The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

What's new with the TL2?

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I was intrigued by two thoughts that Jono's article brought out. One is that he feels there is a gap opening up between the quality of images possible in micro 4/3 (of which the Olympus E-M1 mk ii is the 20 MPx standard-bearer that he knows well) and in APS-C with the T. The comparison should really be extended to Fuji's recent X-Pro2 and X-T2. And T lenses on the SL, which for stills becomes an APS-C camera with 10 M big pixels, like the Sony Sii. Second, that the T lenses are an unappreciated contribution to the portfolio of L-mount lenses -- affordable when you find them, sharp, with fast AF and Leica color rendition.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
I was intrigued by two thoughts that Jono's article brought out. One is that he feels there is a gap opening up between the quality of images possible in micro 4/3 (of which the Olympus E-M1 mk ii is the 20 MPx standard-bearer that he knows well) and in APS-C with the T. The comparison should really be extended to Fuji's recent X-Pro2 and X-T2. And T lenses on the SL, which for stills becomes an APS-C camera with 10 M big pixels, like the Sony Sii. Second, that the T lenses are an unappreciated contribution to the portfolio of L-mount lenses -- affordable when you find them, sharp, with fast AF and Leica color rendition.
IMO there's always been a noticeable gap in IQ with APS-C v. Micro 4/3 but I do feel that Micro 4/3 is the ideal travel system in size to compliment FF. For instance if you compare a Nikon D7200/D500, Fuji X-Ts/XPro2, or Canon 80D/7D2 with the GH5 or EM1v2 then the IQ difference is readily noticeable in the noise patterns and how the pixels break up. It's not to say that Micro 4/3 is bad because I have some good prints from my G1 but size does matter. One can say size matters less and that would be mostly true unless you're coming from a place where you may want more artistic DoF.

IMO I think APS-C is a good trade off and balance if you don't own FF and want a good all around "take it with you" system that neither too big nor too small.

Regarding using cropped sensor lenses on the SL... It doesn't make the pixels any bigger. You just get a 10 megapixel APS-C crop which is unlike the "big megapixel" (a term we didn't really relay about the D700 or 5Dmk1) 12 megapixel look you'd receive from a FF sensor. One would probably be better off with just using the 24mp of the TL2.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I was intrigued by two thoughts that Jono's article brought out. One is that he feels there is a gap opening up between the quality of images possible in micro 4/3 (of which the Olympus E-M1 mk ii is the 20 MPx standard-bearer that he knows well) and in APS-C with the T. The comparison should really be extended to Fuji's recent X-Pro2 and X-T2. And T lenses on the SL, which for stills becomes an APS-C camera with 10 M big pixels, like the Sony Sii. Second, that the T lenses are an unappreciated contribution to the portfolio of L-mount lenses -- affordable when you find them, sharp, with fast AF and Leica color rendition.
I still find the TL2 and the complete TL system from Leica pretty uninteresting to say the least. And the TL2 did not change anything for me unfortunately. It is an interesting camera concept and I do not say it is bad, but for the price they ask and the TL lenses available it is simply a no go for me.

WRT IQ I am very fine with the output of my XT2 and for what I need and shoot the X system has simply much better choices when it comes to lenses. For when I need really compact then m43 is my way to go and especially pairing the EM1.2 with Olympus pro lenses shows very high IQ. But there is definitely a noticeable difference to the output from the XT2 - for my eyes it is miles better than any m43 system can deliver today. This is actually one of my problems as I so often wanted to get rid of the Fuji, but the great IQ always keeps me back in the X-camp.

Clearly FF has some advantages but also disadvantages and for the time being I can not identify any FF (mirrorless or mirror) system that would suit my needs and desires. So APSC is currently the sweet spot for me and the photography I do.

Abit OT, but interesting to mention in this context:

I am kind of interested in the new mirrorless FF Nikon that is rumoured to be coming. If Nikon finally get it right with a pro-level mirrorless FF body ala Leica SL and make this compatible with most modern glass for the Nikon mount then this could very well become the FF mirrorless solution I am waiting for. At least at this time I would then have to get rid of the X-system and keep only FF-mirrorless Nikon and m43.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
I still find the TL2 and the complete TL system from Leica pretty uninteresting to say the least. And the TL2 did not change anything for me unfortunately. It is an interesting camera concept and I do not say it is bad, but for the price they ask and the TL lenses available it is simply a no go for me.

WRT IQ I am very fine with the output of my XT2 and for what I need and shoot the X system has simply much better choices when it comes to lenses. For when I need really compact then m43 is my way to go and especially pairing the EM1.2 with Olympus pro lenses shows very high IQ. But there is definitely a noticeable difference to the output from the XT2 - for my eyes it is miles better than any m43 system can deliver today. This is actually one of my problems as I so often wanted to get rid of the Fuji, but the great IQ always keeps me back in the X-camp.

Clearly FF has some advantages but also disadvantages and for the time being I can not identify any FF (mirrorless or mirror) system that would suit my needs and desires. So APSC is currently the sweet spot for me and the photography I do.

Abit OT, but interesting to mention in this context:

I am kind of interested in the new mirrorless FF Nikon that is rumoured to be coming. If Nikon finally get it right with a pro-level mirrorless FF body ala Leica SL and make this compatible with most modern glass for the Nikon mount then this could very well become the FF mirrorless solution I am waiting for. At least at this time I would then have to get rid of the X-system and keep only FF-mirrorless Nikon and m43.
I agree with pretty much everything you said and I think the Fuji X series pairs up nicely with the GFX for "critical" work.
 
Top