Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/05/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Is this something you have observed in images you have shot, Bob? I read so much garbage on the interwebs these days by people who test and test and don?t make images. I suspect that for you, since you often shoot from a tripod, that you WILL notice optical problems. But for the vast majority who shoot hand-held, I doubt it matters much. Adam > On 2017 May 8, at 11:03 AM, 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