Leica APO-Summicron-SL 90mm F2 ASPH sample gallery

misspiggy01:

I will look but false color is not the same a moire. There is not file (DNG) 28 in the PhotographyBlog set. I will NOT look at out of camera jpegs.

Just downloaded 13, will check it when I get home.

hypnotic is someone who feels, and acts upon, the urge to stalk and attack me.

Numbers are from dp samples. Couldn't find numbers on photoblog samples.

missp:

13 in the PhotographyBlog count has a prism effect in the model's hair, and eyelash, it's not moire.

Human hair will act as a prism under some circumstances.

Regards DP "28", what's the file number, or the last 3 digits? DPR doesn't exactly make counting through to say 28 easy.

The SL scores 88 on DXOMark

But then, given the capital position of Leica versus Sony, it's not surprising that Leica sensors are not as good as Sony sensors.

In any case, the point is entirely valid. There is absolutely no point mounting amazing glass on a class lagging sensor.

Perhaps mount it on a Sony A7riii, with an adapter.

@HowaboutRAW

if you check the link to photography blog you posted you will see what i´m talking about. the model with the black t-shirt displays what i said.

misspiggy01:

I see the moire in one of the PhotographyBlog model with black shirt images, but I don't see it in another.

Nowhere do I see the eyelash moire.

Don't see moire in the DPR fabric samples. Therefore I have to suppose it's a one time thing.

Oh, and I have hundreds of my own raws shot with this body, some include fabric and human hair; I've never seen moire.

You are nothing, if not predictable.

I trust DXOMark. I do not trust your subjective and highly biased opinion.

hypnotic:

It's not a great surprise that someone of your ilk would trust the DXO sensor "score" in place of trying the gear and getting raws from various sources.

Of course until about 2 years ago, DXO was clear on its website that much of the score is based on running modeling software.

"I do not trust your subjective and highly biased opinion [,and I won't look at the raws here or from PhotographyBlog, even if both websites have posted hundreds shot with the SL over the last few years].

Stay in your narrow information lane.

Yeah, it's not a surprise that I would trust an established testing site, in preference to the anecdote of someone who has established time after time that he is biased.

Next you'll be claiming that Leica sensors outperform Sony sensors.

hypnotic:

"Yeah, it's not a surprise that I would trust an established testing site, in preference to the anecdote of someone who has established time after time that he is biased."

Yes, it's established that DXO isn't trustworthy, and does model running in place of testing (right the admission has now been removed from the DXO website).

You've misused "anecdote", I'm not posting an anecdote about raws that you can download. Clearly, and not really a surprise, you're not interested in gear. You'd be in a more valid realm, if you'd downloaded say a hundred raws from the SL and found problems.

"Next you'll be claiming that Leica sensors outperform Sony sensors."

There you go inventing what you want me to say. Not a surprise given your propensity to cite the likes of DXO sensor scores.

Now one thing you clearly don't know: Leica has used Sony APSC sensors for more than a decade.

Your problem is not so much not knowing anything but a score, it's your unwillingness to learn.

Irakly Shanidze:

Image 12 (DNG, not jpeg) definitely shows moire on the black shirt with white printing. No eyelash examples.

It appears to be a one off thing. As I posted, already, I've never seen it and I have my own raws and years of DPR and PhotographyBlog raws to go by:

https://www.photographyblog.com/previews/leica_apo_summicron_sl_90mm_f2_asph_photos

With version 1 of the SL firmware there were higher ISO banding problems, but those disappeared with V2. (Leica just released V3 of the firmware.)

Get over yourself, you bloviating, narcissistic waste of oxygen.

hypnotic:

"Get over yourself, you bloviating, narcissistic waste of oxygen."

So that's a "I'll not look at raws from whatever camera, and I didn't know that Sony has supplied Leica APSC sensors since the first 12MP X".

Not a surprise that you're so incurious about what a camera body/sensor can do.

Or perhaps you were addressing Irakly Shanidze and his knowledge of the SL body--note his comment about the now medium range zoom lens.

You know what, it's 0116; I just spent 6 hours writing a complex bespoke report about a guy who committed suicide; for which I had to interview the guy's sister and daughter; and I'm in a real bad mood, and am not even remotely inclined to entertain the pathetic and transparent attempts at self-validation of a worthless old man.

hypnotic:

"You know what, it's 0116; I just spent 6 hours writing a complex bespoke report about a guy who committed suicide; "

That's not an excuse for not looking at raws from say the SL over years.

Yet you feel the need to post things like this here:

"for which I had to interview the guy's sister and daughter; and I'm in a real bad mood, and am not even remotely inclined to entertain the pathetic and transparent attempts at self-validation of a worthless old man."

You could have waited, and downloaded say 100 SL raws (it's not a new camera), and then extracted say 15 that interested you. Then commented. But you didn't.

Instead you went with simple minded score quotation, and then when challenged with facts about the Leica SL (and other Leicas) and the "scoring" system, you attacked.

Now you make illegitimate excuses for your bad behavior.

Seriously, you really are utterly worthless. I'm not being paid to feel sorry for you.

hypnotic:

"Seriously, you really are utterly worthless."

Still engaging in personal attack in place of looking at DNGs from this Leica I see. So you've learnt nothing. Not a surprise.

You're still utterly worthless. And you know it.

hypnotic:

"You're still utterly worthless. And you know it."

What I know is that you seem to think my comments worthy of comment.

I know that you think so highly of your own opinion that you believe your subjective opinion is more valid than established testing site.

I know you spend all day every day on here arguing over trivialities with random strangers.

I know that you have zero photographic or artistic skill.

I know that you have a persecution complex. The question of whether you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder could go either way; but there is currently insufficient information to address that question. However, I'm inclined to suggest that what could be seen as narcissism is in actuality a manifestation of low self-esteem and a desperate need for self-validation.

hypnotic:

"I know that you have zero photographic or artistic skill."

Right, sure, you're such a credible source. Sarcasm.

"I know that you have a persecution complex. "

You do like to stalk me and attack me personally.

"The question of whether you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder could go either way; but there is currently insufficient information to address that question."

Too much education in psycho-babble for you.

"However, I'm inclined to suggest that what could be seen as narcissism is in actuality a manifestation of low self-esteem and a desperate need for self-validation."

Methinks you doth protest too much.

I suggest two things for a start, some gear handling lessons, and if you're actually interested in what highend digital still cameras can do, then download raws from said bodies, like, but not limited to, this Leica SL, and avoid quoting scores.

You poor fool. I've done thousands of interviews, and I'm very good at what I do.

I don't much care what you think.

hypnotic:

"You poor fool. I've done thousands of interviews, and I'm very good at what I do."

So that's a "Really, I'm smart, Mikey".

"I don't much care what you think."

Apparently you do, you stalked me, and you don't like me challenging you with facts like "DXO sensor scores are next to useless", or "download and extract raws don't go by silly score, use gear".

Also I suspect what you call "interviews" very likely isn't process of understanding people; it's a process of ticking off boxes and putting people into severely limited categories. Cliche bad "therapy".

No, that was a response to your 'too much education in psychobabble' rubbish. If you were not completely obtuse, you would realize that.

hypnotic:

Oh, I understood what you were responding to.

"If you were not completely obtuse,"

There you go again with the insult, saying "I got nothing like a real answer".

But I'm not the one who posted the "educated" psychobabble rubbish.

Yeah, well it just so happens that I have tertiary level education in psychology, and that I'm absolutely correct about you.

The fact that you have no self-awareness doesn't change that I am correct.

But hey, you can proceed to try and tell us all how Leica sensors are better than Sony sensors.

Fool

I imagine that it's incredibly lonely being you.

hyp:

"Yeah, well it just so happens that I have tertiary level education in psychology, and that I'm absolutely cirrect about you."

Yeah, so believable, not. Confirmation, "tertiary" means "I know a noun or 3".

"The fact that you have no self-awareness doesn't change that I am correct."

I'm plenty aware of your interest in stalking and attacking me.

"But hey, you can proceed to try and tell us all how Leica sensors are better than Sony sensors."

There you go proposing something I've never broached, of course you sink to posting lies about my comments, it fits with your other posts. And it's not even the first time you've tried to get away with that exact lie about my claims in this thread. (Ironically you still don't seem to know that Leica has used Sony sensors for APSC cameras for more than 10 years.)

"Fool"

True, you are kind of foolish trying to get away with reposting that same lie about what I'll hypothetically claim about Leica (not a sensor company) sensors.

hypnotic:

"I imagine that it's incredibly lonely being you."

You sure do seem to do a lot of thinking about what you conceive to be my condition.

Were I you, and I'm not, I'd worry more about gear handling skills and lack of basic digital photo knowledge, the citation of the DXO sensor score was laughable.

As I said, you have a persecution complex.

You're just not as important as you think you are, and your only redeeming feature is that you are vaguely interesting, in that you are clearly suffering from a psychological disorder.

Now, given that you have just admitted that Leica sensors are class lagging, why would you spend obscene amounts of money on superb optics and mount them on a sub-standard sensor?

Derp

hypnotic:

"Now, given that you have just admitted that Leica sensors are class lagging, why would you spend obscene amounts of money on superb optics and mount them on a sub-standard sensor?"

Okay, since you're unclear on digital photo gear, having the best sensor isn't the only important thing, you can look into the famously good results with good lenses from the low DXO scored M9.

Also, you keep ignoring the fact that Leica does use Sony sensors in APSC bodies. Talk about derp.

Then by your "logic" the Sony RX1RII would be a better and more popular camera than the Leica Q; it isn't.

There's a lot more to digital cameras than sensors. I really suggest you do some raw file checking and some actual digital camera shooting, of stills, before continuing to spout your ignorance at me. Derp.

Ah, so you're claiming the SL has an APSC sized sensor?

Are you really going to just start making things up in a lame effort to best me now?

FLruckas:

"Howie's hijacking again.....
:=(
He needs to stick with his rechargeable batteries and throw his keyboard out the window."

Still mis-using the word "hijack" I see. And still allowing that voice telling you to stalk me to take hold of you.

Given that you routinely misuse the word "stalk", I wouldn't go criticising the misuses of others...

FLruckas:

"Howie's hijacking again.....
:=(
He needs to stick with his rechargeable batteries and throw his keyboard out the window...."

Still can't control your urge to stalk me I see.

And still don't apprehend what hijacking is. HypnoticT posted his/her attacks against me. So I responded. Not my failing there.

hypnotic:

"Given that you routinely misuse the word "stalk", I wouldn't go criticising the misuses of others..."

Nope, I'm using "to stalk" correctly, it exactly describes your behavior and that of FLruckas. Now you each take a slightly different approach to your stalking of me.

"Ah, so you're claiming the SL has an APSC sized sensor?"

And out comes further lies about my comments. Not a surprise, and I already named some of the Leica cameras that use Sony APSC sensors, SL wasn't one.

"Are you really going to just start making things up in a lame effort to best me now?"

Besting you occured months ago. Here today, well yesterday, it came once you posted the DXO sensor score in place of looking at raws from this Leica. Then there was the preposterous implication that the sensor is absolutely everything in digital photography. (You should try telling that to Canon, I'm sure the company will pick up and leave the market. Not.)

Let's just see what critical elements are missing:

(g) acting in any other way that could reasonably be expected—

(i) to cause physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm; or

(ii) to arouse apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person—

with the intention of causing physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm, or of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person.

And yet, you keep coming back, and back, and back, and back. Repeatedly provoking arguments with all and sundry.

Yeah, I'm sure that you're not really receiving a neurochemical reward each and every time someone pays attention to you; rather, you are clearly frightened for your safety.

I'm probably being a little unfair towards you; those reports that I write, well they're intended to be adduced as evidence. If you really want to argue about things like legal definition with me, you are going to have a hard time.

hypnotic:

"And yet, you keep coming back, and back, and back, and back. Repeatedly provoking arguments with all and sundry."

Yet I'm not the one who started out with the attacks; that was you against me. That was this above:

"Get over yourself, you bloviating, narcissistic waste of oxygen."

You could have just agreed that I wasn't gonna accept your judgement regards this sensor based on the laughable claims about next to useless sensor scoring from DXO, but you went on the attack.

g) yes, your expected behavior is real expected, which I get is a redundancy.

i) you do seem to have this propensity to bring up self harm, but so far you've avoided your worst behavior in that regard toward me here today.

ii) You are an online stalker of me, I don't feel any physical threat from you. But I'm gonna call out, and quote, your attacks on me.

That was a remarkably jumbled mess, even by your standards.

Yeah, that's the way, you allege an offense, where the elements of that offense are not fulfilled, by your own admission.

You are strikingly clueless.

hypnotic:

"I'm probably being a little unfair towards you; those reports that I write, well they're intended to be adduced as evidence. If you really want to argue about things like legal definition with me, you are going to have a hard time."

I have no doubt that within the context that you write them, the reports use the psychobabble correctly.

And still DXO sensor scores be next to useless.

hypnotic:

"That was a remarkably jumbled mess, even by your standards."

There you go again, digging yourself in deeper.

"You are strikingly clueless."

That you don't like said documentation doesn't vitiate my point.

I sincerely hope you never try to help anyone with the verbiage that you spew.

"Yeah, that's the way, you allege an offense, where the elements of that offense are not fulfilled, by your own admission."

I documented your attack on my persona. The stalking came before.

Yes, we've already established that your subjective opinion is more valid than the results from an established testing site (and here's the truly important part), which uses consistent testing techniques.

Yeah, you're awesome.

And remember, you assert that the Maestro II sensors are superior to the current Sony sensors. It is quite extraordinary that you are determined to continue arguing the point.

FLruckas:

"Howie's just a Pinocchio wannabe...
Craves the attention of such a beloved Disney character...
Now about the nose....
Hmmmm.
I wonder what all those keystrokes do to that."

There you go again with the anti-Semitic imagery. It's been awhile since you posted that crap.

DXO sensor scores are still next to useless, and the Leica SL, when shooting raw, really doesn't have a moire problem.

What was it you said, Leica's APSC sensors are made by Sony. But wait, the SL uses a full frame Maestro sensor; which are designed for Leica by the Belgian company CMOSIS, and made by STMicroelectronics in Grenoble.

Care to make more stuff up?

hyp:

"Yes, we've already established that your subjective opinion is more valid than the results from an established testing site (and here's the truly important part), which uses consistent testing techniques."

DXO really doesn't do much sensor testing; that's the point you keep missing.
Another thing you miss, the rule applies to any sensor: It is much better to get a couple hundred raws than to believe whatever (good/bad) DXO claims about a sensor.

"And remember, you assert that the Maestro II sensors are superior to the current Sony sensors."

Couple things, you're a liar, I have never said that Leica full framed bodies have better sensors that Sony full framed sensors. Then Maestro is a Leica name for processor, it's almost assuredly by Fujitsu. Proving yet again you know very little about digital photo gear.

"It is quite extraordinary that you are determined to continue arguing the point."

When you post such astounding lies, you're gonna get called on them.

FLruckas:

"Howie just can't understand how he's such a schmuck..."

That noun at the end doesn't mean so one who calls attention to your bad behavior and repeated use of anti-Semitic imagery to attack others.

hypnotic:

"What was it you said, Leica's APSC sensors are made by Sony. But wait, the SL uses a full frame Maestro sensor"

Again, Maestro is not a sensor branding or type? You're also lying about what I posted.

Care to make more stuff up? Irony.

"But wait, the SL uses a full frame Maestro sensor; which are designed for Leica by the Belgian company CMOSIS, and made by STMicroelectronics in Grenoble."

Um, again you've confused processor with sensor, and I believe you've reversed countries. The company name is correct though.

FLruckas:

"Howie has reversed the hole in the ground with a certain part of his anatomy because he obviously doesn't know the difference.
:=)"

Disparagement of me doesn't abrogate the fact of your repeated use of anti-Semitic imagery.

Yeah, I went to source material and cut and paste.

But as always, you know better than everyone.

The funny thing is that I understand you; and you know I understand you. Sad pathetic old man.

hypnotic:

"Yeah, I went to source material and cut and paste."

And still Maestro is a processor not a sensor type. Pretty basic Leica digital term there. Well known. Easy to verify.

Here for example, yet you posted your Leica ignorance, and more importantly lied about what I had said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1192093-REG/leica_10850_sl_typ_601_mirrorless.html

You've not managed to paste any posts of mine in.

"The funny thing is that I understand you; and you know I understand you. "

Yes, I understand that you have an essential need in your being to lie about what I've claimed. It's more than pathetic. (Or perhaps it's the onset of something clinical. Then it's not pathetic, it's just sad that you don't know your mind is growing clouded.)

I think you're projecting, yet again.

You really have no idea just how insignificant you are in my life.

"Something clinical". That's a weak attempt at echoing, even by your inept standards.

scenlt:

No, the flower raws have beautiful colour.

I suggest you download them and extract them.

What do you use @scenelt?

'Almost anyone can afford a Leica'...uh...wrong. This lens/camera combo is over $11k....not sure I know too many people who can afford that.

DamianF1.......you amaze me, you should go on Mastermind, specialist subject ‘stating the bleeding obvious’......

As if anyone would think you’d ditch your compatible E mount Sony lens and replace it with a L mount Leica lens to attach to your Sony camera based on the sample images shown.

I, like you, won’t be purchasing this L mount lens to attach to my M mount Leica M10 and I’m sure there are many Nikon and Canon camera owners that won’t be purchasing this lens to fit on their camera either........

"Doesn't change the fact of what the better Leica lenses.. can do."

Except no one has proven such a claim.

"Do you know what nebulous means?..These subtleties are easy enough to see, even with a half decent 8 bit monitor."

How does you disagreeing with me that such a thing can be seen equals me not understanding what nebulous means? Considering that I disagree with your view that such a thing can be seen clearly shows that I do understand the meaning of the word.

"Better than a good Canikon lens? No, not really."

No absolutes but generally that was the case. For the price paid that should be expected. Of course today you have the likes of Sigma doing mostly the same at a significantly lower price, so it shouldn’t be surprising that Canon and Nikon can also make lenses that can compete well against Leica. I'd bet every time you wouldn’t be able to consistently tell the difference between photos taken from the best of each manufacturer's lenses regarding the color claim made.

CR:

To complicate matters: Camera and lens firmware version information would be helpful. In the case of this Leica SL, there were big higher ISO NR improvements with firmware V2.

It's hard to imagine when you live in a region full of aerospace and computer engineers, but in the real world very, very few people have the gift of logical, linear thinking and couldn't recognize the pattern in a series of pictures without a lot of clues and cues from the poster.

I'm sorry if that stung a bit, boys. I've been stung too. After I got over it I took the useful portion of the C&C on offer and improved to the near godlike status I now enjoy :^) Seattle is hardly short of worthy subjects.

@Carey, Thanks for your answer, I think you're a very flexible and reasonable guy, and that's not common. Lately you have talked about two outstanding lenses (Pentax 50mm and Leica 90mm) and a medium one (Fuji). Many times, your galleries look like family photos, stroll photos, and that's very nice, but can not be the samples to review a lens. Those pictures are a wonderful adding, but the core should be something with a more precise objective. Some times it isn't that your photos aren't good, is just that they don't show the lens possibilities in a more structured way. I wouldn't eliminate family and friends photos, I just would add a more basic variety and structured samples. Makers got to modes because of something. Thanks anyway and keep the always interesting work (even if I sometimes don't agree) up.

https://m.dpreview.com/news/4020837793/pentax-fa-50mm-f1-4-sdm-aw-lens-shipping-in-july-for-1199

PDD:

That's an announcement of a shipping date.

That link has nothing to do with my request for samples from this new Pentax 50mm.

Re-read my question.

Also note that this DPR Leica samples page has samples (DNGs included) one can download; it's not simply photos of the Leica 90mm lens.

Click image to launch gallery

PDD:

"Click image to launch gallery"

There is NO GALLERY of Pentax 50mm samples.

There are promotional images of this new lens from Pentax. NOT IMAGES captured with it.

Do you have any idea what a sample gallery looks like on this website?

You can look at this Leica SL 90mm sample gallery as an example.

LOL those pentax "samples" are just 2,5mpx, some of them even go as low as 0,3mpx. Wow, that's some very good samples to judge lens performance.

ozturert:

Probably all true. But the fact that PDD couldn't link samples from the new Pentax and apparently doesn't understand what samples entail kind of makes the whole enterprise a bust.

Also PDD apparently doesn't understand the significant focal length difference.

When samples get released from the Pentax, I'll be happy to download them and look at them.

Launch the image gallery on this page:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/k/standard/hdpentax-dfa-50/

There are some 36MP images shot with the new lens, on a K1-II. Images even have their EXIFs intact.

I'll not debate both lenses IQ, both to their own.

bayindirh:

Thank you, that's a start. But I am needless to say looking for raws shot with that new Pentax.

You silly.

No and no. But Portuguese engineers really know how to make an expensive piece of glass... 🤔

ZeBebito:

"No and no. But Portuguese engineers really know how to make an expensive piece of glass.."

Psst: That's production engineers. It's likely Minolta doing the AF lens design in cooperation with Leica optics types, who know the secret that Konica-Minolta doesn't know. There's a patent floating around for this lens, it's KM. (Or the 50mm SL is. Panasonic likely did the tubes and motors for the biggest SL zoom--Leica did the optics.)

Anyhow, built by Leica in Portugal, with some final assembly and testing in Germany. So explicitly not a Portuguese piece of glass if you're speaking of the design and engineering. Production on the other hand, very likely so.

Cue up: "but there's this tour of the Leica factory...I'll link a PDF that has pictures".

@RAW: "with some final assembly and testing in Germany."
Yeah, final assembly meaning put them in their boxes? lol

Good idea, I should add the link to the Portugal factory since you keep denying the existence of it.