HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 15749, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

User3754336485: Good overall review (I don't care about the numerical score, the words are great and ring true). Perhaps for those folks who already own Leica lenses, this might make sense, but not for dear old me.

For the price of the Leica SL you could get a Sony A7m2 with two G-master lenses, or certainly a Sony A7r2 with one G-master lens and money to take a trip where there's great scenery to shoot. I do appreciate the honesty in this review, despite whatever flames appear in these comments.

shigzeo:

Advertizing promises? Links?

It's a better higher ISO body, with firmware V2 or later, than the D750, the A7RII, the Canon 6D, and the A7II. Oh and better than the D810 of course.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:35 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

itaibachar: At least it had a 100 MP sensor for this kind of money.
Another lifestyle toy from Leica.

"lifestyle toy" says more about you than Leica.

That hypothetical 100MP FF sensor would have all sorts of noise problems, besides costing a good deal more than $7000.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:27 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ran Plett: Why didn't they just take an existing A7r and put a wood grip and a red dot on it? Think of all the money they could have made off us plebs!

Ran:

Well first you've confused Hasselblad and Leica. One is famous as a lens maker and also as a camera maker, the other is a famous camera, not lens, name.

Second, the Sony A7R Mark I shoots lossy only raws and has an incredibly audible shutter. The SL suffers neither of these problems. Nor does the SL have shutter shock problems.

And with the later post V2 firmware, this Leica SL is a better higher ISO body than the A7R Mark and Mark 2, oh and the A7II.

Then with the better of those 3 Sonys, that's the A7RII and the A7II, you'll need Zeiss Batis or Loxia lenses to equal SL or Leica M lenses optically. How are those Loxia lenses like M lenses?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:21 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Leica — thumbs up. All others — big thumbs down.
This is a lovely camera. And this how things are done: Leica comes one time, and delivers superb FF mirrorless products — when compared to Sony and Fuji and Olympus, all who take several iterations and many years of procrastination and milking of user's money to get somewhere nearby of a contraption, which somewhat deserves to be called 'a mirrorless system camera'.
Even now, not a single mirrorless camera from those manufacturers — or from any other manufacturer — compares to the sophistication, quality and effort put into the SL, or Leica Q (fixed lens mirrorless).

Um, the Fuji XT2 is an amazing camera, that is really well thought out, so is the XPro1. Now true the best Fuji lenses aren't up to Leica's optics.

I don't like the 12 bit files, but the Olympus EM1 Mark 1 and 2 are a big deal, and the best Olympus lenses compete with Leica lenses. I've not used the GH5, but some of those m4/3s PanaLeica lenses are amazing--albeit there's the 12 bit problem still.

Then, there is the Samsung NX1, the best lenses are the optically as good as good, perhaps not the absolute best, Leica lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:14 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: The conclusion about Leica cameras is always the same; you pay the Ferrari price for Chevrolet performance.

Shlomo Goldwasser:

And you get Koenigsegg lens performance.

Then notably with this later firmware, the SL is a better high ISO body than the Nikon D750, the Canon 6D, the Sony A7RII and the Sony A7.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:03 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aaron801: Let's see... a $12,000 camera lens combo that lags in performance and even IQ (and with less than great erganomics as well) compared to stuff that's 1/4th the price. I realize that there's a certain beauty that folks find in Leica gear unique as it is from an operational standpoint, but this particular camera, not being the more typical rangefinder style that is most assocateded (and loved) about the brand makes that part of it even more dubious... Seems like an awful lot of mpney for what little you get.

Aaron:

"it's my understanding from reading the review that the IQ though very good doesn't supass other camreas...." Well, true, other cameras, say a Nikon D750 with a Zeiss Otus can equal this image quality.

"If this camera were as good as anything else on the market in terms of performance and IQ..." with Leica lenses this is better than most on the market. With later firmware the SL bests the D750 for high ISOs.

Then D750+say the Zeiss Otus 55mm costs far more than 1/4 of the price of say this SL body+the SL 50mm lens.

No, SigmaART lenses are not anywhere near as good as good Leica lenses. (This may be changing, the new Art 85mm II looks promising. Also that plus the Nikon D750 still costs more than 1/4 the price of this Leica SL+say the 50mm SL lenses.)

"ratings for jpegs"? I'm sorry what does that have to do with overall image quality? How many shooting at this level of gear only shoot out of camera jpegs? Answer: Very few, and those few do so for specific reasons.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 02:58 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

arcaswissi99: for me this is a honest review. Thanks!
OK, Leica was always more expensive than most of the other companies but there were times where no other company came close in quality of the produced photos due to the great lenses and cameras. You could argue I pay more but I get the best.
Thus, if we got the best quality files with the SL as well I even wouldn't complain about the price but unfortunately you can shoot - technically - better quality pics for a fraction of the cost with many contenders nowadays.
Although Leica lenses at least M lenses had very steady prices over years this isn´t valid for electronic gadgets like digital cameras of whatever company.
Thus you really have to be a die-hard Leica fan with enough money to consider buying the SL.

MartinDixon:

What M lenses do you shoot on your M9?

(Also "quality" is not an adjective meaning "good".)

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 02:32 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

zilver: Spot on review. I had the SL for a while and found the good and bad points you mentioned spookingly exact, glad to continue to see detailed and honest reviews on DPreview.

zilver:

Thank you. I have tried the SL several times. I'm familiar with the body, though not say every menu option.

However, I note big improvements in higher ISO performance, shooting raw of course, with later firmware updates.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 02:28 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

turretless: Lunar SL ;)

turretless:

"Ok, I humbly admit, that Leica SL is the best invention since sliced bread and anybody buying cameras from other manufacturers don't give a flying hedgehog about image quality."

Somehow, just somehow, that's not believable.

Sony sure knows how to undermine its image quality--that's with very good SonyZeiss lenses like that A mount 85mm f/1.4. (The A99II should finally fix this.)

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 01:39 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

zilver: Spot on review. I had the SL for a while and found the good and bad points you mentioned spookingly exact, glad to continue to see detailed and honest reviews on DPreview.

Richie,

How much does a Canon 1DX II retail for?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 01:35 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

turretless: Lunar SL ;)

turretless:

No, it's not my opinion that people seek out Leica gear for the better lenses.

Your differing opinion is not equally valid.

"(SL stands for Super Luxury, I guess)" Statements like this say more about you than about Leica.

As far as I know the Lunar, like the A99, Nex 7, etc, shot lossy raws. This Leica, like the M10, shoots full 14 bit raws.

"Care to agree to disagree or you prefer to beat this horse to the second death?"

Ain't me beating a dead horse. It's you trying to misdirect from the issue, that's trying to steer a horse down the wrong path if you don't follow.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:46 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

EDWARD ARTISTE: 250 dollar battery, holy mother of good god

lightandaprayer:

Okay, you can claim that, but those are the prices those three companies charge.

Why am I not supposed to answer Hugo's ostensible sarcasm? He silly question. It deserved a clear answer.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:33 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

tumivn: Leica cameras are luxury cameras, so why DPReview bothers the price?

+ Strange comparison to the A7RII

+ Strange AF test

"Leica cameras are luxury cameras"--how so?

"+ Strange comparison to the A7RII", well with the latest firmware the Leica SL is a better higher ISO body than the A7RII. Also better than the A7II.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:16 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: If I didn't know better, I would swear that the Leica SL was designed to make the Sony A7RII look good by comparison. It even makes those Sony FE G Master lenses look like bargains....

Peiasdf:

Download raws from lenses, not just Leica lenses, that interest you.

LensRentals and LensTip have both reviewed better Leica lenses. Not sure about the SL lenses. The 50mm SL lens is barely out.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:36 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Does the camera have a way to turn up Saturation and/or Contrast and sharpening? (picture profiles?)

Some brutal criticism: (The good is plenty about it)

As a Canon 5DIV user these colours look aweful to me. I can get this look by going to Neutral Picture Style and turning Saturation and contrast to -4, and over-sharpening by +7. You get that exact look. Try it. I think it's a big downside perhaps the biggest. I don't edit each photograph. You just set the 5D to Standard and print.

And video, something I care about, is not far from the 5DIV crop (1.64x vs. 1.52x in DCI wide 4K) and I expected a Leica going for video to do full readout. The 5D offers a less compressed codec, and DPAF plus SOOC colours, yet the Leica does have an EVF with peaking and 10bit vs 8bit HDMI out.

