HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 15845, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: Sony A7 with a different badge.

brendon:

That you are perfectly happy with Sony lossy raw doesn't say anything about me.

"Whatever testing you have done I have done more extensive testing by a factor of 4. See even I can say rubbish like that and expect you to believe me :)" No, you haven't done more testing that I have by a factor of 4.

"So unless you have any evidence to back up your statements I will say you are a liar and are wrong." If that makes you feel more secure, do so.

"NO one has pointed out any defects in my photos due to it and unlike you I share a lot of my photos." Do you want me to go by something you've posted?

"Lossy RAW is a problem for armchair photographers like you. " Gettin' a big insecure there.

"So in conclusion the SL is a poor high ISO body from my extensive testing which is much more than yours ! :)" Based on what testing of yours?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:50 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

garyknrd: Sounds like a Pentax review. Except for the price?

utphoto:

S/N ratios are hardly the only way to judge a sensor.

Use gear.

DXO sensor scores are a joke.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:47 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

garyknrd: Sounds like a Pentax review. Except for the price?

Xenitus,

No, I didn't defend Nikon and the oiled D600 sensor, don't lie.

Canon does have problems too. Again don't lie.

The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/1.4 are only very good, not amazing, actually the 85mm f/1.4 is just good--sharp though.

No SigmaARTs aren't real special optically--just very good. This could be changing.

Zeiss Touits are unremarkable, that Pentax is likely better.

No, that Pentax medium format 55mm is not optically better than the Otus 55. It's a good Pentax lens.

"Carl-Zeiss T* E 16-70mm f/4", which "Zeiss" is that? There are no current Zeiss zooms.

There are SonyZeiss zooms, some of which are very good, some not.

"Pentax' old 17-70 f4", true I'm not familiar with that Pentax. But most of the older ones lack in sharpness, especially off centre.

You're so close to making a valid point about Pentax lenses. Use them. And use good Zeiss.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

eno2: This is an over expensive brick!

Xentinus:

So you don't have examples. What a shock?

I'm sorry I didn't see your point about Pentax lenses. (Well except the one were you were insisting something unsupported about their optical quality.)

I'm more invested in Leica lenses being better than most, Pentax included.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:37 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 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.

bryPT:

"The better glass cannot help it's deficiencies in focus."

If only you'd said "deficiencies in auto-focus", but yes I realize that's what you meant to say.

Better glass sure helps with manual focus.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: JakeB:

It's a repeated claim about Leica.

I'll explain how to post so next time..

Put quotation marks around "first".

take it up with the DPR webmaster.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: bryPT:

"I will never touch one", and yet you feel the urge to denigrate.

Get back to us when Canikon makes optically competitive lenses. They could, other lenses makers, Samsung/Optron +Olympus, prove it possible.

bryPT:

Not I didn't misquote you.

Read your last paragraph. Nor did I change your meaning.

If you'd said, "I will likely never touch one, so I'll give DPR the benefit of the...", you'd have a point, but you don't.

You can take up the multiple posts with DPR's webware master.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

PieterB: I'd rather like to see high resoltion jpegs from different high-end cameras and toplenses with the exif data stripped off and see if anybody can really tell which pics was made with which camera. I rather doubt that any Leica fan can spot the pics made by the Leica.

MP:

Which Leica did you set down next to your Mac?

And which Mac laptop was it?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 15:29 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

eno2: This is an over expensive brick!

Xentinus:

Have you used the SL and its lenses?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 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:

""What I'm missing is a clear statement that the lenses are superior compared to the ones from Nikon and Canon" This is missing for the very simple reason it's not true. Would that be true, it would show in the pictures, but it doesn't."

All you're showing is your lack of experience with optically better lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 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.

Michael S.

Do you own the longer Leica S zoom?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 15:25 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 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.

Tical:

No, they [Nikon and Canon] don't.

All you've proven is a lack of familiarity with better lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "I will never touch one", and yet you feel the urge to denigrate.

Get back to us when Canikon makes optically competitive lenses. They could, other lenses makers, Samsung/Optron +Olympus, prove it possible.

nerd2:

Optically competitive lenses hardly refers only to "resolving power".

All you've done is prove you don't know much about decent lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:42 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)

bryPT:

"I will never touch one", and yet you feel the urge to denigrate.

Get back to us when Canikon makes optically competitive lenses. They could, other lenses makers, Samsung/Optron +Olympus, prove it possible.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:34 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)

"I will never touch one", and yet you feel the urge to denigrate.

Get back to us when Canikon makes optically competitive lenses. They could, other lenses makers, Samsung/Optron +Olympus, prove it possible.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:10 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

lightandaprayer: @HowaboutRAW

109 comments (and counting. . .) out of 577 total about the Leica SL.

And you aren't being paid by Leica. . .

Gawd Man, you need to get a life. Seriously. . .

marmotto:

And what do you think your me-too-ism says about you?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 14:00 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 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.

"I will never touch one", and yet you feel the urge to denigrate.

Get back to us when Canikon makes optically competitive lenses. They could, other lenses makers, Samsung/Optron +Olympus, prove it possible.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)

JakeB:

It's a repeated claim about Leica.

I'll explain how to post so next time..

Put quotation marks around "first".

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 13:34 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

JakeB:

It's a repeated claim about Leica.

I'll explain how to post so next time..

Put quotation marks around "first".

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 13:27 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (689 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

Bombastic:

"You buy Leica because you want a red dot."

No you buy a Leica because you want to use Leica lenses. And some of those cost more than $6000.

You don't seem real familiar with Leica gear.

Hasselblad is not a lens maker. Never has been.

We're not talking about shooting movies.

Is Panavision a lens maker? Thought Hollywood used say Zeiss, Cooke, and there are others, Leica included. (Yes, Leica makes cine lenses.)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 13:25 UTC
Total: 15845, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »