Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 300

Thread: Two different views on the Leica SL

  1. #51
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I don't think anyone has ever formally tested the "larger, heavier camera reduces camera shake" axiom because it has been empirically demonstrated for many years. The axiom is true up to a point ... there's obviously a point where the weight and size becomes too much to hold without fatigue, fatigue generating greater muscle induced shake...

    More important to me is that the SL is large enough and uncluttered enough, and has enough grip and gripping surface, that I can hold it steadily and without strain for quite a lot of time. Its shutter is amazingly smooth and quiet too, inducing far less vibration into the camera assembly than most others. These two things together counter the large size and heaviness; couple them with a sensibly sized and ergonomic Leica R lens (most from 19 to 180 mm are beautifully balanced on the SL body) and the SL allows me to shoot at even longer exposure times than the M-P with less camera-and-musculature-induced motion blur...
    Yes, I'd guess that the axiom could be true up to a point, and the point varies between individuals. Still, I'd really like to see it proven rather than assumed, even if it seems to be common sense. (Galileo got into problems arguing against common sense.)

    I'm fascinated by the fact that an SL gives you less shake ('clonus') than an M-P with equivalent lens.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  2. #52
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    Yes, I'd guess that the axiom could be true up to a point, and the point varies between individuals. Still, I'd really like to see it proven rather than assumed, even if it seems to be common sense. (Galileo got into problems arguing against common sense.)

    I'm fascinated by the fact that an SL gives you less shake ('clonus') than an M-P with equivalent lens.
    The only conclusive answer to the weight/camera shake question would be to eliminate all other variables like particular shutter designs, grip surfaces, morning/evening muscle fatigue, differing tripod mount designs, etc., but a couple of empirical data points stick in my mind: I was able to hand-hold a heavy Leicaflex SL at shutter speeds 1 stop slower than the lightweight Leica R4s with comparable results, and the a7r's shutter shake problem is reduced by adding the vertical grip.
    Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    The only conclusive answer to the weight/camera shake question would be to eliminate all other variables like particular shutter designs, grip surfaces, morning/evening muscle fatigue, differing tripod mount designs, etc., but a couple of empirical data points stick in my mind: I was able to hand-hold a heavy Leicaflex SL at shutter speeds 1 stop slower than the lightweight Leica R4s with comparable results, and the a7r's shutter shake problem is reduced by adding the vertical grip.
    Hi Doug and Robert
    I think the trouble is that any real empirical results would be so hedged about with conditionals that it wouldn't be terribly relevant to real life. But your anecdotal information sounds convincing to me.

    Just this guy you know
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  4. #54
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    I think "shake" comes from two distinct sources: the photographer and the shutter/mirror. Most shutters these days are not metal leaves, but rather are fabric, plastic or carbon fiber. In mirrorless cameras, the amount of shutter shake is very small. In mirrored cameras the shake can be problematic at longer exposures, but it's pretty well dampened in recent cameras.

    As for photographer shake, this happens most often when muscles are asked to do work over an extended period of time. I am not sure what the physiological cause of this is, but we have all experienced it. It makes sense that the heavier the camera/lens, the more work we are asking our muscles to do, so lighter is better. BUT...

    We also know that inertia is proportional to mass, so if you want to dampen out rapid oscillations, more mass is better. Slower oscillations are less affected by the mass of the object.

    These two factors, one pushing for less mass, the other pushing for more mass make a complex situation.

    My advice is to follow good shooting practices - keeping your elbows tucked in, finding things to lean on or against, using beanbags when possible, tripods or monopods, etc. and use whatever cameras and lenses please you the most.
    Brad Husick
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    OK, I tried an experiment. I weighted down my SL with the M to T, the Leica R to M adapter (with the tripod foot) and my 80/1.4 Summilux, and added a Manfrotto table top tripod for stability (think 2+ kg). I found a Siemens star target on the web and put it up on my big display, sat back in a comfortable desk chair at about 0.8m distance from the screen, held the whole rig up, focused carefully, set manual, auto ISO and shot with shutter speeds 1/100, 1/50, 1/25, 1/13. There was the slightest loss of contrast at 1/13, but the rest were essentially identical. If this was target shooting, I would have to also compete standing and prone, but I think this is enough. Here's 1/25: (cropped down to about half the frame)

    L1000942 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    Only a Puts would do this, but you guys asked for it...

    Happy New year,

    scott
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Perhaps the British Journal of Photography described the Leica SL the best: "Neither small nor cheap, but interesting and pretty impressive."
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    I think "shake" comes from two distinct sources: the photographer and the shutter/mirror. Most shutters these days are not metal leaves, but rather are fabric, plastic or carbon fiber. In mirrorless cameras, the amount of shutter shake is very small. In mirrored cameras the shake can be problematic at longer exposures, but it's pretty well dampened in recent cameras.

    As for photographer shake, this happens most often when muscles are asked to do work over an extended period of time. I am not sure what the physiological cause of this is, but we have all experienced it. It makes sense that the heavier the camera/lens, the more work we are asking our muscles to do, so lighter is better. BUT...

    We also know that inertia is proportional to mass, so if you want to dampen out rapid oscillations, more mass is better. Slower oscillations are less affected by the mass of the object.

    These two factors, one pushing for less mass, the other pushing for more mass make a complex situation.

    My advice is to follow good shooting practices - keeping your elbows tucked in, finding things to lean on or against, using beanbags when possible, tripods or monopods, etc. and use whatever cameras and lenses please you the most.
    This all makes a lot of sense; still, I'd like it to be tested to confirm.

    As for tired muscles; we don't use all fibres when we use muscles. The energy in the fibres is depleted, and this energy needs some time to be replenished. The action of the tired muscle fibres is 'replaced' by unused fibres, though we aren't generally aware of what's happening. (There's something similar in the retina. The eye is in constant involuntary movement, though the movements are microscopic, and we aren't aware of the movement. It's possible to cancel these micro-movements experimentally, and when we do this what ever we are looking at disappears in a short time, as the pigment in the retinal cells is used up faster than it is replenished. I understand that astronomers were aware of this when using a telescope directly to measure the position of the star; they learned to look slightly to the side of the star.)
    Sláinte

    Robert.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  8. #58
    Senior Member Arne Hvaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    198

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Just a question regarding possible shutter induced shake on the SL. The M (240) has it at some shutterspeeds when using the EVF because of the need to close the shutter physically before making the exposure, then reopening it etc. As someone who has come up against this issue using the A7r, I'm curious. Sony (and Olympus) solved the problem by using the electronic first curtain shutter in their next cameras, but as far as I understand the SL has not implemented a EFCS. So how has Leica managed to make the SL such a quiet and by all accounts nearly vibration-free camera? Does the sheer weight/massive construction perhaps play a part? Has anyone any further info on the subject?

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Arne Hvaring View Post
    Just a question regarding possible shutter induced shake on the SL. The M (240) has it at some shutterspeeds when using the EVF because of the need to close the shutter physically before making the exposure, then reopening it etc. As someone who has come up against this issue using the A7r, I'm curious. Sony (and Olympus) solved the problem by using the electronic first curtain shutter in their next cameras, but as far as I understand the SL has not implemented a EFCS. So how has Leica managed to make the SL such a quiet and by all accounts nearly vibration-free camera? Does the sheer weight/massive construction perhaps play a part? Has anyone any further info on the subject?
    HI There Arne
    I think that it's a combination of a quiet and well damped shutter and a very solid body - EFCS has it's own downsides (which is why Leica did not implement it). Certainly I've seen no indications of shutter-shock with the SL . . . . Remember also that the Sony and Olympus cameras have wobbly sensor arrangements (for cleaning and for IBIS) - it seems to me that this would bring it's own likelihood of shake - maybe it is still better to have in lens IBIS?

    Best

    Just this guy you know
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  10. #60
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI There Arne
    I think that it's a combination of a quiet and well damped shutter and a very solid body - EFCS has it's own downsides (which is why Leica did not implement it). Certainly I've seen no indications of shutter-shock with the SL . . . . Remember also that the Sony and Olympus cameras have wobbly sensor arrangements (for cleaning and for IBIS) - it seems to me that this would bring it's own likelihood of shake - maybe it is still better to have in lens IBIS?

    Best
    I tend to believe lately that IBIS brings numerous issues, while a steady sensor and well optimized VR in the lens has more advantages. This is why Nikon and Canon still rely on their well proven arrangement of optimized shake reduction in the lens and Leica has obviously recognized this as well, thus we find in lens stabilization.

    Another thought about IBIS - this seems to work better with smaller sensors like m43, and seems to loose efficiency with larger sensors - see Sony A7 line, where Sony relies meanwhile on a combination of IBIS and in lens stabilization. Sure IBIS has the big advantage to reduce shake also for non stabilized lenses.

    Final thought WRT camera mass/weight - this is for sure a good thing to reduce shake and all my photography life has shown this to me again and again. It is of course a combination of mass/weight resulting from camera plus lens.

    Happy New Year to all!

  11. #61
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI There Arne
    I think that it's a combination of a quiet and well damped shutter and a very solid body - EFCS has it's own downsides (which is why Leica did not implement it). Certainly I've seen no indications of shutter-shock with the SL . . . . Remember also that the Sony and Olympus cameras have wobbly sensor arrangements (for cleaning and for IBIS) - it seems to me that this would bring it's own likelihood of shake - maybe it is still better to have in lens IBIS?

    Best
    Das What?

    Jono, As you well know..EFCS is an option in Sony cameras.

    I have got to hand it to you for trying to put a spin on technological breakthroughs in competition as something bad.

    Some may buy it but most have not...
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #62
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    I don't recall reading any article that said that IBIS caused any problems. I think if Leica had the time and the money they would have done IBIS, but it's not easy or cheap to implement properly the way that Olympus and Sony have done.

    Still, I don't think somebody goes out to consider a new camera system thinking "which one will have the least shake?" My bet for the SL's first consideration is "how many Leica R lenses do I own?"
    Brad Husick
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    I don't recall reading any article that said that IBIS caused any problems. I think if Leica had the time and the money they would have done IBIS, but it's not easy or cheap to implement properly the way that Olympus and Sony have done.

    Still, I don't think somebody goes out to consider a new camera system thinking "which one will have the least shake?" My bet for the SL's first consideration is "how many Leica R lenses do I own?"
    Among the criteria laid out by Ashwin, the "pride of ownership" trumps everything else.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IBIS vs OIS

    There are a lot of issues there. I assume Sony does both because they are incapable of doing only one thing at a time, not because it takes both to stabilize a full frame sensor. Leica in the M[240] et seq. covers the sensor when you are changing lenses, in the SL leaves it open to the air. And, sure enough, it does collect some dirt. I can't see why that was a requirement of live view by default rather than as an option, or needed to allow 11 fps. The 5-axis IBIS in the Olympus is really awesome -- I've shot macros at 1/10 sec handheld. And my Olympi don't seem to have dirt problems. My suspicion is that only some parts of that technology is available for licensing at this point.

    Another question that we can debate forever is what capabilities should be expected in the R to SL adapter, and what lenses lie in the SL future. If the S to SL adapter supports full control of the lens focus and aperture then the S lens portfolio becomes a credible extension, relieving the need to offer medium telephoto and wide angle primes (at least at f/2.5). And support of full S function (except for the central shutter) sets a standard for the R to SL adapter to meet -- supporting full R9 function. I thought in one of the interviews with Leica bosses there was a throwaway comment that of course 3rd parties should be able to adapt Nikon or Canon or Zeiss AF lenses to the SL.

    scott
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Hi jono, ptomsu.
    Frankly, what seems to be "wobbly" is your spin and not IBIS.
    I certainly don't intend to buy another camera without IBIS.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #66
    Senior Member Arne Hvaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    198

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    My question was whether anyone could shed any further light on why the Leica SL managed to avoid one of the problems facing all mirror less cameras: the extra vibration caused by closing the shutter before the actual exposure. Jono offered some IMO quite sensible suggestions, and then went on to comment on in camera IBIS vs in lens stabilisation.
    When Sony introduced IBIS (the 900 series) I wondered how will it maintain precision in the long run with wear on the bearings etc. Then IBIS was introduced in the much lighter bodies of the A7 series and I wondered again how moving the weight of the sensor array would influence the rest of the camera. After all actio is still equal to reactio.
    Having used EM-1 and A7II extensively for the past year+, I am happy to report that at least so far none of my misgivings have come to pass. Actually it works well beyond my expectations. I also use a system with in-lens stabilisation, the new Canon 5Dsr and while it works well enough, it is not nearly as efficient as the Oly/Sony implementation. At least this is my impression so far.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    I can see that for people planning to mainly use non-native lenses on the SL in body IS would have been very useful. And it would have helped to maybe keep lens size of SL lenses a little smaller.
    I still think Leica have their reasons to decide against in body IS - my guess is that durability might have been one factor.
    For me IS is important mainly for Telelenses, since I mostly use short exposure times anyways because I have often human beings in my images.
    So I never missed in body IS in the T camera, except I miss IS (no matter if in body or in lens) in the 55-135 T-Zoom.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    I can see that for people planning to mainly use non-native lenses on the SL in body IS would have been very useful. And it would have helped to maybe keep lens size of SL lenses a little smaller.
    I still think Leica have their reasons to decide against in body IS - my guess is that durability might have been one factor.
    For me IS is important mainly for Telelenses, since I mostly use short exposure times anyways because I have often human beings in my images.
    So I never missed in body IS in the T camera, except I miss IS (no matter if in body or in lens) in the 55-135 T-Zoom.
    Another reason is in video, and is the same reason Panasonic doesn't use IBIS with the GHx cameras: sensor heat dissipation is much better ensured by a fixed sensor, rather than one floating on a moving platform. While you can get away with floating sensors for some uses, there is no better heat sink than solid connection to the camera body.

    Image stabilization was indeed originally inspired to give medium to long telephoto lenses an additional stop or two of hand-holdability in good light for sports shooting, not to be the be-all/end-all of low light photography. I've had cameras with and without it, IBIS and OIS, over the years. By and large, MOST of the time it isn't really relevant to the photography I do; I can happily continue shooting without even thinking about it. There are moments when it becomes useful, but I cannot really think of a single one of my photos where image stabilization was the primary technology that made the photo a success without which it would not have been.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    I was very happy to have had the sensor stabilization in the Sony a7II for several photos, this one in particular:



    The shutter speed was 1/250 sec while the camera and 500mm lens were braced against the window frame of my truck which was being blasted by wind. I chose to use a longer shutter speed instead of higher ISO because I wanted to show the raindrops as streaks instead of blobs.

    Aside from the initial cash outlay the lack of sensor stabilization is the only thing in the 'con' column when I consider an SL purchase.
    Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #70
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    I was very happy to have had the sensor stabilization in the Sony a7II for several photos, this one in particular:



    The shutter speed was 1/250 sec while the camera and 500mm lens were braced against the window frame of my truck which was being blasted by wind. I chose to use a longer shutter speed instead of higher ISO because I wanted to show the raindrops as streaks instead of blobs.

    Aside from the initial cash outlay the lack of sensor stabilization is the only thing in the 'con' column when I consider an SL purchase.
    Thats a great image. Do you think it would make any difference if it was taken with sensor IS or lens IS?
    I remember some discussion regarding using stabilized lenses on a camera with in body IS and the conclusion seemed there is a tendancy that for longer focal lengths in lens stabi has some advantage over in camera. But this is 2-3 years ago, maybe it has changed now.

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Das What?

    Jono, As you well know..EFCS is an option in Sony cameras.

    I have got to hand it to you for trying to put a spin on technological breakthroughs in competition as something bad.

    Some may buy it but most have not...


    (Blush) . I do realise that EFCS is an option - and that you can turn it off, I used it and liked it - but nevertheless it does cause issues, Sony and Leica just have a different approach (the Q has an electronic shutter option after all).


    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    I don't recall reading any article that said that IBIS caused any problems. I think if Leica had the time and the money they would have done IBIS, but it's not easy or cheap to implement properly the way that Olympus and Sony have done.
    Hi Brad
    I've not read anything about it causing difficulty either - and I agree that Leica might easily have implemented it if there was time (although I've not talked about it with them as far as I can remember). Still, the shutter shock issue only seemed to arise with cameras using IBIS and it suddenly occurred to me that a wobbly sensor might not be entirely innocent.
    Last edited by jonoslack; 2nd January 2016 at 03:48.

    Just this guy you know

  22. #72
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    IBIS is wonderful - except it ruins dust removal. If you shoot at f/8 or slower from a tripod, it is a real annoyance. Treatable with ICC, but most people consider ICCs an even worse annoyance.

    --Matt (who is tired of all threads becoming Sony is Better threads)

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Hi jono, ptomsu.
    Frankly, what seems to be "wobbly" is your spin and not IBIS.
    I certainly don't intend to buy another camera without IBIS.
    Hi There Karl-Heinz
    No spin here - I have no evidence to the effect, it just seemed like something worth thinking about (especially as I've never seen anyone else mention it) . . as for 'wobbly' that's not spin either - if you've tried cleaning an A7 sensor you'll know exactly what I mean by 'wobbly'. . . . it wasn't meant to be derogatory in any way - just descriptive.

    Like Arne I've wondered about the sensor mechanism for moving sensors and I've never seen any trouble resulting from it.

    IBIS - I use it and love it, the OMD cameras are still very much favoured around here, and whilst I haven't had much of an issue of camera shake using R lenses on the SL, I realise that it would be really useful, especially with longer R lenses.

    But I do also realise that there is a virtue in simplicity, and that every level of complication you add to a system brings its own issues - there's no free lunch (which doesn't mean I think you shouldn't eat lunch!).

    Back to the SL - the intelligent implementation of the auto ISO (being able to limit to a multiple of focal length) together with the decent high ISO means that I've not actually missed IBIS much, and the 1/8000 shutter and 50 ISO 'base' together with the quiet shutter means that I've not missed EFC either.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post

    --Matt (who is tired of all threads becoming Sony is Better threads)
    There is absolutely nothing wrong in expounding on the virtues of a Leica. For example, the simplicity (be it lack of tech advancement or better usability due to familiarity of older tech- semantics), boutiqueness and taking pride n its ownership.

    Knocking on better aspects of other manufacturers is a failing strategy and is negative advertisement for the brand that lacks all the new innovations.

  25. #75
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Knocking on better aspects of other manufacturers is a failing strategy and is negative advertisement for the brand that lacks all the new innovations.
    Whilst I quite agree with you in principle . . . . . . if the 'better' aspects of the other brands are brought up in the discussion, then it's reasonable to discuss what their relevance to the 'lesser' achievements of the Leica might be - especially in a thread about Leica!

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #76
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    My suggestion is to move away from incorrect spin and stick to the salient features that the camera has to offer like the spacious grip and the already expounded on weight.

  27. #77
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    My suggestion is to move away from incorrect spin and stick to the salient features that the camera has to offer like the spacious grip and the already expounded on weight.
    Who's spinning?
    I don't see any spin.

    Just this guy you know

  28. #78
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Just to put things into the right light here - the SL is a hell of a great camera and really unexpected innovation from Leica since very long time. So again KUDOS to Leica for doing that.

    I disagree that they have done anything wrong with not implementing IBIS in the SL. I am pretty sure they have investigated that and they would not care a s.... to implement it if they would have seen this as a good solution. They decided for OIS in SL lenses and for a decent camera weight in combination with good shutter and even without EVF. I have shot the SL with lot of heavier M glass and it just works fine. And shooting R glass on it it must even be better as R lenses usually are heavier and have more mass.

    So they have implemented the absolutely best and optimum for a future SL system and also allowed effective use of old M and R glass on that new platform, without going down the road of IBIS which is great, but questionable in many cases (see Oly's new to be announces 4/300 Pro lens which has OIS in addition and also Sony A7 series which does not solely rely on IBIS). And also Panasonic is implementing now IBIS in combination with their already long time proven OIS lenses.

    I would appreciate that finally all the religious wars about IBIS versus OIS stop and leave it to camera manufacturers and designers to do the right thing.

    Peter

  29. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    It's raining and miserable here, no chance to get outside and shoot. And from the circular discussion on this thread, that must apply to the other European timezones...

    scott

  30. #80
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    It's raining and miserable here, no chance to get outside and shoot. And from the circular discussion on this thread, that must apply to the other European timezones...

    scott
    Scott,

    foggy and miserable also here, so no chance to do decent photography as well.

    All the best

    Peter

  31. #81
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    I was very happy to have had the sensor stabilization in the Sony a7II for several photos, this one in particular:

    http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/...s/noharr14.jpg

    The shutter speed was 1/250 sec while the camera and 500mm lens were braced against the window frame of my truck which was being blasted by wind. I chose to use a longer shutter speed instead of higher ISO because I wanted to show the raindrops as streaks instead of blobs.

    Aside from the initial cash outlay the lack of sensor stabilization is the only thing in the 'con' column when I consider an SL purchase.
    Lovely shot, Doug!

    For a situation like that (using a 500mm lens hand-held in modest light) yes: image stabilization is a major plus. Whether IBIS or OIS isn't relevant; either implemented well would do a good job. Obviously, you need IBIS if you want image stabilization with lenses that are not so equipped.

    I have to think that "Shutter shock" is not so much linked to IBIS (some OIS-only Panasonic models show the same shutter shock as IBIS-equipped models) and more likely linked to very light overall camera bodies and less than perfectly damped shutter operation.

    The SL is a heavier body (with an excellent grip and a large, uncluttered surface area that allows you to hold it securely but without much muscle strain) and the shutter seems beautifully damped. Leica does know how to design a shutter to minimize vibration ... they've been doing it for a bit. The two zooms currently known about will have OIS; the one that's being delivered now seems to work very well. I can't imagine that any 300, 400, or 600mm lenses built for it will not have OIS.

    As always, it is what it is. If you want/need IBIS, the SL is not the right camera for your needs.

    G

  32. #82
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    ..
    foggy and miserable also here, so no chance to do decent photography as well.
    ..
    "Cloudy all morning, light sun this afternoon" here in Santa Clara, California is the forecast. It's still dark out, and 41°F (chilly) at present. By 9, it'll probably be up into the 48-50°F range ... Hmm, what lens should I carry for this morning's walk? Maybe the 19mm and 90mm, just to mix it up a little.

    Whether there'll be any decent photography depends on me more than the weather, I suspect. If it were raining, I'd put the SL zoom on. :-)

    G

  33. #83
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    Thats a great image. Do you think it would make any difference if it was taken with sensor IS or lens IS?
    Wrong question. I don't have any OIS lenses nor is it likely I can afford an OIS 500mm lens. The Canon FD 500mm f/4.5 L is an excellent lens, about US$1200, and is stabilized when used with an IBIS camera. IBIS also means my 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, 100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R and 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R are stabilized.

    The 500 FD is also fully mechanical, which is how I like my lenses. I marry my lenses, I date camera bodies. I'm thinking the a7II is a one-night stand. IBIS in the SL would have meant the Sony would already have been sold.
    Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    I would have loved the SL to have IBIS for video purposes. I think I remember someone from Leica saying that having a moving sensor would/could negatively impact the sharpness of still photos that didn't need it, so they decided against it. I can't remember where I heard that though. I would imagine & hope as the technology improves there will be ways to lock the sensor down when not being used for IS, solving that problem. I think it will become standard on cameras in the next year or two. I think the reason the Panasonic gh4 didn't have it was because the technology wasn't there yet when it was introduced. I'm sure the gh5 will have it. It will be interesting to see if the next model T has it and if that design looks more like the SL, as opposed to the current T.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #85
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    "Cloudy all morning, light sun this afternoon" here in Santa Clara, California is the forecast. It's still dark out, and 41°F (chilly) at present. By 9, it'll probably be up into the 48-50°F range ... Hmm, what lens should I carry for this morning's walk? Maybe the 19mm and 90mm, just to mix it up a little.

    Whether there'll be any decent photography depends on me more than the weather, I suspect. If it were raining, I'd put the SL zoom on. :-)

    G
    Godfrey,

    you finally need the 1.0 Nocti - ideal for all light and all weather :-)

    Looking forward to come to San Jose again, not sure when this will happen! But at least then we could try out our lens arsenals :-))

    Enjoy and all the best

    Peter

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    Wrong question. I don't have any OIS lenses nor is it likely I can afford an OIS 500mm lens. The Canon FD 500mm f/4.5 L is an excellent lens, about US$1200, and is stabilized when used with an IBIS camera. IBIS also means my 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, 100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R and 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R are stabilized.

    The 500 FD is also fully mechanical, which is how I like my lenses. I marry my lenses, I date camera bodies. I'm thinking the a7II is a one-night stand. IBIS in the SL would have meant the Sony would already have been sold.
    This is the real advantage of IBIS stabilization.

  36. #86
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Godfrey,

    you finally need the 1.0 Nocti - ideal for all light and all weather :-)

    Looking forward to come to San Jose again, not sure when this will happen! But at least then we could try out our lens arsenals :-))

    Enjoy and all the best.

    ...
    LOL! No no ... No Nocti for me, at least not in the foreseeable future. The Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 is fast enough, and a lovely lens in its own right. :-)

    I had my eye on a very nice Noctilux-M 50/1.0 for a bit, but decided that I didn't want/need it enough. I bought the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 instead.

    G

  37. #87
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    The only conclusive answer to the weight/camera shake question would be to eliminate all other variables like particular shutter designs, grip surfaces, morning/evening muscle fatigue, differing tripod mount designs, etc., but a couple of empirical data points stick in my mind: I was able to hand-hold a heavy Leicaflex SL at shutter speeds 1 stop slower than the lightweight Leica R4s with comparable results, and the a7r's shutter shake problem is reduced by adding the vertical grip.
    Indeed, any experiment would need to be carefully controlled; I'm a bit surprised that it never seems to have been done. Haven't we moved from 'expert opinion based' to 'evidence based' practice in many fields?

    BTW, I checked the weights of several cameras:

    Leicaflex, SL, SL2 770g

    R3 780g

    R4 etc 620g

    SL (601) 850g

    S2 1410g

    M (240) 720g

    EVF for M 30g

    (All weights are rounded).
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  38. #88
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    (Blush) . I do realise that EFCS is an option - and that you can turn it off, I used it and liked it - but nevertheless it does cause issues, Sony and Leica just have a different approach (the Q has an electronic shutter option after all).
    Why not spell out what the issues are?


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Brad
    I've not read anything about it causing difficulty either - and I agree that Leica might easily have implemented it if there was time (although I've not talked about it with them as far as I can remember). Still, the shutter shock issue only seemed to arise with cameras using IBIS and it suddenly occurred to me that a wobbly sensor might not be entirely innocent.

    Not so, looks like more spin to me!
    With best regards, K-H.

  39. #89
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    LOL! No no ... No Nocti for me, at least not in the foreseeable future. The Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 is fast enough, and a lovely lens in its own right. :-)

    I had my eye on a very nice Noctilux-M 50/1.0 for a bit, but decided that I didn't want/need it enough. I bought the Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5 instead.

    G
    I think this was a good choice!

  40. #90
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Why not spell out what the issues are?
    Electronic first curtain (E1C) as implemented in the Sony a7II (I have no experience with other models having this feature) fails at shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec with certain lenses including but not limited to a certain non-native, fully-mechanical 500mm lens I'm using. How it fails is uneven exposure, the top of the image becoming darker and darker as the shutter speeds become faster. Since E1C makes the camera responsive enough for my use I'm effectively limited to 1/1000 sec or slower. This is my biggest disappointment with the a7II.


    Not so, looks like more spin to me!
    One advantage optical stabilization has is that it's an off-the-shelf component made by Copal. Not sure about sensor stabilization.
    Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #91
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Why not spell out what the issues are?
    There are several (Doug has explained one above) - I thought they were common knowledge - google it - you'll find lots about it!
    I don't think any of them are particularly important, but they are there.

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Not so, looks like more spin to me!
    Well, 'shutter shock' needs to be distinguished from 'camera shake' - it's pretty clearly defined (and pretty conclusively cured with later Sony A7 cameras and with firmware in the E-M1) - but I'm not aware of any cameras without moving sensors which suffer from it (but I'm absolutely willing to be proved wrong - it was only a throwaway remark) - at any rate, both Olympus and Sony seem to have cured it.

    This discussion arose around the weight of the SL and whether it had any impact on steadiness - Robert thought it didn't, others that it did. . . . .

    Look at it this way (and then I'll shut up)

    Sony brought out the early A7 cameras whose trademark was they were small and light, full frame and with excellent resolution - a real tangible step forwards.
    However - the early versions were criticised for being very subject to camera shake, and with more lag than was desirable. To cure these issues they implemented IBIS and EFCS - and cure it they did - Excellent

    The SL comes along, and it doesn't have IBIS or EFCS . . . and it's being criticised here for not implementing these technologies . . BUT it's not actually susceptible to shutter shock, or, it seems to me, to unreasonable camera shake, and the lag is extremely small (at least as good as the second generation A7 cameras). So it seems to me that Leica have solved these problems in different ways (perhaps by making the camera bigger and heavier, and by having a very quiet shutter), and there isn't much point in criticising the camera for missing technology which it doesn't appear to need. There are advantages in a fixed sensor as Godfrey has pointed out in terms of sensor cooling (which is relevant for noise), and of course, simplicity has some rewards. It suddenly occurred

    . . . . But then there is IBIS - which is thoroughly desirable with 3rd party lenses and would be wonderful with R telephoto lenses - it's a really sad omission . . no question . . and before using the SL, just like you, I said I'd never buy a camera without IBIS again - but 3 months with the SL convinced me that in this case I can shoot steadily with M lenses, with the R lenses for macro, and for my fairly limited telephoto requirements I'll wait for the 90-280. So I bought the camera and kit zoom . . . . . . and I don't have issues with blurred photos.

    I'm not criticising Sony or Olympus in any way (whatever problems they had in this area they have clearly fixed with new technology)- and I'm certainly not trying to spin - just to point out that the SL doesn't appear to need these esoterics to take steady pictures.

    Just this guy you know
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #92
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    IMHO instead of ticking technology boxes it is better to be interested in the resulting performance.
    Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #93
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Jono,

    thanks for this great answer!

    Peter

  44. #94
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    Electronic first curtain (E1C) as implemented in the Sony a7II (I have no experience with other models having this feature) fails at shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec with certain lenses including but not limited to a certain non-native, fully-mechanical 500mm lens I'm using. How it fails is uneven exposure, the top of the image becoming darker and darker as the shutter speeds become faster. Since E1C makes the camera responsive enough for my use I'm effectively limited to 1/1000 sec or slower. This is my biggest disappointment with the a7II.
    Thanks Doug.

    Well, I don't feel limited in that way. I use much faster shutter speeds with the A7r2's mechanical shutter with no apparent detrimental effect.
    Jim Kasson has done extensive studies on the subject I highly recommend. 1/1000 s or there about indeed seems to be a good switchover point.
    Of course, it would be nice if the camera could switch over from EFCS to mechanical shutter automatically.
    Last edited by k-hawinkler; 2nd January 2016 at 11:58.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #95
    Senior Member Arne Hvaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    198

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    There are several (Doug has explained one above) - I thought they were common knowledge - google it - you'll find lots about it!
    I don't think any of them are particularly important, but they are there.


    Well, 'shutter shock' needs to be distinguished from 'camera shake' - it's pretty clearly defined (and pretty conclusively cured with later Sony A7 cameras and with firmware in the E-M1) - but I'm not aware of any cameras without moving sensors which suffer from it (but I'm absolutely willing to be proved wrong - it was only a throwaway remark) - at any rate, both Olympus and Sony seem to have cured it.
    Well...I can prove you wrong. The first camera that clearly brought shutter-shake induced sharpness loss to the fore was the A7r and to a lesser degree the Leica M used in live-view mode. None of these cameras have "moving" sensors.

    Personally I'm not criticising Leica for not implementing EFCS or IBIS; as long as they can produce a body that delivers sharp images at all shutterspeeds with a mechanical shutter, all the better. What I'm curious about is how they do it.
    Having said that, with Panasonic now also moving towards IBIS, I wouldn't be too surprised to see it in the next SL- generation.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #96
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Interesting write-up from somebody who will not be buying the camera:
    http://joerivanderkloet.com/leica-sl-review/

    Ends with a who's it for/not for section.
    Thanks 4 Member(s) thanked for this post

  47. #97
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,296
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    There are several (Doug has explained one above) - I thought they were common knowledge - google it - you'll find lots about it!
    I don't think any of them are particularly important, but they are there.

    Hi Jono, the above comes across to me as mildly condescending. I am sorry to have to point that out.
    Above, you yourself seem to acknowledge that reference to the issues with EFCS is a red herring.
    By cavalierly stating about EFCS that "nevertheless it does cause issues" without stating what those issues are you seem to be employing the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) method, first perfected my Microsoft.
    I am quite familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of EFCS and use EFCS on my A7r2 to great benefit. No need for me to google. Thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Well, 'shutter shock' needs to be distinguished from 'camera shake' - it's pretty clearly defined (and pretty conclusively cured with later Sony A7 cameras and with firmware in the E-M1) - but I'm not aware of any cameras without moving sensors which suffer from it (but I'm absolutely willing to be proved wrong - it was only a throwaway remark) - at any rate, both Olympus and Sony seem to have cured it.

    Sorry, Jono, but you seem simply ill informed about this point. For a beautiful shutter shock example with the no-IBIS A7r you need to look no further than here. http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/494...tml#post557838


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    This discussion arose around the weight of the SL and whether it had any impact on steadiness - Robert thought it didn't, others that it did. . . . .

    Look at it this way (and then I'll shut up)

    Sony brought out the early A7 cameras whose trademark was they were small and light, full frame and with excellent resolution - a real tangible step forwards.
    However - the early versions were criticised for being very subject to camera shake, and with more lag than was desirable. To cure these issues they implemented IBIS and EFCS - and cure it they did - Excellent

    Although I have experienced really bad shutter shock with my A7r I have never had a similar experience with my A7r2.
    So indeed Sony seems to have that issue addressed successfully. But I rather doubt IBIS has anything to do with that.
    Simply using the A7r2 on a tripod with IBIS off and EFCS on for shutter speeds slower than about 1/1000 s avoids all potential shutter shock and EFCS issues as far as I can tell.
    For faster shutter speeds the mechanical shutter on the A7r2 seems to work just fine.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    The SL comes along, and it doesn't have IBIS or EFCS . . . and it's being criticised here for not implementing these technologies . . BUT it's not actually susceptible to shutter shock, or, it seems to me, to unreasonable camera shake, and the lag is extremely small (at least as good as the second generation A7 cameras). So it seems to me that Leica have solved these problems in different ways (perhaps by making the camera bigger and heavier, and by having a very quiet shutter), and there isn't much point in criticising the camera for missing technology which it doesn't appear to need.

    Jono, I have no reason to doubt your statement that Leica has managed to employ an excellent shutter in the SL. Congratulations!
    Inquiring minds simply would like to know how it works in principle.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    There are advantages in a fixed sensor as Godfrey has pointed out in terms of sensor cooling (which is relevant for noise), and of course, simplicity has some rewards. It suddenly occurred

    Indeed I agree. The makers of cameras with IBIS have to work harder and employ more advanced technologies to keep their sensors cool. And they do, but it's still a challenge.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    . . . . But then there is IBIS - which is thoroughly desirable with 3rd party lenses and would be wonderful with R telephoto lenses - it's a really sad omission . . no question . . and before using the SL, just like you, I said I'd never buy a camera without IBIS again - but 3 months with the SL convinced me that in this case I can shoot steadily with M lenses, with the R lenses for macro, and for my fairly limited telephoto requirements I'll wait for the 90-280. So I bought the camera and kit zoom . . . . . . and I don't have issues with blurred photos.

    Well, congratulations on your choice of camera. It seems to serve you well. Your pictures prove that.
    Your hands must be a lot steadier than mine. So tripod use or IBIS for freehand use is a must for me.
    What I most appreciate about IBIS is that it gives me a stabilized image when manually focusing my Leica R lenses freehand.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I'm not criticising Sony or Olympus in any way (whatever problems they had in this area they have clearly fixed with new technology)- and I'm certainly not trying to spin - just to point out that the SL doesn't appear to need these esoterics to take steady pictures.

    Well, for me IBIS, 42 MP, and an BSI sensor are not esoterics. I derive benefit from all 3 features.

    It will be interesting to see which features Leica will implement in their R-SL adapter.
    If the future adapter could automatically stop down the lens after it was manually focused that would be a tremendous advantage.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  48. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    People might be better conversationalists - if they understood that bench-marking products against a feature set ( including price) is not how many other people actually make decisions about buying tools. How a tool works for a particular person is the most accurate predictor of who is likely to buy or not buy a particular tool. Perhaps we may then have to put up with less purposefully crafted rhetoric - designed to insult choice.

    To this end ( for example) the review pointed to above is a good review.

    So I am looking forward to purchasing an SL - when it becomes available this year in Australia- because I already know I like holding it in my hand and 25 megapixels is easier for me to manage hand held than 40...or 35...but not as easy as 18 or less.

    In fact the SL's greatest potential negative (for me) is its 25 megapixels and the inevitable compromises I will have to make when using it hand held - against this potential negative is the fact that we now have an EVF that makes using really fast M glass wide open a tad easier - and a new range of fast primes from Leica with auto focus will make it easier on ageing eyes again.

    Yes - ergonomic arguments aren't as exciting or seemingly bullet proof in their conclusions - still it is the ergonomics of the equation that are always the deciding factor for me in a hand held camera. I will pay a premium for the amenity and the utility the ergonomics deliver - to coin an old fashioned engineering term- ergonomic considerations provide the 'go' / 'no-go' test for me.

    Some may need to be patient and expand their world view to include those who place a premium of how a tool works in the hands of the user - and cut down on the shriek factor in these conversations.

    The forum is poorer not richer if people insist on shoving their own prejudice and agenda down people throats - every chance they get.
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #99
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Seems that there are far more than 2 different views of the SL.

    I am starting to see the Sony v Leica deal again....it's a tried and true debate that has no reasonable end point....but does lead to many views/opinions/what-have-yous.

    Please play kindly in our shared sandbox.
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #100
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Two different views on the Leica SL

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    Wrong question. I don't have any OIS lenses nor is it likely I can afford an OIS 500mm lens. The Canon FD 500mm f/4.5 L is an excellent lens, about US$1200, and is stabilized when used with an IBIS camera. IBIS also means my 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R, 100mm APO-Macro-Elmarit-R and 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R are stabilized.

    The 500 FD is also fully mechanical, which is how I like my lenses. I marry my lenses, I date camera bodies. I'm thinking the a7II is a one-night stand. IBIS in the SL would have meant the Sony would already have been sold.
    In this case I can fully understand your preference for ibis.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •