V
Vivek
Guest
There are differences between operators and users. :grin:It is not that simple. Even amongst the operators, there are some that are "super-operators". The key is to identify these super-users and engage them early on.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
There are differences between operators and users. :grin:It is not that simple. Even amongst the operators, there are some that are "super-operators". The key is to identify these super-users and engage them early on.
Point taken. For me it is the "users".There are differences between operators and users. :grin:
Yup, Leica could get help from both types before release of new gear! The earlier the better! :thumbs:There are differences between operators and users. :grin:
Coincidentally, I had the 35-70 F4 and recently snagged the 28-90/2.8-4.5. Now I have to decide which one to keep!Thanks jono. I agree, bizarre is the appropriate term for this! Lloyd should have his gear checked by Leica.
BTW, based on your experience I got the 35-70/4. I like that lens a lot and use it more than my 28-90/2.8-4.5.
At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to disagree with the bolded (by me) part of what you said here. I rarely read Steve's site and don't recall having commented there in the past other than to compliment a post here and there by him or a guest writer.I know Steve Huff. He's genuine and honest. His style is very enthusiastic and positive and that shows in his writing. Sometimes he seems a little too positive about the latest gear, but if you read him carefully, he does talk about the negatives. It's just that overall he's an optimist and the negatives are too easy to skip over.
I often don't agree with him, but he's always civil, fair and friendly - like most of the folks here on GetDPI. He doesn't tolerate personal attacks, and I like that about his site.
Wow... Far be it from me to be a Steve Huff apologist but he is human and I believe even the most rational mind is entitled to bad days here and there. I don't really want to bash him as I do enjoy his "reviews" and articles even if nothing else to keep a balance between the pessimists and the chart shooters. Sometimes a picture or 75 is worth more to me to see what a camera/lens is potentially capable of.At the risk of derailing this thread, I have to disagree with the bolded (by me) part of what you said here. I rarely read Steve's site and don't recall having commented there in the past other than to compliment a post here and there by him or a guest writer.
However, I recently replied to disagree with one of his comments he made on his own article and found his reply to me to be most uncivil:
I tried to post this reply:
However, that comment was "awaiting moderation" for a day, and then he deleted it without ever posting it.
So my impression of the guy is that he is discourteous. I don't buy the explanation that he is understandably defensive because of trolls, etc. I've been posting on the internet for a long time and have dealt with many trolls myself without resorting to such behavior as he displayed here.
My experience with color is different. I feel the SL color - under most conditions - is quite good while I have been not 100% with Sony color.As I mentioned in my very first comment. I dislike the SL for different reasons then Brad. And I think Leica will eventually iron out the system.. And once more lenses are available, I think I can be happy with it. Or at least make use of it.
I find all sorts of bugs with Leica's cameras as I'm generally an early adopter.. I always email them. They never do anything about it.
Eventually they get around to all of it, they figure it out after about a year or two.
Ponder this.. Leica touts this as being a AF masterpiece. But then releases a f/2.8 - f/4 lens (slow) which causes the AF to struggle in low light. IF they had released a f/1.4 lens, the AF would theoretically be great in low light. And it would have seemed like Leica actually got something right. If it was truly a "no compromise" system, they would have realised that making the zoom slower meant AF issues. And would have either limited the range, or just made it bigger in order to make the lens faster (f/2.8 at least).. And at this point, I don't think people would have really noticed it if it was bigger.
It's not an MF lens BTW. I don't even know why they put two rings on it. Has anyone tried to MF the vario-SL? Terrible. So when the AF fails in low light... You can't even MF. And if the lens itself fails, then you're totally screwed, it'll just be a "something heavier than a brick" brick. You'd have to switch over to M glass. And if I'm going to do that, I have my RF which I can focus faster and like the colors from a lot better.
Speaking of the colors, the out of camera colors are decent at best. With really bad skin tones in certain light. Very weird blown out looking JPG files. And the RAW files are identical to the A7II with little to no processing (assuming both cameras have the same lens attached). Nothing unique or Leica-esq about the colors out of this sensor.
Tried the SF-40 flash. Wouldn't buy it. Might as well spend less then half the money and get the I40 from nissan in m4/3 mount. And just use it on A or M mode. TTL is terrible on the SL. None of the flashes work with it (24D, sf26, sf40, sf58). I've tried them all.. It's TTL system is the poorest of any camera I've owned. I'm no longer holding out hope for the SF-64, it's not going to be good without a serious SL body firmware update.
But to defend my earlier comment. I think the SL is a good step in the right direction for Leica.. They did a good thing. They just didn't release a complete enough system. Nor did they think a lot of things through when they brought the camera to market. I think by the time the necessary things come (S-adaper, R-adapter, native AF lenses) the camera will be old news, and or people who have had it 6m-1y will be frustrated with it, and will be looking to unload it to go back to the M.
So why not just buy an A7II if you don't need the ergonomics and the simple menus? Would save a LOT of money.
THE ONLY SAVING GRACE and the reason I haven't sold it, is the fact that it has a good UI and good ergonomics, feels nice in my hand. And I'm holding out hope that the native 50mm Summilux-L will BLOW everything out of the water. If it doesn't.. The camera's gonna be sold to the highest bidder. And I'll just stick with my M and S-systems.
After thinking about this, here is my opinion.I don't buy the explanation that he is understandably defensive because of trolls, etc. I've been posting on the internet for a long time and have dealt with many trolls myself without resorting to such behavior as he displayed here.
My experience with color is different. I feel the SL color - under most conditions - is quite good while I have been not 100% with Sony color.
Reasons to keep the SL over a SOny would be (IMO)
- better viewfinder
-better midrange zoom lens
-faster AF
-if you own M lenses better IQ
Reasons to get the Sony:
more MP
smaller
lower price
more Af lenses available at the moment
Hi there,I've done side by sides with the A7II and the SL. I have two 50APO lenses, I had one on each camera. Spent two hours shooting random things. The sensor colors are EXACTLY the same. EXACTLY. This isn't a good thing.. I much prefer the M240 colors.. And I much much prefer the S-006 colors.. Pity, but true. Leica can and probably will fix this over the next 6 months.
The only way I would concede that the colors are different (more agreeable in the SL's favour) are when you have the A7II mounted with (insert any native FE lens here) and the SL with the native zoom. Then, I would concede that the colors are better from the SL. Though if you could get the SL zoom on the A7II, they would be the same.
Yes, I can agree the EVF is the best. But I've already said that numerous times around the web. The zoom is good, though not what I would have wanted from Leica. The AF is definitely faster and more reliable in good light, and backlit situations (very important to note). And yes, the M lens IQ is better for some wider lenses.. Some are the same.
I'm keeping the SL.. No doubt. But I'm only keeping it because I'm looking forward to trying the 50 Summilux-L. If that lens fails to meet my expectations (it's getting the boot). And in that case, I'll just stick with my Nikon kit for AF and will continue to use my M and S-systems for everything not OCF or where I need faster AF.
Shame, as this WAS the camera I was waiting for... Just wish it would have launched with the 50prime so I could make my decision quicker.
The 50APO w/fast AF... I'd be into that!!Hi there,
I didnt do any side by side comparisons (I gave my whole SOny kit away to help paying for the SL and 24-90) and only can talk about from my impression from using the A7/A7s/A7II for a certain period but never owned the A7rII.
I know that I sometimes found the Sony colors showing a little less life in skin tones than I would wish for and that I feel the shots from the SL have a certain depth and look colorwise quite good (as long as I can judge from using the camera just for very few weeks and only in certain conditions). But I dont doubt your findings and in the end I also didnt use the SOny enough to bring the best out of the files. For me I get better along with the SL than with the Sony in regards of speed,UI and IQ but I am not saying it is better for others.
I still see some room for improvement of the SL user interface as well.
I fully agree about the 50mm prime, I am waiting for that lens as well, even though I wish it was a little smaller, maybe a 50 APO-Summicron with AF
Colors are fine with the Sony cams and also there is nothing magical about SL's AWB.
I have difficulty believing that the SL' s CDAF is faster than that of Sony's PDAF (where available).
Then it is a keeper! Don't ever let it go!It's twice as fast or more.. And that's primarily due to the way the lens was designed.
OH and FYI, Leica is saying that the tele-zoom will be even faster due to the way it was designed as well.
Yes but.. Since the lens isn't a fixed aperture zoom. When you're in shittier lighting conditions the tele end suffers from not being able to hit focus well, or at all.Then it is a keeper! Don't ever let it go!
Things change for the better.All I know that I have struggled more with getting Sony A7/A7II and A7s Images and (skin) color to my taste vs what I need to get SL Images to my taste.