Ario Arioldi
Member
Sean Reid has just published his first review on side by side studio testing of the Leica SL and Leica M-240 using two fairly compact 35 mm rangefinder lenses: the Leica 35/2.0 M Summicron ASPH and the CV 35/2.5 Skopar.
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!
Sorry, it just seemed to me that there was written more about the Sony 35/1.4, and how M lenses dont work all that well on the A7 than about the Leica SL.Who bashed the Sony? I don't remember anyone doing that... All I remember is some people claiming the advantages Leica gives to them, some more that where explaining why the Sony was no competition for what they would be using the new camera for and some from the opposite side insisting that Leica has designed a Sony competitor for what Sony A7 does... To them, I remember replying that...
"if Leica wanted to compete with Sony, they could make a Q with interchangeable lens (that would surely cost less than the Q since there would be no lens involved)... obviously Leica targeted to what they think that their users would currently need... they can make an interchangeable lens Q whenever they like and wish"...
I suppose that none can argue with that... :toocool:
Hi Stuart, The 75/2 is so much better on my Sony cams than it is on the MM. I use it for portraits and people shots (not restricted to center only focus, especially with live view and movable focus area, it is quite successful) and I do not see any issues.Have you tried the summilux? I have both, and strangely, the Summilux performs better for me on the A7RII and A7S than does the Summicron...the summicron is better on the m9. I guess the summilux has a more retrofocal design? The difference is fairly clear in my setup. They are both very usable. The Summicron is sharper on center, but the summilux is better on the corners and edges. Of course, the Summilux has a lot of coma at 1.4, but stopped down a bit it is still very sharp.
Photography is a very personal endeavor and choosing a Camera and/or Lenses is a very personal choice. What is best for one is not best for another and any reviewer is therefore inherently biased. One needs to be very good at reading between the lines and knowing where the reviews are coming from. I do believe Steve Huff is being honest with his comments and reviews. Yes, he does push a lot of camera accessories (bags, grips etc) but that is mainly because he likes them for real.Yes, Huff huffs and puffs with great enthusiasm, but his reviews are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard if you are tying to make informed decisions. He is a salesman, presumably earning his web income from affiliate sales (so everything has to be great) and advertising (everything being GREAT!!!!... generates traffic by those looking for someone to tell them its OK to spend their money). Its a fun place to hangout if you want to have fun playing with camera gear, but if your goal is to determine what's best for you to spend your money on, almost everywhere else is better.
Regarding the S vs A7 platform, its the one of the reasons why I invested in the 645Z. Getting great edge and corner performance out of the A7R is not hard with 50mm and longer lenses. 35mm is pretty good, but any wider and it gets much harder. That said, Zeiss is fixing that problem with their 21mm Loxia and 25mm Batis. The 645Z with 28-45mm is astounding and I have no doubt the S + Leica S wides is also a beautiful combination.
Did I? I shouldn't have as I haven't a clue - they don't tell me figures. Hearsay tells me that the M, and especially the MM and Q all sell very well.Not sure I agree with these posts (other than that of Tom's).
I hope all the spirited support for SL helps shore up Leica camera sales. Their cameras aren't selling well (even Jono mentioned it).
Best lens - it's been my favorite for nearly 5 years nowThat has nothing to do with Sony's UI or lack of lenses.
All I know is that the Apo Summicron 75/2 works superbly on all my Sony cams.
Thats quite a commitment. I have not yet made up my mind what I want/need/want.Did I? I shouldn't have as I haven't a clue - they don't tell me figures. Hearsay tells me that the M, and especially the MM and Q all sell very well.
As for spirited support - I formalised my order for a camera and 24-90 today - can't say fairer than that.
Best lens - it's been my favorite for nearly 5 years now
Yay, two down..Did I? I shouldn't have as I haven't a clue - they don't tell me figures. Hearsay tells me that the M, and especially the MM and Q all sell very well.
As for spirited support - I formalised my order for a camera and 24-90 today - can't say fairer than that.
Best lens - it's been my favorite for nearly 5 years now
Reasons perhaps?Did I? I shouldn't have as I haven't a clue - they don't tell me figures. Hearsay tells me that the M, and especially the MM and Q all sell very well.
As for spirited support - I formalised my order for a camera and 24-90 today - can't say fairer than that.
It's great on the SL too MattI got the A7II just to hold my 75 Cron. That it works with some other lenses is a bonus!
--Matt
This is exactly the same as my experience. I was quite unhappy with the performance of my 75 Summicron on the A7rII, and much happier with that of the Summilux. In fact, I thought my Summicron must be faulty until I checked it again on the camera it was meant for , the M. Similarly, the 90 Elmarit M performs outstandingly on the Sony, whereas the 90 Macro-Elmar while good is not as outstanding on the Sony but much better on the M's than the Elmarit M. I'll have to re-evaluate all my lenses on the Sony.Have you tried the summilux? I have both, and strangely, the Summilux performs better for me on the A7RII and A7S than does the Summicron...the summicron is better on the m9. I guess the summilux has a more retrofocal design? The difference is fairly clear in my setup. They are both very usable. The Summicron is sharper on center, but the summilux is better on the corners and edges. Of course, the Summilux has a lot of coma at 1.4, but stopped down a bit it is still very sharp.
It is good to keep in mind that we are discussing about lenses that were made for film.This is exactly the same as my experience. I was quite unhappy with the performance of my 75 Summicron on the A7rII, and much happier with that of the Summilux. In fact, I thought my Summicron must be faulty until I checked it again on the camera it was meant for , the M. Similarly, the 90 Elmarit M performs outstandingly on the Sony, whereas the 90 Macro-Elmar while good is not as outstanding on the Sony but much better on the M's than the Elmarit M. I'll have to re-evaluate all my lenses on the Sony.
Yes we are, but once we have the evidence from shots on sensors, that becomes irrelevant. Look at the output, and judge on that basis.It is good to keep in mind that we are discussing about lenses that were made for film.
Right, the reviews from dpreviw do not look too exciting. I myself downloaded lot of the RAW studio samples, imported in LR and compared to other cameras and I was not amused. Definitely all the other 24MP cameras hold pretty nicely up to the SL, sometimes look even sharper. If this is a result of the different sensors or also a negative impact coming from the 24-90 zoom I cannot say.Studio tests: Leica SL: Digital Photography Review
Doesn't look so good in comparison to pretty much anything of this generation, especially at ISO 3200 & 6400. Surprised at how well the A7II did in comparison.
In answer to an earlier question someone asked, I was specifically told by the folks working the Leica booth that leaf shutter functionality from the CS S lenses will NOT be added to the SL via firmware.
Actually, I thought that in that particular group of products the SL came out looking very good. I was looking at RAW output only, as the jpegs are uninteresting to me and I would never use them.http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/2
Doesn't look so good in comparison to pretty much anything of this generation, especially at ISO 3200 & 6400. Surprised at how well the A7II did in comparison.
Fair enough. But, do keep in mind that it is easy and cost effective to change the sensor glass thickness in a Sony cam. The old M lenses are not exactly designed for the modern digital M cams (Jono gives a percent fit for some of these lenses on M, stock A7II and the SL- there is no 100% satisfaction on any!). That is what I was alluding to.Yes we are, but once we have the evidence from shots on sensors, that becomes irrelevant. Look at the output, and judge on that basis.
Photos with the SL are taken with a zoom lens at maximum extension, stopped down one stop from wide open. Photos from the other three cameras are taken with primes lenses stopped down more than three stops from wide open. If this didn't lead to differences in resolution, I should throw away my prime lenses.Studio tests: Leica SL: Digital Photography Review
Doesn't look so good in comparison to pretty much anything of this generation, especially at ISO 3200 & 6400. Surprised at how well the A7II did in comparison.
In answer to an earlier question someone asked, I was specifically told by the folks working the Leica booth that leaf shutter functionality from the CS S lenses will NOT be added to the SL via firmware.
Of course you can, but that doesn't change the fact that the Leica zoom will always struggle against the Zeiss prime, particularly at the far end of the zoom register. The least they could do was to mount Leica prime corresponding to the Zeiss when doing this test, and then re-do it once the native prime is available.I am totally confused by these comparisons between the Sl and the A7R or A7II.Why not compare to the latest available Sony the A7RII? If you say because it is 42 versus the SL's 24 MP, then I cannot buy a new camera that has 24MP when other new cameras now are offering resolution in the 36-50MP. Even the FF Pentax is rumored to be 36MP minimum.