HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 15864, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)

@SRT201:

"It doesn't appear that Leica is leading the field in any particular way with this camera?" Well regarding the body, with the later firmware versions, the Leica SL is a better higher ISO body than the D750, the 6D, the A7II, the D810, the K1, the A7RII, and the A99II.

Then where this Leica surpasses bodies is the optical quality of the lenses available for it. To get that kind of optical performance on the above list, excluding the K1, you'll need newer Zeiss or SonyZeiss lenses. (There being one expensive Nikon exception and one Tamron exception, this latter is rumored to be related to a Zeiss design.)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 16:38 UTC as 10th comment
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Review is much too short for a Leica camera, and the snarky "Conclusion" section, the bit about "if you have your heart set on a camera with a red dot on it" is kind of obnoxious.

@SRT201:

"It doesn't appear that Leica is leading the field in any particular way with this camera?" Well regarding the body, with the later firmware versions, the Leica SL is a better higher ISO body than the D750, the 6D, the A7II, the D810, the K1, the A7RII, and the A99II.

Then where this Leica surpasses bodies is the optical quality of the lenses available for it. To get that kind of optical performance on the above list, excluding the K1, you'll need newer Zeiss or SonyZeiss lenses. (There being one expensive Nikon exception and one Tamron exception, this latter is rumored to be related to a Zeiss design.)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: Sony A7 with a different badge.

brendon:

"I have a top secret laboratory that I do testing. I have conclusive proof that Sony files are far better than SL but I can't share my results with you :)".

No, you don't.

You seem to forget (well ignore) that I have access to Sony and Leica and Canon and Pentax and Hasselblad and say Fuji raws too, and Nikon and Oly, and Samsung and Panasonic. Have some Phase raws of my own too. Then there's Sigma.

You do have claims that lossy Sony raws are good enough for your purposes, and those I can't disagree with.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 15:40 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: This review restores my faith in DP Review. Even less costly cameras deserve this frankness, even if their flaws sometimes are less obvious. Especially in the post truth society, saying it as it really is is very refreshing.

Few people aspire to Leica and, as far as I am concerned, with this camera they have done me a favour. I do not aspire to Leica prices, did aspire to Leica M quality in the days when we only had film. So now, I am even happier with the Nikon D610 I bought recently. There is nothing that suits me better at any price.

I do prefer optical viewfinders but if Leica have contrived to make the view through their EVF look like an OVF even in HDR lighting into the sun, then that would be real progress. However this camera is as heavy as mine without a mirror, so for most people what's the point?

tbcass:

"DXO scores are based on testing." Perhaps some testing. They do a lot of model running too.

Proof comes from shooting raws, you can find them to download and/or shoot them yourself.

That DXO sensor scores+testing, not lens scores, are a joke isn't really news.

I'd not go bring up DT. Or your views on global warming.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 15:17 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

eno2: This is an over expensive brick!

Xentinus:

Okay, I missed that lens, it is APSC though, meaning you didn't actually read my post fully.

Also the SonyZeiss 55mm is not an APSC only lens, further evidence that you didn't read my post, and don't know of what you write.

Then there's the repeated reference to Zeiss Touits, more evidence of less than much lens wisdom.

So next read:

"The problem with later Pentax lenses, medium format included, is colour, earlier ones have sharpness problems. There seem to be some exceptions for the Pentax APSC DSLRs."

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 15:06 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Akpinxit: What am I missing ?
A very overprized camera body , in which the only strong side is its body quality build . No good OOC JPG nore stand out AF or IQ . Nore ergonomics for hand held shooting .
This camera should be compare with something like painting - very pleasant to look at but no good to take outdoors .

Akpinxit:

"What am I missing ?" Lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 14:56 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka:

"Leica is expensive, because it's a freaking Leica." All this says is that you've not used say the SL 50mm f/1.4.

SigmaArts are nice, they are heading in the right direction optically. Perhaps the new 85mm gets there.

It doesn't sound like you've tried good Zeiss lenses either, start with the Milvus 85mm, save some monies. Or rent an Otus.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 14:02 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

eno2: This is an over expensive brick!

Xen:

Again: Zeiss Touits are optically unremarkable. (Also nowhere did I ever say that every Zeiss lens is optically better than every Pentax lens.)

There is no Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. There is a SonyZeiss 55 f/1.8. It's a very good lens.

The problem with later Pentax lenses, medium format included, is colour, earlier ones have sharpness problems. There seem to be some exceptions for the Pentax APSC DSLRs.

"Pentax 17-70 f4 is MUCH better than Zeiss 16-70 f4". Yet again, there are NO Zeiss zooms currently in production. There are some not so good SonyZeisses and then some very good SonyZeiss.

There is no Pentax 55mm f/1.4 lens, if you mean the 55mm f/2.8 medium format lens, then the SonyZeiss 55mm has somewhat better colour, however perhaps the bokeh doesn't please you.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 13:48 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

bryPT: Does this camera deserve an 84 score? If this thing cannot capture a clear image of a dog moving with an f1.4 lens, is uncomfortable to hold, not balanced with the lenses that fit it and "lags behind the competition" on a few focusing items, shouldn't it get a lower score? Then, you add in the absolutely ridiculous price to an camera that has the above list of deficiencies, and it comes in with an 84 score? Looking at comparable reviews of pros and cons, I am thinking this thing should have checked in at a 78 or so. I would put the value slider pegged to the left if I am paying $7000 for the body alone and cannot get a dog photo. And then the focus and metering slider is 3 clicks from the right even though it lags in that performance category?

I normally look to honesty in my Reviews at DPReview, but this one seems a bit off.

I will never touch one, so I will give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here, but it just seems like there is something off with this review.

Akpinxit:

"This camera suggested to as working tool proffesionals", who said that?

The system doesn't have a enough lenses.

If a professional isn't shooting sports and can work with M lenses and the existing 3 SL lenses (well and the TL lenses), then it's a prolevel camera body.

"It is a concept car - highly stylished but one with hard time to daily user ."

Yawn.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 13:10 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: This review restores my faith in DP Review. Even less costly cameras deserve this frankness, even if their flaws sometimes are less obvious. Especially in the post truth society, saying it as it really is is very refreshing.

Few people aspire to Leica and, as far as I am concerned, with this camera they have done me a favour. I do not aspire to Leica prices, did aspire to Leica M quality in the days when we only had film. So now, I am even happier with the Nikon D610 I bought recently. There is nothing that suits me better at any price.

I do prefer optical viewfinders but if Leica have contrived to make the view through their EVF look like an OVF even in HDR lighting into the sun, then that would be real progress. However this camera is as heavy as mine without a mirror, so for most people what's the point?

tbcass:

DXO sensor scores use a lot of modeling, not testing, and are a joke.

"The only people who don't take them seriously are those who don't like the results." This is your wish, not something that comes out of DXO's modelled scores.

I never quoted a bit rate, please don't day that I did. I quoted a bit depth. There's a difference.

"I would like to add the A99ii which uses the same sensor but with a faster processing engine can output uncompressed 14 bit RAW at 12fps." I don't believe so, look at the DPR basketball shots, they're all half the size in MBs of better raws from the A99II.

(I've shot the A99II a bit, but not going for speed, so can't check to see if the files shot at high speed are indeed smaller, can try later. Don't really care though, the smaller files from the A99II don't look real good.)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 12:57 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

noirdesir:

Just because somewhere I'd seen the new 85mm SigmaArt called the Mark II.

But if you like ...

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 01:44 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka84:

"You are misusing your head, pal." By disagreeing with you?

My time perhaps.

Clearly you can take a good photo, try it now with a very good Zeiss on that Canon 6D. I recommend the 85mm Milvus. Right, manual focus only.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 01:17 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: This review restores my faith in DP Review. Even less costly cameras deserve this frankness, even if their flaws sometimes are less obvious. Especially in the post truth society, saying it as it really is is very refreshing.

Few people aspire to Leica and, as far as I am concerned, with this camera they have done me a favour. I do not aspire to Leica prices, did aspire to Leica M quality in the days when we only had film. So now, I am even happier with the Nikon D610 I bought recently. There is nothing that suits me better at any price.

I do prefer optical viewfinders but if Leica have contrived to make the view through their EVF look like an OVF even in HDR lighting into the sun, then that would be real progress. However this camera is as heavy as mine without a mirror, so for most people what's the point?

tbcass:

Please don't cite DXO sensor scores if you expect to be treated seriously. I'm quite certain of my higher ISO claims.

I have no idea about read rates for the SL shooting 14 bit raws versus the A7RII shooting 12 bit raws though. (The Sony steps down the bit rate.)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 01:11 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka:

But the old SigmaART 85 wasn't especially old.

Sigma took big leap forward in optical quality with the ART line. But's not up to Leica or Zeiss's better lenses yet. (This new 85mm SigmaART could be.)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 01:00 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka:

""nothing to do with the lord" - I meant your Leica lord you are worshiping here."

Still a misuse of the word "luxury".

""you've not even handled the gear in question" - I'm not a fetishist, I don't need to touch Leicas to be able to judge images they produce."

No, put it helps to shoot them under difficult lighting, and it is necessary to have more than say 5 raws.

"it is clear to me that you've not used any Canon L." You can tell yourself this lie if it makes you feel more secure.

"I mean, do you even have a decent monitor to see the difference if it's there?" Some of these differences are easy to see on 8 bit monitors. Mine is 10. Also you do know about printing files right?

" And Leica doesn't give an f about any of this dramas, because they are selling cameras to freaking scientologists." Again projecting your insecurities unto Leica buyers doesn't help your ersatz case.

"don't care about buying better tools or IQ"; this silliness goes back to your misuse of luxury.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 00:49 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael S.: As an actual SL-user I can say the review is 90% very fair and describing the pro and cons of that camera-system correctly.

What I'm missing is a clear statement that the lenses are superior compared to the ones from Nikon and Canon - like the 24-70 or 70-200. THAT's actually the part where the SL systems shines - and I've used NIKON's finest lenses for 15 years and its best cameras of the period of time.

The two main drawbacks for me, so far, of the SL-system are:
1) AF-C takes too long (compared to top-DSLR) to start following and your percentage of keepers is quite low.
2) The SF-64 and SF-40 flashes (rebranded products) are not as good as you are used too like getting with the Nikon system.

And all that whining about size and weight - a D5 for D810 with 24-70 f2.8, SB-910 flash on it is neither small or light weight too. Seeing the better performance of the SL with the 24-90SL lens really compensates for the little difference.

Tical:

Bet the flash is an accessory not made by Leica.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 00:26 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka:

"don't use the lord's name in vain, right", nothing to do with the lord.

Has to do with avoiding hackneyed language which more than suggests you've not even handled the gear in question.

I've not used the new Canon L 35mm II, perhaps Canon has figured some things out.

"to be more precise, you don't know $#it about Canon optics." Projecting your wishes unto my knowledge doesn't make you right.

Canon is missing something, Nikon only just started to figure it out.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

chriscotec: " . . . . but when has purchasing a Leica ever been a strictly rational decision?"

It definitely was from the first prototype, in the early 1900s and through WWII. Along with the Contax it was the most practical and well designed run and gun camera, brilliant for war coverage in the day, as well as many other subjects. Its use of 35mm cine film truly revolutionised photography more than any other camera. Everything else was bulky and slow to use.

The Leica was blatantly ripped off by Japanese companies in the 50s, who then moved on with innovation. Leica never really managed the move to SLR and beyond in terms of being an innovator. They have needed the help of companies like Minolta (for their SLRs) and Panasonic (for digital cameras).

I can certainly see why people love modern Leicas for what they are, an object of art, but as a photography tool, now, you are right, there are better options, regardless of price.

Steppenw0lf:

Well, lenses, including Leicas, have improved significantly over the last 10 years.

Now, Leica, Zeiss, Olympus, Schneider and Samsung (okay that's new) all seem to know something, beyond sharpness, that Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Konica don't. (This appears to be changing for Nikon.)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 22:49 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: Leica is all over the shop these days. Apart from die hard Leica fans, who on earth would actually consider this? It's ugly as sin, it's stupidly and prohibitively expensive, it's under performing for it's price it's trying to be too much and doesn't excel at anything. What's worse is the M has taken a back seat and it's everything that is special about the company. The S is seemingly dead in the water. Hopefully ditching the old CEO will shake things up, they really need some vision and focus.

Steppenw0lf:

Sure, if I had to chose I'd probably pick the M10 with the 50mm f/2.0 APO.

But the vast improvement in higher ISO capacity with the later SL firmware makes that much much more interesting. However I await more lenses. (Also want to try a 3rd example of the longer zoom.)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 22:44 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (750 comments in total)
In reply to:

JakeB: Let me be the first to say it's too expensive.

lightandap:

Irony is often lost in text on the interwebs.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 22:36 UTC
Total: 15864, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »