HowaboutRAW

Joined on Sep 1, 2011

Comments

Total: 15824, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

WongFeiHong: Cons: Heavy and unbalanced with native lenses

Did this same Cons appear similarly in Sony exchangeable mirrorless cameras?

I think the longer Leica SL zoom is quite well balanced on the SL body.

I tried that Sony G 70-200 on an A7RII, it was a bit clunkly.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 02:18 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

utphoto,

The fact that you cite DXO's sensor scores says it all, and it's not good.

Those scores are understood to be a joke.

You can find ISO 25,600 DNGs shot with the SL at DPR.

I will not be sharing my raws. I'm quite certain of my conclusion, it was the DPR raw that suggested there had a been a big improvement in the performance of the SL at higher ISOs with later firmware.

DXO, crap. That's bad. Do they actually test sensors or are they still using that garbage modeling system?

Now in case you wonder, right DXO's lens testing is much better.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 02:00 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka84:

Don't imply inaccurately that I said Leica, or Zeiss, cover the whole range of focal lengths produced by Canikon.

"Leica makes luxury products and we should treat them as such." Don't use the word "luxury" if you want to be treated respectfully regarding Leica.

"Leica makes some decent optics." Sad.

"Leica accessories are insanely expensive." I'm sorry, where is anyone commenting on Leica accessories. Batteries ain't accessories.

The older SigmaART 85mm isn't real special, why do you think it was replaced?(The new one could be, but I've barely seen raws shot with it. So I'll refrain from commenting.)

"See, I can play this game too. Let's compare something more common, like 35/1.4. So, perhaps the new 35L'II is the best there is, for now, isn't it? Any objections?"

It's unlikely given Canon's not great 85mm f/1.2. Stopped down a good bit, say to f/5.6, that 35mm Canon L is probably pretty good. That's the general pattern with Canon's good lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 01:51 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

noirdesir:

LensRental certainly does some good bench testing of lenses. As you acknowledge the Leicas score better, the good Leicas.

There's a bit more to lenses than scores, it's called image quality.

Most of the Canikon telephotos aren't great. Some are. I'm more familiar with the Nikons than the Canons, it's pretty clear that Canikon doesn't understand something about light that Leica, amongst others, does. (Now Nikon may finally be figuring it out. Sigma is on the way.)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 01:41 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 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?

TL:

"Leica's problem is that they're a serious NIH company. They could just use a Sony 24MP sensor but nooooooo."

For higher ISOs this SL, with later firmware, is better than the Sony A7RII, the Nikon D750, and the Sony A7II. (And the D810, and Pentax K1). Those bodies all use Sony sensors.

It's a good idea to not rely on one manufacturer for all full framed sensors.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 00:45 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 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....

NemanRa:

"New Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 might be the best FF standard lens at the moment." It's a good lens, it is sharp. It doesn't have especially good colour.

There are several better 50mm f/1.4 lenses that are better than it optically. Two are Leicas, one is the Zeiss Milvus 50mm, another is the SigmaART 50 f/1.4.

Try not assuming the SonyZeiss hasn't been tried.

Oh and irony, the SonyZeiss 50mm f/1.4 for the A mount system is optically better than this FE mount lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 00:14 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 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!

FodgeandDurn:

"A few people have made the point that JPEG engines are a large part of the R&D you pay for in your camera. "

Tell that to Sony.

Now true, the jpeg engine in a pro Nikon like the D5 is likely very good. The last pro Nikon I tried for out of camera jpeg was the D3S, it was excellent.

"Honestly the 'you should always shoot RAW' argument ought to have died several years ago. RAW is for low light, critical work, and where banding is likely to be a risk if you want to edit much."

No, raw is for white balance, exposure, highlights, shadows, and colour. Don't post such preposterous claims if you don't want them easily shot down.

Then comes noise control.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 00:06 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: In film era, both Leica lenses and cameras were perfect products.
In digital era, Leica is only excellence in optics.
May be Leica should learn more from ARRI AG how to change the business model.

noirdesir:

No, it doesn't. The Nikon 105mm f/1.4 is only very good.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:58 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: If we did a blind test with professionals and took away the red dot, then told the testers that this camera costs $6600USD, I wonder how many would say they want to buy one?

dash2k8:

Would your proposed test be without lenses?

I find it to be comfortable enough.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:55 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthias jurisch: The biggest market for Leica cameras is Asia...specifically Japan and China. A few years ago I was in Tokyo and I can say from my own experience that the Japanese are crazy (nuts) about Leica cameras. There is even a exclusive Leica Photoclub in Tokyo..
The upbeat photostore where I buy my Canon gear from here in Berlin also has one of the best Leica collections in Europe and the salesman told me that the best Leica customers are tourists from Japan, China, Russia, England and North America...very few Germans buy into the Leica system...to me it seems that Made in Germany is the strongest selling point...

keepreal:

There were not great optically Leitz lenses long before the Panasonic deal.

Example the West German made 90mm f/4.0 M mount.

Then in 2004, Leica basically went under. It's a couple of different companies now.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

ecka,

It's easy enough to see the optical betterness of decent Leica and Zeiss lenses.

Try not insulting people in you rush to defend Canikon.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:41 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

ABM Barry: I think this was an honest review on a Leica for a change basically calling "a spade a spade"
Starting of with: .."The sensor performance of the SL isn't quite class leading"
then on down through, ... bad ergonomics! (OK without a lens mounted), poor jpegs, 7/10 AF only in bright conditions, one of their 3 lenses 50mm f1.4 can't focus on anything other than still life and sleeping dogs .. very slowly and at a cost of $5000!!!!,
Can't take it out on windy days as the "Paint" will blow off? ALL other camera manufacturers know how to coat their products with tough attractive finishes that last?
If this camera was marketed by any other name other than Leica and priced sub-$2000, .. I doubt it would make a profit? (3 lenses 2 being usable, professional? it's a joke)

And with the later firmware, this SL is a better higher ISO body, shooting raw, than the D750, the K1, the 6D, the A7RII and the A7II.

Hard to beat the optically of better Leica lenses.

Do you really think that those buying this camera would shoot jpeg only?

"50mm f1.4 can't focus on anything other than still life and sleeping dogs .. very slowly and at a cost of $5000!!!!,"

Have you tried this lens? I have. Had no problem AFing it onto people moving.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:32 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 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. . .

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

No.

Hugo808 beat you to it by nearly a day.

"Gawd Man, you need to get a life. Seriously. . ." Worry about your own troubles.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:28 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

ecka:

You're assuming it's only a frame count thing with that "math".

I don't care what the OEM battery for your camera costs.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 22:32 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nixyz: Let's wait for the panasonic version.

noirdesir:

The SL, just by way of example, doesn't likely use a Panasonic (Towerjazz) sensor.

So your "electronics" claim is a reach.

Fujitsu (which is not Fuji) is understood to make most processing computers for digital cameras.

"I don't think the majority of Leica lenses are better than the best from Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Sigma." Depends how you count majority. And how you define Zeiss lenses.

Neither Canon nor Nikon really make lenses that equal better Leica or Zeisses. Sigma is better than Canikon but still isn't in the game. This may change.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: Sony A7 with a different badge.

PieterB:

In a big city in the US.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 21:54 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

Bombastic:

"There's nothing magical about Leica. In the far superiorly critical fields of cinema-class videography, medical instrumentation and science, ", try shooting with better Leica lenses.

True Zeiss and Olympus make very good lenses too. Like Zeiss, Olympus, and others, Leica microscopes are still sought out. But they are made by a different company called Leica.

I have yet to see really amazing Fuji lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: If we did a blind test with professionals and took away the red dot, then told the testers that this camera costs $6600USD, I wonder how many would say they want to buy one?

utphoto:

All you're saying is that you've not shot raws with this Leica SL.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

DVT80111: Sony A7 with a different badge.

PieterB:

I see Leica M bodies every week or two.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 21:44 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

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

utphoto:

"How aboutRAW: Check the comparator again. The K1 is superior in terms of detail at high ISO. At 12500 the SL is softer, indicating heavy noise reduction, with about the same amount of chroma noise. The K1 delivers more detail."

That's highly debatable. I'll stick with my raws, ones that show human hair at 30 feet with the SL+zoom at ISO 25K. Have dozens of my own K1 raws too.

Drop the pixels shift silliness. You do know that you can't use that with movement in the scene?

You read like people who think more MPs equals a better camera. And I like the K1 just fine.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 21:42 UTC
Total: 15824, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »