the old M9 was very difficult to focus with long and/or fast lenses above 35mm, compared to film-M's. I used only currently sold lenses, and had them quit a few times at Wetzlar for adjustment of the RF mechanism. None of the lenses was older than 8 years.....
It is recommended to use such lenses on the Leica SL instead. Focussing M-lenses with the SL (I sold mine a few weeks ago) is easy an reliable! And AF: only minor problems, usualy none.
When I imagine: RF and demandig 40MPx in b&w, a very difficult task for the mentioned lenses.
regarding your comments: what is your experience with Leica rangefinder?
Robert111: Never wanted a Leica before, but this one makes me imagine it could turn me into an Ansel Adams.
In this case take a film M.... like Ansel Adams
I believe, it must be a nightmare to focus an 1:2 90mm lens with the 40Mpx M10 Monochrom rangefinder, not to mention the new 1:1,5 90mm or the noctilux or any fast lens above 35mm.
Andrew Schwartz: I'd be very curious to see side-by-side comparisons of the best the Leica Monochroms could produce against the best monochromatic conversions from standard colour cameras. My guess offhand is that the standard Sony sensors are so good by now as to generally eat the Leica Monochrom advantage. But it would be an interesting test.
I do still lust after a Q2.
In most light conditions the comparison is veryl likely to be a head to head race. The comparison of the Leica M10 and Leica Monochrom M246 showed this perfectly. If you own a Nikon or Sony with a new 40+ Mpx sensor, I wouldn't bother. It's just the rangefinder style and the way of taking photos, which makes the difference, but not so much picture quality.
I think, it must be a nightmare to focus a 1:2 90mm lens with the 40Mpx M10 Monochrom rangefinder!
lucrob: "Super Rich". I'm so tired of that detached statement from so many who've never touched a Leica. I'm not super rich, but I am passionate enough to scrounge up what it took to get the 246 and the M10, along with 5 Leica lenses. My wife has no idea what that cost. It wasn't about having disposable income, or wearing a camera like jewelry - I even cover my red dots and shy away from striking up a conversation about my equipment - it's about enjoying snap shots like few Nikon, Sony.... owner knows or cares much about.
After all, your photos, or most of them mean nothing to anyone but you. Taking the shot was the high point of the experience. It's that moment you wax warmly about when someone comments about a image of yours. Creating art is about being inspired. I've owned so many of the megapixel warloards, none inspires like a simple Leica.
Why don't you take the original, an M7, or, if you mind the electronic shutter, an M6? You can buy tons of b/w film for the price difference and you have the real Leica feeling.
Maybe I missed it, but:
1) Does the camera produce time-lapse video right in the camera, like Panasonic and Nikon? This is a realy time saving option if high end video quality is not the main subject.
2) Does the camera in HR mode produce just one HR-RAW file in the camera, like Panasonic? Or does I still need to export all the single RAW files and use an extern software to integrate the files into a single HR file, a very time consuming procedure?
Best telephoto zoom range?
Your recommended 1:4 70-200 falls short when compared to Canons 1:4 70-200, at least according to lens rentals:
"Sony also has a 70-200mm f/4, and it’s OK. It’s not going to wring all the resolution you might like out of a high-megapixel camera, but it’s still a decent travel lens. From what I hear, though, a lot of Sony shooters prefer the Canon IS II f/4 on an adapter, and I can understand that option, too."
This should be mentioned.
You haven't done any testing by your own of this recommended lens, or did you?
Two things I really like about the Panasonic S cameras:
1) High Res: Panasonic combines all shots into a RAW file in the camera!
2) Time laps: Panasonic outputs a ready video file, you can choose resolution and fps before the video file is generated in the camera!
I would like to see these features in a lighter, more portable camera for landscape photographers, who often hike many miles to their destination.
Hi Jordan,
great comparison, fun to watch as always. But you've probably made a mistake.
The gitzo tripod you tested weights 1,45kg, not 1,05kg as you measured, look at their website: https://www.gitzo.com/de-de/traveler-stativ-kit-serie-1-4-beinsegmente-gk1545t-82tqd/
or just have look at your own website:
https://www.amazon.com/Gitzo-GK1545T-82TQD-Traveler-GT1545T-Section/dp/B014EQFUHS
Nevertheless I enjoyed your video, thanks!
Regards
Martin
boy_wander: Very interesting. I am pulling the trigger on the S1 next week. I wonder how this camera deals with rolling shutter and overheating. Recording in in CDNG internally is very appealing. I wonder how this compares to the S1H. If it's video centric then I'm curious what the L Mount's alliance philosophy is as they compete with each other.
I don't mind having no viewfinder if focus assist works on the LCD screen.
... if focus assist works on the LCD screen.
Yes, that's the point. Does the stuff from dpreview have any idea?
UllerellU: From the comments I get the impression that most have not understood that this is a video-oriented camera. Maybe you just read the headline and look at the photos of the product? Nothing happens to read the article, do not bite, at least if you intend to comment on it knowing that we are talking ...
For video: manual focus lenses are not unusual and if you need a compact equipment (e.g. 'street-videography'), M lenses are a natural partner, preferably the video version M 0.8 .
You need an EVF and good image quality right down to the corners, without color shift.
At dpreview:
Could be a good travel companion with M-lenses:
1) Manual focus using LCD screen: does it work?
2) Anything said about usability with M-lenses having a short back focal distance?
Roland Karlsson: This is so cool.
But, then I remember it is not FF, only 44x33.
And then I remember I do not know the price yet.
So, I must admit, it might be cool, but it aint all that hot.
A 55x55 mm sensor and a reasonable price, would sure be hot though.
Yes, a square sensor of 44x44mm would be nice, or even 36,7x49mm Sensor like the old CCD-sensor CFV 50, would be great.
Satyaa: @Richard Butler:
I don't normally print. This question is hypothetical, just to better understand the implication of this article.
Let's say I normally use a 24 MP camera. It has 6000 pixels across. Someone tells me that 'a printer' does 200 dpi and therefore I can print 30 inches wide. Good so far.
Let's say I am comparing three cameras of the same sensor generation/technology but having different resolutions... say, A7S II, A7 II and A7R II (12, 24 and 42 MP respectively). Their sensor size is the same though.
Is this article saying that when printed 30" wide, photos exposed the same way from those three cameras will look the same?
If not, what is causing the difference other than the pixel count? Thanks.
Sorry, but you are wrong: I said as long as you look at the whole picuture! This means: the viewing distance increase with picture size, that's why 16MPx is always suffizient. Otherwise you need better eyes. If you have eagle eyes, you need more pixels, but only then. ;)
Satyaa: @Richard Butler:
I don't normally print. This question is hypothetical, just to better understand the implication of this article.
Let's say I normally use a 24 MP camera. It has 6000 pixels across. Someone tells me that 'a printer' does 200 dpi and therefore I can print 30 inches wide. Good so far.
Let's say I am comparing three cameras of the same sensor generation/technology but having different resolutions... say, A7S II, A7 II and A7R II (12, 24 and 42 MP respectively). Their sensor size is the same though.
Is this article saying that when printed 30" wide, photos exposed the same way from those three cameras will look the same?
If not, what is causing the difference other than the pixel count? Thanks.
@Karroly: As long as you look at the whole picture, you can print any size with 16Mpx or more, you will see no difference between 16Mpx and 200Mpx. Only if you crop (move towards the picture or do pixelpeeping) and look only at parts of the picture, you will recognize differences. Roughly spoken: above 16MPx (at least above 24MPx) the possible size of your print is independend from MPx count.
Thanks, but how did you resize the image of the Nikon 850, pixelbinding? But then: how did you get higher resolution?
We should remember: if you want to see the whole picture (no pixelpeeping), about 16MPx equals the resolving power of our eyes. Thats why most professional cams have around 18-24Mpx. Only for special tasks like aerial imaging, more resolution maybe needed. I've seen lots of 40x60cm prints with 24Mp up to 100Mp cams, but sorry, usually I can't see the difference.
What I need is more dynamic range. Have you seen any difference between a7s and 750?
Unfortunately all the reviews ignored the Leica sl, appeared 3 year ago on the market.
Still the Leica has the class leading viewfinder, 2 Card Slots and 4:2:2 10 Bit footage for Video. The standard lens with 24-90 has a superior zoom range. The build quality is excellent. Where is the progress?
Akgbkd: no hate comments?
What about a review of the 90 or 75 SL APO lens? Regarding the MTF-charts they seem to be exceptional lenses. Is this true?
I wonder how you will manually focus in the dark with this camera (ISO going to millions). The days of this type of camera are counted.
Look at the Leica SL, focusing at low light is easy and accurat. Okay, only 11 fps instead of 14fps, but that's it. As soon as more zoom lenses are available, this is the one to go for. I've compared it, the 'conservative' Leica was a real surprise. Even though dp review was not convinced (not enough pixels, unfamiliar user interface, dynamic range not the same as Nikon 750, which is now improved with the new firmware) for me it is like a swiss-army knife. With the superb SL standard zoom lens I can do 90% of my work and use my excisting lenses as well via adapter.