And leica users speak as if all the other manufacturers make pinhole lenses. For my 30mp 5DIV or the 50mp 5DSR, there's an enormous host of optical wonders, just remember Canon's 35mm f/1.4 L II, Canon 11-24mm f/4 L, 16-35mm f/2.8 L III, 135mm f/2 L, Sigma 20mm f/1.4 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, Otus 35, 50, 85 line, etc. You do have optically outstanding lenses for a Canon, from Canon, Sigma, Tamron, you even have Zeiss. ALL of which are much cheaper than the leicas. And you can even adapt leicas. So what's with the lenses argument of Leica being superior to all these? Any proof?

Leicas are supposed to be special. Feel special. Shoot special imagery. Slow you down. Give a mechanical touch, a vintage feel, be handy, ergonomic wonder, and so on. All of which are present in Leica's rangefinders like an M9 line or a Monochrome (love these cameras), but this is just another modern mirrorless camera with nothing over the rivals aside from a viewfinder. Not image quality, not AF, not size, not ergonomics, not feel, not video, not menus, and I argue not even lenses which is the only argument leica shooters have but they should try 2017 DSLR lenses. Is it a good camera, yes. Does it offer something better than a 5DIV, a D810, an A7rII, a Fuji Gfx, a pentax 645z, I just can't see where it does.

(Btw I did shoot the camera briefly in our store next to my 5D and the 5D felt seemed similar/superior but the SL had a more impressive VF and that's it. The Canon embraces your hand grip with every finger while the SL is just a flat awkward chunk.)

I'd LOVE to see side by side lens shots between leicas and the new DSLR top-end lenses. Best if both adapted to the SL with an EF adapter. This is practically the only argument one could buy this camera for, and thus needs confirmation ASAP. Don't judge by comparing the lenses fron the m9 vs 5D II days!

"Does the camera have a way to turn up Saturation and/or Contrast and sharpening? (picture profiles?)"

Shoot raw.

"As a Canon 5DIV user these colours look aweful to me." Which Zeisses are you shooting on your Canon?

No, a Zeiss Otus 55mm is not much cheaper than the SL 50mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:34 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aaron801: Let's see... a $12,000 camera lens combo that lags in performance and even IQ (and with less than great erganomics as well) compared to stuff that's 1/4th the price. I realize that there's a certain beauty that folks find in Leica gear unique as it is from an operational standpoint, but this particular camera, not being the more typical rangefinder style that is most assocateded (and loved) about the brand makes that part of it even more dubious... Seems like an awful lot of mpney for what little you get.

Including lenses name one of these 1/4 priced systems that have better image quality?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:29 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: The OOC JPEG looks like a slightly greenish color cast. For this price, i'd get the GFX-50s Fujifilm, if i would have the money. ;) The AF doesn't seem to be reliable into avialable light, and DR is limited, too.

About the EVF, afaik i've read somewhere onto the Net that this 4.4 MP EVF is a time-based multiplexed Design, therefore it doesn't feature real 4.4 MP Resolution.
For instance - Panasonic does have the same technique since a very long time - the G1 EVF (2008) for example is the same, sequentially multiplexed, time-based, 1.44 MP EVF...but it does look good outdoors, even nowadays.

Ergonomically, and from the IQ, the GFX-50s Fujifilm seems like a bargain into comparsion, and it's smaller from size, too. :-)

Anyway, it was nice to read. thanks DPR.

marc,

I concede that the SL didn't ship until the end of 2015.

Careful, the New York Times is famous for publishing alternative facts. It's not a new thing.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:28 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bombastic: Another status symbol an A7Rii would sweep the floor with.

NAwlins:

Well the A7RII is an excellent camera, but you'll need Zeiss Batis or Loxia lenses to compete for optical quality with the full framed SL lenses.

The EVF on the Sony isn't as good as the EVF in this Leica, and this Leica SL has been out for 2+ years.

This SL is much better for use with M lenses than the A7 bodies.

No one has reported overheating problems when shooting 4K with the Leica SL, while the A7RII can have overheating problems.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bombastic: Another status symbol an A7Rii would sweep the floor with.

mgrum;

The M8, M9, Ricoh A12 Module, M242, SL, and M10 all effectively have a curved sensor. This is done with the deign-engineering of the microlens array. No, it's not the same as other microlens arrays--say those on the Sony A7RII or the Nikon D810.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (443 comments in total)
In reply to:

turretless: Lunar SL ;)

turretless,

Try looking beyond simplistic cliches about expensive camera gear.

The market for the SL is those who care about image quality and lenses. Duh.

How is this a rebuilt Sony?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 23:18 UTC
Total: 15749, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »