Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm glad you're not going to replace your M240 with a new camera system just out that you've not laid your eyes nor hands on nor has anybody else, Bob! I'd think a Leica M240 would deserve more than that! Bored with it? I thought the frame lines light up? On 10/30/15 3:26 PM, "Bob Adler" <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > I deliberated and researched quite thoroughly on whether to pre-order the > SL (body only) to replace my M240. Here's why I decided not to: > > 1. No in body stabilization. Sony has it, Fuji has it, Oly has it. Why > didn't Leica do it?? Perhaps because as said by Leica they started this > project 3 years ago before in body stabilization was available in most > mirrorless cameras and then could not redesign the camera to do it. So all > R and M lenses cannot be stabilized. > > 2. Nothing definitive is available from Leica as to evidence that corner > problems with wide angles on other mirrorless, full frame cameras have been > solved. All they are saying is that wide angles will be able to be mounted > on the camera, even when asked specifically about corner problems with some > of the best Leica WA's. So for me this would be a step backwards if my > wides did not work as well as on the M240. > > 3. High (and I mean 12,500 and above) ISO performance has not been > evidenced. > > 4. There is no ability to stop the camera from taking a noise reducing > image after long exposure shots. I really need this (and Sony and Nikon > allow this: perhaps others do too). > > So I will be waiting for other's results. I really don't want to pay $7,500 > for a better EVF with the possibility of reduced WA performance. I will be > watching with interest as others tell us about their purchase. > Best, > Bob > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> That is a somewhat frustrating first look review from them for me. I used >> to follow their reviews on many brands where they provided good features >> description, handling and impressions even in first looks, I think. >> Perhaps >> they will add more later. >> >> Their comment on the default DNG profile (and default JPEG rendering) >> reflects that it was not yet optimised when they tested. Adobe will >> doubtless address that (as they have just done in the newest raw >> processing >> for S (Typ 007) DNG's). >> >> Re the banding comments, when I read this is a problem at base ISO if you >> push the file by five or six EV, I feel like this has got into the realm >> of theoretical analysis absent practical use of the camera. How many of us >> would expect no loss of quality in that circumstance? >> It doesn't matter about the equipment brand, surely this is hardly >> relevant >> in practical use? Personally I have sometimes been surprised at just how >> much information is in the shadows from the M (Typ 240) and S2 for >> example. But if I needed to fix an underexposure by that much it would >> need >> to be a Pulitzer Prize candidate image for me to admit that I got the >> exposure that wrong in the first place. >> >> I don't think that direct camera to camera performance comparisons are >> necessarily sensible either when they are not even being compared with the >> same optics for example. The 'real world samples' they provide were >> evidently with a Summilux 35 (unknown model). Must be an M lens with >> adapter I guess. >> Maybe if the review is updated to talk about the actual camera features >> and >> their experience in using it with the first to be released lens It might >> be >> more interesting/relevant for me in any case. >> >> No-one even has a serial camera yet as far as I know yet there is no >> shortage of criticism it seems. Maybe the 'it's too big, Leica >> should.....' >> theme is lessening at least ;-) DPreview bear some responsibility for >> influencing that with a misleading image too, as I recall. >> --------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Paul Roark <roark.paul at gmail.com> >> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> >> Cc: >> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:39:35 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [Leica] BIG new Leica >> See >> >> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-r >> eview/3 >> >> "[The Leica SL's] shadow performance can be significantly undermined by >> the hard-to-correct-for banding." >> >> Paul >> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/> >> >> Cheers >> Geoff >> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/