Leica SL gallery update

To be brutally honest, I don't think this lens is within Otus 55mm's image quality range.

So yes, take a Nikon D750 (also a 24 Mp sensor), get a good 1.4/50, there you go.

FLruckas:

"You won't need an Otus lens on a 5DS to take a picture sharper than any picture that can be taken with this camera....."

Likely true, however not all the SL lenses are out, so you're guessing.

No, your other problem remains, colour, any you do need an Otus to equal anything like this colour on that Canon.

Do learn a few things about lenses before posting, you keep embarrassing yourself with ignorance.

Not a guess...
"not all the SL lenses are out"
Vaporware....
It doesn't matter what lenses come out.
You can't make a lens for the SL that will be sharper than a relatively normal lens on a 5DS.
It's impossible.
The 5DS has double the megapixels.
And you can buy one today.
At half the cost.
Your examples, as usual, are vaporware, outliers.
:-)

MikeF4Black:

"So yes, take a Nikon D750 (also a 24 Mp sensor), get a good 1.4/50, there you go."

Well, if that 50mm f/1.4 is a Zeiss Milvus mounted on the D750, right things are pretty close to this SL lens.

Oh, that's not what you meant.

Sorry, less than great colour/light is easy to see with Nikon's better lenses, there are starting to be exceptions, but not in the 50mm type.

Nor does the SigmaART 50mm compete with Leica and Zeiss for colour.

Now there are some other possibilities, but one doesn't offer a 50mm in Nikon's mount, and the other possibilities are outlier to say the least, and have manufacturing consistency issues, and I'm not sure these manual focus lenses come in 50mm.

FLruckas:

"Vaporware...." do you even know the meaning of the word? Answer: apparently not.

"You can't make a lens for the SL that will be sharper than a relatively normal lens on a 5DS". Sure you can.

More pixels doesn't making things automatically sharper.

"Your examples, as usual, are vaporware, outliers."

"Outlier" doesn't mean "vaporware". Leica has lenses scheduled to release for the SL system. And Leica has been sticking to this schedule.

The more you post the more your ignorance of lenses shows.

The Canon 5DSR is an excellent camera, Canon L lenses are a weakness for it if you care about optical performance.

As clearly you missed elsewhere in this section:

I just retried a Canon L 85mm f/1.2 on a 5DSR last week. Wide open the colour is a problem and it's not sharp--nor be it especially sharp stopped down bit. That is one of Canon's best lenses. It doesn't come close to this SL lens.

Do stop pretending to be familiar with better lenses and gear.

"Outlier doesn't mean"
You should know what outlier means...
It's the exception...
And you always using the exception as the rule.....
Your exceptions are not the rules.
You attempt to bend them to be the rules.
They're called outliers for a reason and you need to learn that.
On a 5DS it doesn't matter.
It has double the megapixels and that is what matters.
You keep ignoring that fact.
It's very convenient for you to ignore important facts.
It's because you're running an agenda.
You're not seeking truth.
You think you already have it.
And it's not truth you're pushing.
It's just your egotistical agenda.

@HowaboutRaw: to be more precise, I find neither the sensor nor the lens used here to be anything special, and goes for the sensor in particular.

Nikon, I'll admit that, doesn't have a very good 50 (the 58 is special in a special way), so we're on the 50 Art (not a fan) or the manual Zeiss offerings. Either of those two will make the 750 shine I think.

You ignore facts all the time...
The fact is the 5DS has double the megapixels.
It will be sharper than any lens you can put on an SL.
It will have much better color fidelity as well because it has double the sampling size.
And it will cost half as much.
These are facts that you ignore all the time.
You're running an agenda.
And it's not a fact based agenda.
Oh.. you walked into BH last week and touch some camera and magically based on your touching it become an expert?
And it wasn't a Leica this time?
What's going on?
:-)

MikeF4Black,

The 58mm Nikon is decent optimally, it's not amazing like better Leica lenses, this SL 50mm included.

Yes the Milvus 50mm on the D750 is amazing.

FLruckas:

"You ignore facts all the time...
The fact is the 5DS has double the megapixels."

Where did I dispute that?

This doesn't follow, and shows your ignorance, also your incapacity to read my point about the L 85mm f/1.2:

"It will be sharper than any lens you can put on an SL."

"It will have much better color fidelity as well because it has double the sampling size."

I never said anything about color fidelity. Also more mega pixels doesn't equal better color fidelity.

"And it will cost half as much." This is true, and so far the only fact you have posted.

"Oh.. you walked into BH last week and touch some camera and magically based on your touching it become an expert?"

"Touch"?

I don't make claims about gear having only just touched it, except say about weight.

Your ignor...ance of the facts is based on
the fact that you really can't understand them
or
you're running an agenda.
And don't respond with "you're the one doing this"
That is what Trump said to Hillary...
And it's getting really, really, old.
You've used it to death.
You don't have anything new and original.
Even a magpie can do better.

@Howie & Fluckie: great fun following your exchange; keep it up for entertainment's sake.

@HowaboutRaw: your definition of excellence may vary from mine. In any case, I don't see anything special in the combination of thís sensor and thís lens, judging by these images. A 750 with the Distagon 50/1.4 would imo not produce lesser quality images, by whatever measure.

#Mike...
Raw is like someone who grandiosely thinks he's a Myth Buster....
He doesn't get it when he's been debunked......
He just repeats his "alternate facts" over and over again....
He tries to change the subject....
And if that doesn't work he lowers himself to personal attacks....
He also touches a camera and ZAP!!! is an expert on that camera....
Especially if it's a Leica...

FLruckas:

"Your ignor...ance of the facts is based on
the fact that you really can't understand them
or..."

And you have yet to cite facts.

The fact remains that you got caught making up things I'd not said or done. There's a word for that.

"Myth Buster"? Clearly, you've not watched the show, it's pretty conformist. They also got caught lying enough on camera, that the show became a joke--with an over agenda.

"alternate facts"? Like having used this gear?

Again with the "touches" invention.

You remain ignorant of basic facts about lenses and camera bodies. Do try using gear before shooting your mouth off.

MikeF4Black:

"your definition of excellence may vary from mine. In any case, I don't see anything special in the combination of thís sensor and thís lens, judging by these images. A 750 with the Distagon 50/1.4 would imo not produce lesser quality images, by whatever measure."

The 50mm f/1.4 Distagon, not the Milvus, is nowhere near as sharp wide open as this Leica 50mm SL.

I owned that Zeiss lens, one had to stop it down to at least f/5.6 for it to be reasonably sharp. Excellent colour that Zeiss had/has.

Now, the D750 is a better higher ISO body than the SL, is lighter, and with AF lenses has better AF--and it's not like the Leica SL has bad AF.

So yes, put a Zeiss 50mm Milvus on that D750 and you'll be real close to the image quality capacity of the Leica SL with this Leica 50mm f/1.4. Now of course, the Zeiss is manual focus and the Leica is a better video camera than the Nikon D750.

@raw

"You remain ignorant of basic facts about lenses and camera bodies. Do try using gear before shooting your mouth off."

Personal attack.....

FLruckas,

That's not a personal attack, it's a remark on your ignorance.

You got caught lying about something I said. You added a noun to statement I made to radically change the meaning, this lie of yours demonstrated your ignorance of better lenses. (Albeit you're not alone in this basic ignorance.)

You pretended that pixel count is all there is to image sharpness. You did this more than once. This is an astounding piece of ignorance of digital photography on your part. This isn't anything subtle like lenses and colour/light.

Yes it is.

It's a personal attack and the message above is a peronal attack.

They continue.

You need to cool it.

FLruckas,

Demonstrating that you don't know of what you write isn't a personal attack.

Now calm down and stop abusing the meaning of language so as to get the "meaning" you want. I'll refrain here from the obvious personal attack I could turn this into.

See here your misuse of the word "vaporware" above for one other example of your abuse of language for your desired end.

Not enough time right now for a complete reply, but will put it this way:

This site makes enough money to hire all the extra staff / freelancers they need. I've been on that game long enough to know it doesn't cost real money, it really doesn't.

It wouldn't surprise me if they can actually find high end pros, models, styling, locations, etc for free.

As for the rest, try to find Nikon D3x's original samples (too lazy to check if they're still there on Nikon's site, probably they are), see if they're in the same league as those here, then come back.

The question is not about how superior those D3x samples are relative to DP review's.

The real question is if DP review cares, if they think it's worth the hassle, and if it brings anything to their table.

Not trying to put down DP review staff's efforts. There're a lot of great images presented here.

What do Nikon D3X samples posted by Nikon have to do with samples that DPR may have posted from that same camera?

Nikon almost always only posts jpegs. I barely ever look at jpegs.

Only relevant to my purposes, the D3X is not a strong higher ISO body.

DPR doesn't really make money, it's part of a much larger company that makes money, sometimes, sometimes not.

@Napoli - nice idea, but quite impractical. You're describing about $5000 worth of work and all of that just to review a camera. Get real dude.

Watch it...
The question traps have been set out.....
:-)
B

Steve, c'mon, we're not talking about my cousin's website, ain't we? This is DP review, the first place the entire world goes whenever interests are gear related.

I'm not asking to invite Annie Leibovitz to review the latest Nikon D5600, that was kinda obvious.

Just bring on some low to mid level pro photographers of any kind (fashion, wedding, landscape, whatever), which are often struggling 7 days a week, considering today's pro photography market.

They'd produce content for free just to showcase their work to a world wide audience. Most would never pass this chance, I know I wouldn't.

If not for free, for symbolic fees instead, you can bet on that.

If I ran this website, just 2 or 3 phone calls would be enough to get a dozen of interested pro colleagues.

Also, this is not just to review a camera. Improved samples is the kind of action that improves traffic, and improving traffic is what DP review wants at the end of the day.

I think you overestimate the resources available to DPR. People have always complained about DPR doing too few reviews, and the usual explanations they get, are lack of resources as well as the thoroughness of the reviews. And now you suggest that every review should involve pro fashion models, stylists, trips to nice landscape locations, real weddings and sport events? The extra cost, work and time required for this would only result in us getting fewer reviews.

Do you know of any other review site that does what you suggest? As part of their normal review process for every single camera? If not, there's likely a good reason for that.

@Steve, I certainly would. :D I have my connections, I could produce content (fashion in this case) without too much hassle. I'd volunteer for that! ;)

Problem is I live far away from the US, I don't think DP review would send me some cameras overseas by mail... :P

About the many difficulties regarding deadlines, well, those reviews are not produced in a week, right? Many of them take months anyway.

If they're taking their time, more samples do fit inside the deadline.

A fashion shoot, a wedding, a sport event, all of them only take 1 day of shooting each (but several more to plan, of course, as every other test they're performing equally does).

What's the point of better samples? Maybe to explore the best feature of each camera? When the D800 was released, it would've been awesome to see some world class landscapes, for example.

Maybe to make a point? Like the D3x samples did back then. Those samples were yelling "this is why this costs 8 grand, and not 2".

@Marcio - excuses excuses. But truly, I don't think you're idea is very sensible or practical. You would lengthen the already long wait for the reviews, increase the administrative red tape of getting them done and of course increase the cost. And for what? Who else does reviews with professional runway models and weddings? What photographer would be willing to do that for free? And about the weddings comment - never never never do a wedding with an untested camera!

Anyway, I'm not suggesting to worry about better samples for *every* new camera.

Worry about that only for the milestones, flagships, and upper level models. (D810, D5, 5Ds, 1Dx II, M10, A7r II, etc)

If no camera review site is doing this, that's why there's an open window just waiting to be explored.

@Steve, I've done a great deal of things in my career without having a world wide platform to showcase my work, imagine if I did. Please don't assume these are excuses.

"What photographer would be willing to do that for free?" It seems you haven't worked as a pro. Pros are struggling everywhere, up and down, left and right. They drool for chances such as these to showcase their work.

Besides, for a well connected pro, just a few phone calls and he's able to set a shooting without any real costs for him as well. Personally whenever I do stuff for my personal portfolio, or just testing new ideas, I can arrange a shooting for free including professional staff behind. C'mon, that's actually easy.

Weddings: no, the tester would never be part of the official team. It'd be an arrangement where the tester is just there to do his work, and provide images as extra material to the couple. No further responsibilities.

Guys, whatever, let's keep the cookie cutter samples.

@marcio - that makes a little more sense. but where would that stop? But the problem with what you're proposing is that it increases the administrative load significantly. As for weddings - stay away from my weddings you tester!

@Steve, as I said, just a few selected cameras could receive that special treatment, cameras that really gather attention, traffic flow and are proven to be worth the hassle.

Like the Df when it came out, the M10, the D800 which was this huge milestone, and flagships like D5 and 1Dx II.

What DP review would gain from that? Extra traffic flow, good for them.

Extra sales on Amazon (they're related, AFAIK), because people would feel "I've gotta have this camera" when they see amazing samples. (a bit like the D3x samples did with me back then)

And it would improve even further the perception this is a leader camera review site. More reason for people to visit here.

Well, I'm just suggesting these seeing from DP review's POV now. These points go well with their interests, I guess.

@Mario - let me clarify. If it's in addition to the regular treatment, that would be okay I think. But we still need the simple one that we have now because it equates to the photographer getting out of the way and letting me see what the camera is doing on it's own if that makes sense.

@ auni

You are totally oblivious to the fact that these are to demonstrate the capabilities of the camera not the artistic talent of the person taking the pictures. So, get your head straight or get lost.

@Auni,

1) I appreciate the feedback. I'm not sure that a great many images are out of focus (at least, they should have some area of focus - will check on the gallery as soon as I can), but I am sorry that they are not helpful to you. From yours and others' feedback, I am going to make a point to adapt my Raw processing so that it may be a little more transparent from now on (in other words, I like extra contrast in my images, which includes blocked blacks, though that may not help a prospective camera buyer).

2) I also acknowledge your viewpoint regarding the divvying up of testing versus real-world photographic use. Unfortunately, as we try to shorten the length of the review process while maintaining its objective assessment quality, I fear that bringing in outside professionals will only add to time delays. Licensing fees and other use costs to properly pay these professionals may likewise become prohibitive. I'm not in charge, obviously, but these are my observations.

Truebar: Can you read? "Patagonia" seems acceptably sharp to me (though nothing special) for f1.4.

The funny thing about "sharpness" (whatever its merits) is that the image in question is either sharp nowhere (soft lens?) or it's sharp somewhere else than you'd expect (unintentional or intentional 'mis'-focus).

In this case, first thing to say would be that f1.4 with a fifty puts harsh demands on any AF system, even at 24Mp. I should know, I've had D8xx's at 36Mp for some four years now. AF fine-tuning is mandatory, even if only to check what the system is actually doing with the lens in question.

@Corey, what do you think (you made the pic) was the problem here; what did you focus on?

P.s.: L Chambers is very critical of the SL AF system.

P.s.2: I downloaded that #57 shot to LR6 (first time I did that from a gallery, ha ha) and wondered about the things done in PP. Taking out the blown-out blacks would have been nice (you did the highlights though; not the blacks), some additional additional sharpening (I applied my usual D810 routine, a.o. removing the noise reduction; noise reduction shouldn't be necessary at 500 ISO), slightly adjusted the WB (not a lot of difference there).

Tastes vary?

Going back to the camera and lens; I wasn't impressed (by this image).

@MikeF4Black - in this instance, it's likely that I manually moved the AF point over to Allison, focused, and fired. It's entirely possible that I couldn't / didn't get the point over her face, and relied on extra contrast on her coat instead to be sure to at least acquire focus - the 50mm F1.4 is a very slow lens to AF, made doubly so if there isn't sufficient contrast under the chosen focus area.

As for the editing, you nailed it - tastes vary :) I like to push the darker tones to black much of the time for personal work, but I think it would be beneficial to dial it back for these sample galleries. As for the sharpening and noise reduction, we purposely leave those set to Adobe Camera Raw default for lens samples, so we have some semblance of a baseline for comparison in this regard.

@Corey: thanks for the response!

Slow focusing lenses: don't you hate them?

Anyway, as for the pp thing, I find that in shots like these, having the shadows almost totally blacked out doesn't bring me any visual benefit over bringing them back a bit to avoid (most of) the blow-outs. But that, as we agree, is personal taste. I just wondered why the highlights were recovered but the deep shadows weren't.

The Minolta CL and CLE did indeed have rangefinders. The CLE in particular was a really neat little camera, and IIRC, the first-ever M-mount body with aperture-priority shooting. I wish I'd bought one a few years ago before the prices started to go through the roof...

scott_mcleod:

My mistake, I thought one of them was non-rangefinder. Specifically, I'd thought the Minolta/Leica CL was not a rangefinder.

I see used Konica M lenses have gone way up in price too.

Leica or Minolta CL/E was in essence just rebadging. Nothing wrong wth that if the quality is up to scratch, and it was.

MikeF4:

I owned that Leica 90mm f/4.0 M lens which, in looking up the CLE on Wikipedia, I learnt was part of that system--and of course usable on other M mount bodies.

It was optically not great, but made by Leica in W. Germany.

It's a long time ago ;-)

I've never found (recently; my pixel peeping phase) different lenses to make a substantial difference in image quality. Caveat: b&w film, 400 or 800 ISO, 8x10 prints. I do like my 50/1.2 AiS for close up portraits though, just that bit better than the other old fifties.

aweful? :))))

Kodak Power:

Hmm.. I hate to break it to you... I know, you are feeling like knight saving a damsel in distress now, but Carey is a man, and I am sure he is perfectly capable to make his case without you.

Gotta agree with Irakly the SL mages are pretty boring and communicate very little. Kodak like only good stuff seems that excellence is not in his vocab

Flruckas:

I wholeheartedly appreciate your time spent on writing this useful recommendation, child. :D

Please do not treat my statement as a personal attack, even if you really tempted to, but this comment is truly awful. It does a huge disservice to Humanity as it strengthens the common stereotype of someone who can just afford an expensive education and has no idea how to use it. Please, please remove this, my hair aches when I read these words

#villag

Ditto on that.

@Villagrantvicent

Thank you, I do not need a camera from DPReview, I have one from Leica.

@Irakly

Please share your samples and illuminate us.

@Kodak Power

Could you direct me whom should I take lessons from? Learning is a lifelong thing.

Kodak Power, it is extremely hard to avoid seeing your recommendations as a little bit condescending. It is sort of like you are speaking to me from above. That is, from what I still remember from graduate school, is a tell-tale symptom of a superiority complex. You do not have to take my word for it, just open a textbook on clinical psychology. I am not going to make any conclusions, as diagnosing a patient without seeing him is the most unprofessional thing to do. Instead, you can do it yourself, as you seem to be a very enthusiastic amateur psychologist.

Is there a link to Irakly Shanidze's allegedly awful picture?
I'm intrigued..

thanks

http://ohm-image.net/opinion/photophile/irakly-shanidze-calls-you-a-liar
also https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3973878?page=3
and look at this picture with model's eye inbetween wink!
He calls it art!

turvy,

Download raws and extract them yourself--much better method.

Thanks Carey, lovely images.
PS: Please go to Leica Talk forum where I started new threads. Please discuss with Mods wether they are appropriate,if not please delete them.
Thanks again.

I.S.

Thank you.

I've tried it a bit, I was just looking for other raws shot with it.

PM me, I'll send you some

Again, I will repeat it in English. If you cant prove Leica superiority to justify their price , at least support your feeling with some reliable source. If not , SIT THE F down.
If you like u can translate to your native language. What is it? Now, go buy your Hermes bag and feel it up.

onemore:

The money spent is an individual thing.

I can't "prove" that choice.

The better optical performance is very easy to see.

It's very easy to prove a Ferrari 458 a better sports car than any Audi. Is that performance something you want personally? I can't say.

Now, I see you're following me around.

I'm not telling you how to spend your money, I'm telling you Leica makes better, optically better, lenses than Canikon, Fuji and Pentax. (Note some omissions.)

@HAR - no problem. I'm pretty disappointed, the lack of the telezoom makes some sports and action testing basically impossible.

villagran:

Good catch.

desmond2046:

No, they aren't even close to good Zeiss lenses. (Now this may have changed with the new SigmaArt 85mm, but I've not tried it.)

You proved my point real well.

onemoreguy:

I'm sorry is LV a lens maker?

You do know that pretty much any skilled leather and bag maker can make an LV bag? It's one of the reasons that one can find very good knock-offs of LV, or Gucci, bags; that's hint for your next shopping trip.

It just doesn't work that way with optics.

LV doesn't make bags that perform better than other very good bags.

All you've done is show your ignorance of very good lenses.

And yeah, a Koenigsegg performs better than an Audi.

Get real, and don't bring up what "some women think".

Also shop for a Hermes bag.

onemore:

Right, it sums up your ignorance of highend bags.

Has nothing to with gear that actually does something that no other gear does.

Try using say a 50mm M f/2.0 APO, on a Leica M body, and get back to me.

onemoreguy:

"Again, we got it, you don't need to prove you are one of those "high-end" Hermes-bag Leica owners. Lol".

Projecting your wishes on to others doesn't make them true.

The noun engineering means just that, in this SL system's case it especially applies to lenses, but it is not limited to engineering those SL lenses.

"magic feeling" of holding Leica cameras? Don't have any idea what you're speaking of. Hold a Nikon D5 and that has basically the same feeling. The SL and D5 are both very solid well built machines.

I've tried the SigmaART 50mm, it is optically unremarkable. Better than Canikon, but that's hardly saying much.

What the frack makes you think I've not tried camera gear and lenses that I comment on?

Try that M lens I mentioned above, and get back to me. You'll have to know how to focus manually.

onemoreguy"

"Can't say the same about the SL. Prove me wrong, I dare you." You know you could try using an SL before posting such silliness.

"Let me try - Leica lens are CRAP, especially for its price."

Which Leica lenses have you tried? Which Zeiss, not SonyZeiss, lenses have you tried?

It's easy to see the optical superiority of better lenses, this includes better lenses from Leica, but it is not limited to Leica. No, Canikon would not be on the list of better lens makers.

You've made no claims of having tried any of this gear. And you've evinced zero hands on knowledge of this gear.

The fact that you called the SigmaArt 50mm the optical equal of a good Zeiss 50mm is a joke. And displayed your lens ignorance.

Again, I will repeat it in English. If you cant prove Leica superiority to justify their price , at least support your feeling with some reliable source. If not , SIT THE F down.
If you like u can translate to your native language. What is it? Now, go buy your Hermes bag and feel it up.

Btw, you flip flop like a gdamn slipper. European?

onemoreguy,

Cant is spelt "can't".

I can't prove to you what money you should spend, or not spend. So your question is bogus. Then there's your cursing.

Want better optical performance, that's better than Canikon, Fuji, Sony and Pentax, then you seek out Leica's better lenses. There are other options from say Zeiss.

Do learn the meaning of the term "flip flop".

onemoreguy,

The optics of good Leica lenses are based on superior engineering and superior colour science.

Sports cars aren't simply "luxury products", they do things that other cars don't. And often that technology works its way into the mainstream autos 10 years later.

That sports cars can be incredibly expensive is immaterial to the point.

You seem confused about what a "luxury car" is.

Oh, its not a difficult term or concept to learn . Maybe for you? Leica , sigma , Canon, Nikon , Zeiss. What?. Lol

onemoreguy:

Why the list of lens makers? I'm familiar with it.

Some parties on that list consistently make optically much better lenses than others.

You forgot a number of significant Asian lens makers. (Albeit one dropped out of cameras--better put lost its camera representation.)

I'm familiar with the meaning of "luxury product", and you misused the term. It's normal simplistic behavior for typical Leica bashers.

onemoreguy:

"" consistently make optically much better lenses than others" now?. What happened to "Japanese "optics"? Are you joking?". You are a piece of work, aren't you." No, I'm not joking.

Also do actually read what I wrote regards "Japanese lens engineering", not optics, making up a statement for me that I didn't make doesn't help your case.

"Wanna bet? Even if it was true, what does it have anything to do with the way you try to associate with those luxury products to prove that you know something?"

I have no idea what this means, I suggest you check your English with a reasonably educated native speaker of the language. And then repost.

Leica products are not by definition a "luxury product", while a Hermes scarf is.

"Anyway, if you dont [sic] have anything to say beside [sic] your feeling, let's end here. I'm sure people are tired of this nonsense."

It's not "feeling"; it's the better image quality when using optically better lenses, including those from Leica.

onemoreguy,

The proof is in the better image quality, and that's easy to see. It's a stretch of logic to call that feeling. Now, you could for some peculiar reason have very limited eyesight, but pretty much anyone with decent, not perfect, eyesight can see the results from better optics.

I will not STF U, and I'd suggest not cursing at people. It only weakens your "case", also it's better to use that kind of language as an interjection and not direct it at people.

Again look up "flip flopping".

Also you've misused "luxury product", it's a clichéd thing that typical Leica bashers like you do. Your "luxury brand" link proves nothing, no one for example disputes that Leica has done special edition M bodies for decades, and they sold/sell. However people purchase Leica for the lenses' better performance. Did you even read that link?

If any of the above confuses you, sleep on it, and pass it along to someone whose native tongue be English.

oh and LOOK IT UP yourself Helmes.
FLip Flop
noun
1.
Informal. a sudden or unexpected reversal, as of direction, belief, attitude, or policy.

It's not Romanian word you know. Now, sleep on it.

onemoreguy:

"The proof is in the better image quality, and that's easy to see."
WHERE?" In images, I suggest you look at raws.

And look at my use of "frack", it's very different than yours, this more than suggests you be not familiar with English.

Your link claims, it doesn't explain methods, or whys, or pretty much anything.

While you're consulting the dictionary looking up "interjection", look up "assertion" and attach the modifier "unsupported".

And you've misused "flip flop". I've not reversed myself anywhere above.

"Frak or frack is a fictional version of "f* ck" first used in the 1978-Battlestar Galactica television series."

"This MORE THAN suggests your are not familiar with English" lol

How did you drive this exchange to this? Impressive haha

onemoreguy,

Duh, actually "frak" predates 1978 by a good bit. See Norman Mailer's "The Quick and the Dead".

However the word you need to to look up and couldn't be bothered with is "interjection". I used "frack" as an interjection, you on the other hand said something very different involving F.

"What does it have anything to do "optic" "engineering" flip flop bull crap?" Again look up "flip flop", if you're having a hard time, show this thread to a native speaker of English, someone who finished grade school at least.

You have a very limited concept of what a "luxury product" is. The term doesn't include things that are simply more money than you'd choose to spend on said item.

If the item, whatever it is, does more than similar but much less expensive versions of the same item, then it is NOT a luxury product. That there can be luxury versions of it sure, example in this case a leather coated M body.

Leica lenses do more. A Hermes bag not so much.

onemoreguy:

"Still yapping these none [sic] sense?"

Further making my point for me.

Start by looking up "interjection".

Hermes is still at it lol.
"Start by looking up "interjection" Say what? haha

onemoreguy:

"Hermes is still at it lol.
"Start by looking up "interjection" [sic] Say what? haha"

As I wrote: Look up the noun "interjection".

It's a remarkable mistake your use of the name Hermes as a term of derision . It's not a mistake someone from the west, who's literate, would usually make.

This insane Hermes is just too funny haha.
"It's a remarkable mistake your use of the name Hermes as..." Come again?
" It's not a mistake someone from the west that someone.." Say what? bahahaha

onemoreguy:

"This insane Hermes is just too funny haha."

""It's a remarkable mistake your use of the name Hermes as..." Come again."

""It's not a mistake someone from the west that someone.." Say what? bahahaha"

Right, it's not a mistake a literate person from the west would make.

But of course, you've already proven your inability to look up the noun "interjection".

It's not the mistake from the west that some one literate would make? LMAO

Sorry, i gave you too much credit. My bad ;)

onemoreguy:

Credit?

You made a rather large mistake in deifying me.

Why don't you start by using better lenses, on decent bodies, doesn't have to be Leica lenses either. You could use Zeiss Milvus.

FLruckas:

Still following me around I see. And now encouraging fighting.

Someone needs to teach him about what a paragraph is.

Hermes and the Minion!
So sorry.....
Just like you....
I couldn't resist!!!!!
Just kidding....
Well....
Sort of....
:-)

Where's the Minion?

If you see at least these SL samples, none requiere super fast AF and could be easily achieve with the superior X1D. Just see 100% details of the eyes in any of these shots and compare them with 100% detail of the eyes on the X1D samples.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2979775878/photos/3592769/leica-sl-vs-hasselblad-x1d

FLruckas,

In your mind.

villagranv:

Thank you, I've seen them. And I've seen the DPR X1D samples from late last year--which look promising.

HOWEVER: I have my own samples from both. I'm quite sure of my point. It doesn't appear that you read my post.

What does "require super fast AF" have to do with anything? The Leica has much better AF than the Hasselblad.

Cromatic aberrations in the Hassy are just overwhelming or underwhelming, whatever you like. Leica SL is just better, cleaner and crispier. And the amount of high quality available lenses is just overwhelming in the Leica case.

turvyT:

Let us hope the variation in the Hasselblad X lenses is a manufacturing issue that can be fixed.

RAW you came with the AF argument:

"The Hasselblad's AF is nowhere near as good".

Like a moth to a flame....
:-)

villagran:

That's hardly my only point, and not even the only point in my first very short paragraph, the entire paragraph:

"The Hasselblad's AF is nowhere near as good, the lenses are slower. There are other issues that likely firmware can fix."

The X1D's AF will never catch up with that of the current SL.

In the future X1D versions things could change.

FLucky,

Well, villagran made a very foolish point.

RAW

I know how much you love the SL. Probably you should show your findings to illustrate your point. Based on DPR samples the X1D looks superior either you agree or not. I provide an example above.

villagran:

I don't especially love the SL. It's not a good enough higher ISO body for my purposes.

It's heavy, magnesium would have been lighter.

Yes, the DPR samples from the X1D are very nice, this is a point that I already acknowledged, if you'd been paying attention you'd have noted that acknowledgement.

Yet again: However: I have my own samples from both the SL and the X1D, and there are problems with the X1D.

Do pay attention, I'm not simply making claims based on things I've seen online.

Then do learn what the term "much faster lenses means", you've been ignoring this a full day now.

Even if Hasselblad fixes all of the problems with the X1D, and they are not simply firmware, those fixes won't make the lenses faster.

So far the Fuji looks more promising than the X1D, but I don't have my own raws from the Fuji GFX-50. Nor are those Fuji lenses fast like the SL lenses.

Do read my posts before responding.

@RAW

You are usually less aggressive with your posts.

You don't specially love the SL, however you reply 100% of the times when someone mention this camera. Again, if you have the chance to actually shoot with it, why don't share those files so we all can be illustrated?

And I copy-paste your very first line: "The Hasselblad's AF is nowhere near as good" I never said anything about AF, I was talking about pure IQ, and I doubt the SL AF is near as good as Canon or Nikon, but again, that was not the point.

villagran,

The reason for being "aggressive" is you keep not reading my posts.

And you keep ignoring the point that the Hasselblad has much slower lens options than the Leica SL.

Are you only going to use these cameras for portraits? I didn't understand that was a limit to your photography or to the photography of others.

Actually, yes the SL's AF is close to that of the D810. There are much better Nikons for AF than the D810, one is the D750.

"Anyway, if you don't specially love the SL then why you reply to the 100% someone says something about this camera?"

Well, I replied to you because you made up things, and pretended that an f/1.4 lens is the same as an f/3.5 lens.

I've hardly replied to 100 percent of the comments regarding the SL.

Uh oh......
vill...
You've been bad again....
Not bending to WAR's will....
;-)
Not trying to cozy up to you vill...
Just trying to poke fun at how warped all of this is....
It's all so weird and crazy...
Did somebody teach a photography class at the asylum???
:-)

FLucky,

Well, villagran made a very foolish point.

More than once.

Oh and irony elsewhere you've admitted to some of the Hasselblad X1D AF trouble. (I sincerely hope that Hasselblad fixes that mess.)

#vill

Click bait is like a pheromone to a fly...

He has no self control.....

:-)

FLruckas,

You post. And you follow me around, though not in this thread quite so much.

The obvious uninformed Leica bashing needs a response.

And the repeated idea that an f/3.5 lens is as fast as an f/1.4 lens gets real tiresome.

There is, yes, uninformed Canon and Nikon bashing too. And that requires a response too. However the fraction of uninformed bashing with Leica is higher than with Canikon.

A good example of stupid Canon bashing: "Oh but the DXO DR score for the sensor isn't high enough, therefore the camera is garbage..."

There's lots of stupid and uninformed SigmaFoveon body bashing too--that about equals the ignorance directed at Leica.

"I replied to you because you made up things, and pretended that an f/1.4 lens is the same as an f/3.5 lens." Seems like you are the one making up things. WHEN or where did I mention anything about the lens aperture? The only thing I said is the X1D files look way sharper, regardless if you want to accept it or not. It is what it is.

And again, instead of attacking people why don't you show us your samples so we can have another point of reference?

villagran:

The equation of the SL system with Hasselblad X system did exactly what I claim.

You said far more than "looks way sharper"--don't pretend that's all you said.

Your first comment:

" I still think if someone is going to spend 12K looking for the ultimate IQ, should take a look at the Hasselblad X1D first," there's no way to exclude the Hasselblad lenses from this comment.

RAW

Well, since there are only a few X1D samples we will have to wait and see, no need to add more to that discussion. it is all about cost-benefit. I am trying to understand which is its competition, full frame, medium format, both?

The SL is many thousands of dollars more expensive than any top-end / non-Leica FF camera, the lenses even more, and many people including me don't see a massive difference vs 5Div+L lenses combo who looks like a bargain vs this outfit. Note I am not saying the Canon is better.

There is no doubt a 5DS or R will give you sharper images that this SL.

And at half the price.

villagran,

Indeed I await more X1D samples.

However I have tried 3 bodies, and all of the lenses.

Absolutely, the SL system is not inexpensive. Get Nikon D750+a Zeiss Otus 55mm and you'll spend lens money for basically this same optical quality. However, that NikonZeiss combination is not simply say $2000 in total.

There's a massive optical difference between Canon L lenses and just Zeiss Milvus lenses. The Zeiss are optically better, and mostly cheaper.

FLruchas,

With the right lens, as in an Otus, you are correct.

But sharpness is not the only way to judge a lens. Also for the same pixel count, which Canon bodies don't have, this SL would likely be sharper. Then there are Leica M lenses that are sharper on this SL.

So correct, but there are a number of caveats.

Fuji GFX is supposed to be release anytime soon, looking forward to see what is capable of and hopefully someone will come with comparisons.

As you said, the Milvus are very good, I doubt there are better 50's for less than $1500 (?) I have seen pictures taken with the Nikon 810 or the 5Div and are pretty impressive... better than the Zeiss ZE Distagon, almost as good as my 50mm 1.4 USM :)))

villagran,

The problem for high end Canikon lenses isn't sharpness, it's bad colour. A good Zeiss, say the Milvus 50mm on a D810, does a better job with colour than the best Nikon 50, or 58mm, lens.

There are some older Zeiss F mount lenses that have sharpness problems when wide open, for example the film era 50mm f/1.4, but the colour is still better than current Canikon 50mm lenses.

I too look forward to trying the Fuji GFX 50. I did briefly handle it. But was not allowed to shoot raws with it. PhotographyBlog posted some raws. RawTherapee manages to extract some of those raws. The Leica SL system still has faster lenses.

The Canon 5S/R will be sharper than the SL even with a cheap lens.

You need to do your homework.

Myth: Higher megapixel cameras need the best lenses to be sharper than a camera with half the megapixels. Even with a cheap lens they're sharper.

You were wrong about beta.

And you're wrong about this.

:-)

FLruckas:

"The Canon 5S/R will be sharper than the SL even with a cheap lens."

That depends on the cheap lens, the SigmaART 50mm is cheaper than the Canon L 50mm. Stopped down a lens costing a few hundred dollars will be sharper. So again there are all these caveats that show your ignorance of lenses, cheap, expensive, mid-priced, Leica, Canon, Zeiss, Sigma, Tokina, etc.

"Even with a cheap lens they're [higher pixels cameras] sharper." Wrong, with the caveats noted above that you've already expressed your ignorance of.

"beta"? I don't recall mentioning that in this thread.

Nope.

It doesn't depend on which cheap lens.

You don't know what you're talking about.

FLrushas,

Well, yes it does, with the caveat that the aperture setting also matters--too small an aperture can cause sharpness problems too.

And the there's were on the sensor/film plane you measure sharpness.

FLruckas,

Well, yes it does, with the caveat that the aperture setting also matters--too small an aperture can cause sharpness problems too.

And then there's where on the sensor/film plane you measure sharpness.

A $450 total cost of camera with lens Nikon with a plastic 18-55 kit lens at f8 is just as sharp as a Sony A7II $3500 package 24-70 GM at f8 and equivalent focal length.
Its because of the megapixels.
So you're wasting $3000.
And this isn't even in SL price territory.
An SL is an even bigger waste of money.
Just about any regular lens, it doesn't even have to be an L will give sharper images on a 5DS than even the best lenses on a SL.
At f8 the 5DS will smoke the SL at f8 with the best SL lens available.
It's all in the megapixels.
Your examples are just outliers.
They're not really relevant.
:-)