Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/05/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The terrible Sony QC of Sony lenses plus this have soured me to Sony: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/04/star-eater-issue-no-longer-recommend-sony-cameras-astrophotography/ We shall see... Bob Adler www.robertadlerphotography.com > On May 7, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> > wrote: > > My axiom is always that if someone wants a Leica, regardless which model, > and can afford it, then go get it. Because we know otherwise the itch will > always be there :-) > > I no longer have the itch, lack of $$ cures that, but obviously Bob knows > and likes Leica, and if the SL entices, it would not make sense for him NOT > to get it. > >> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Some comments... Compared to the Sony A7rII at 42mp, the SL is not that >> intriguing. The advantage to higher mp cameras is that for the same pixel >> image size, you can use a shorter lens...ie, one less lens to carry. Ditto >> the M10. At our ages, travel is more fun with lighter camera bags. >> The SL is not that great with WA M lenses. Neither is the Sony. Bob has >> the thin glass cover plate modification, giving better performance than >> the >> stock Sony. Is it better or worse than the SL? Call it a wash. The M10 >> wins >> this round, hands down. >> If you change lenses less frequently, you will have less dust to clean >> from your sensor. Zooms are good. M loses out. >> The Sony offers better noise performance at higher ISO than either Leica. >> If you need it, it is there. >> IBIS allows for M lenses to be stabilized. SL has lens based IS. No IS >> for M lenses. >> I can put adapters on the Sony or the SL to use different brands of >> lenses. With the exception of S lenses on the SL ( I may have not >> remembered Hassy H lenses or maybe some other MF lenses), all lenses >> require the user to open up for focusing, then close down to working >> aperture for shooting. The Sony allows for Nikon and Canon lneses for auto >> aperture. ( basically making N and C lenses native mount. >> Obviously there is a price advantage to the Sony....$5k or more ain't >> chicken feed. >> >> I like the output from Tina from her SL images from Iran and Russia. >> Superb is a better word for the technical output. But can I afford a 2 >> lens >> system( no use for telephoto zooms). For $15k? Nope. Amateurs that do not >> sell their work can not use future revenue streams as justification. >> >> For me, the Sony body is the best current solution for travel. The >> question of any / all / some M lenses is the issue. I am leaning on a >> hybrid approach. Some native lenses, some M lenses some Nikon lenses. Why >> not? You CAN have the best of all worlds. >> >> And yes, I do love my original A7. IBIS would be nice... as I hand held >> at 1/15 all day yesterday. Churches are DARK, >> Frank Filippone Red735i at verizon.net >> >> >> On Sunday, May 7, 2017, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> >> wrote: >> Bob, if you want AF and zoom, even if for nothing else but for a (good) >> change, then SL does look appealing. It's Leica, it handles M lens well >> enough, it has AF zoom, it's just a bit bigger. What else do you want? >> Unless you must have > 24MP. Otherwise, I don't see a downside. On Sat, >> May >> 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. Read >> that. >>> But I was hoping for some much better changes. A high price to pay either >>> choice! > > Bob Adler > www.robertadlerphotography.com > > > On May 6, >> 2017, at 1:04 PM, Leo Wesson <leowesson at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I >> didn't buy one but I liked the 10 much more that the 240. Starts > faster, >> wakes up from sleep quicker, better high ISO results and the > buffer >> doesn't clog up. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Leo Wesson > > Leowesson.com > > >> 817-733-9157 > > > >> On May 6, 2017, at 14:16, Bob Adler < >> rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Leo, > >> No, I'm not. I do >> not see much benefit over the 240. And the zoom on > the SL makes it a >> great travel kit for me, as well as the autofocus and IS. > >> TO ME the >> M10 isn't much of a change from the 240. > >> Best, > >> Bob > >> > >> Bob >> Adler > >> www.robertadlerphotography.com > >> > >>> On May 6, 2017, at >> 9:37 AM, Leo Wesson <leowesson at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Bob, > >> >>> > >>>>> Are you not considering the M10? > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> >> Leo Wesson > >>> Leowesson.com > >>> 817-733-9157 > >>> > >>>> On May 6, >> 2017, at 11:29, Tina Manley <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> If >> you Google M240 sensor compared to SL sensor, you will get lots of > >>>> >> comparisons. Ditto with M lenses on both. > >>>> > >>>> Good luck! > >>>> >> > >>>>>> Tina > >>>> > >>>>> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Bob Adler < >> rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Desire the zooms for >> travel... > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Adler > >>>>> www.robertadlerphotography.com > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> On May 5, 2017, at 9:15 PM, Richard Ma >> n < > richard at richardmanphoto.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I >> don't have the SL, nor even the M240, but is "image quality, vs > the > >>>>>>> M240, > >>>>>> significantly improved with M lenses" to be your >> primary objective? > If > >>>>> so, > >>>>>> I can't imagine how the SL >> would be significantly better than the > M240 > >>>>> with > >>>>>> M >> lens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Bob Adler < >> rgacpa at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm contemplating selling some gear (M240, M21mm/1,4 ASPH, Sony > >> A7r II > >>>>>>> modified by Kolarivision for Leica WA lenses) plus some >> cash for > an SL > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> the 24-90. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Two >> questions: > >>>>>>> 1. Given a large collection of recent generation M >> lenses, are > there any > >>>>>>> known issues? MINOR degradation at the >> corners of images made with > WA > >>>>>>> lenses used wide open are not a >> big deal to me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Is there a noticeable pos >> itive difference in raw files? What > >>>>>>> differences (positive or >> negative). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bottom line, is the image quality, vs the >> M240, significantly > improved > >>>>>>> with M lenses to warrant this >> move? Not really talking about the > >>>>>>> differences in how one works >> with the two systems. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks in advance for your >> input, >>>>>>>>>> Bob > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bob Adler > >>>>>> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > "Some People Drive, We Are Driven" > // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram > <https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information