Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/05/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Brian Smith has had a discussion on the stars issue this week: Scroll down to the middle of the page: http://briansmith.com/sony-releases-a7rii-firmware-update-3-30/ On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Regards, Sonny http://sonc.com/look/ Natchitoches, Louisiana 1714 Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase USA