Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Robert Roaldi on October 21, 2015, 12:13:38 pm
-
"Cropped liver", love it.
-
That post comes in your site Under "Compact System cameras"... ;)
About DXO rating of Sony lenses, and those to be among the best, I think this is Worth reading:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests
Have a good day
Raoul
-
Good write up. I think especially the missing primes and the missing MP is a problem with the launch of the SL. When Canon brought out the 5DIII in 2012, it was already not what people where hoping for. 3 years later on, it is even worse. I'll get that the didn't want to eat into the Leica S, but still. At the moment there isn't much difference to the M with a EVF.
They should have made the SL a digital Mamiya7 with the Leica S Sensor. That would have been cool.
-
I suspect that what we were hoping for was an interchangeable lens Q. The SL is neither fish nor fowl: it is bulky and it doesn't seem to be optimized for M lenses (even if it is no worse than the A7r II).
Out of the gate, it seems to be a triopod camera. but shoots at 11fps. Not clear what use that would serve.
The adapters will take months to arrive and will be very expensive as they will need to read 6-bit codings, so the lack of lenses will persist.
I suspect that I will wait this one out.
-
Good article :)
Look forward to this pushing EVF performance to a new level. Hope the claims Leica make are true...
It will not surprise me if they follow with a higher MP version as the lens lines starts to build
-
Only one very small nit: 0 degrees latitude, 0 degrees longitude is situated in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of West Africa. :o
Tony Jay
-
Only one very small nit: 0 degrees latitude, 0 degrees longitude is situated in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of West Africa. :o
Tony Jay
Of course it is. My bad.
Michael
-
This camera is really puzzling to me. Who is in the market for this camera? Even if I won the lottery I wouldn't buy this.
-
"Parenthetically, three of the top ten lenses ever tested by DxO Labs are Sony G or Sony/Zeiss, so, while Leica glass is almost always superb, it’s not as if what Sony offers is cropped liver."
Be aware of the potential fallacy in this "top ten" list. It is based on the DxOMark Score, which in turn is related to resolution of the camera used for the test. While DxO has tested various lenses on Sony and Nikon 36mp bodies, they apparently have yet to test any lenses on a 50mp Canon 5DS or 5DSR. Canon lenses are pretty much ruled out from being on the current "top ten" list by virtue of the Canon lenses all having been tested on lower resolution bodies like the 5D3 & 5D2. If they test Leica SL lenses, Leica will have the same problem as the camera is 24mp.
No doubt the Sony and Sony/Zeiss lenses are excellent, but they might not comprise three of the top ten if not for this quirk of DxO ranking.
-
"Parenthetically, three of the top ten lenses ever tested by DxO Labs are Sony G or Sony/Zeiss, so, while Leica glass is almost always superb, it’s not as if what Sony offers is cropped liver."
Be aware of the potential fallacy in this "top ten" list. It is based on the DxOMark Score, which in turn is related to resolution of the camera used for the test. While DxO has tested various lenses on Sony and Nikon 36mp bodies, they apparently have yet to test any lenses on a 50mp Canon 5DS or 5DSR. Canon lenses are pretty much ruled out from being on the current "top ten" list by virtue of the Canon lenses all having been tested on lower resolution bodies like the 5D3 & 5D2. If they test Leica SL lenses, Leica will have the same problem as the camera is 24mp.
No doubt the Sony and Sony/Zeiss lenses are excellent, but they might not comprise three of the top ten if not for this quirk of DxO ranking.
You can check http://www.lenscore.org/ for a non camera related assessment of lenses quality (they use a 200mp slow CCD with very low ISO).
Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Leica top the ranking. Few Sony FE lenses have been tested. Those that have (such as the 55mm f1.8 with a very good reputation) are very good, but not outstanding.
Now, to be fair, most of the top lenses are either Zeiss/Leica top primes or super tele lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You can check http://www.lenscore.org/ for a non camera related assessment of lenses quality (they use a 200mp slow CCD with very low ISO).
Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Leica top the ranking. Few Sony FE lenses have been tested. Those that have (such as the 55mm f1.8 with a very good reputation) are very good, but not outstanding.
Now, to be fair, most of the top lenses are either Zeiss/Leica top primes or super tele lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
They said the 55 is comparable to the Otus.
-
They said the 55 is comparable to the Otus.
Who said that?
That is clearly not what the lenscore.org results show.
cheers,
Bernard
-
Good first thoughts about what seems to a puzzling camera. It does make sense within a Leica ecosystem. As with any Leica, the price makes it as a non-competitor to any other system.
-
I think this is the usual well balanced and sensible article from Mr. Reichmann.
Being a new 'member' but long time 'lurker', I'm assuming that Leica are being silly with their toys in respect of this particular well-regarded reviewer and his opinions?
Why is it that manufacturers always think they know best? Certainly, it's not possible to create perfection, but if they behaved with a little more humility from time to time I'm sure they would dodge some of the more obvious 'bear-traps'!
-
Good article also by Sean Reid. Quite an interesting hands on experience report. And I fully agree, this is the first pro oriented camera that uses an EVF, so it probably provides a glimpse into what the future may bring, should Canon or Nikon go down the same route.
-
Electronic finders sound great - but try one in the dark doing Northern Lights. The brightness wipes out your night vision.
-
Electronic finders sound great - but try one in the dark doing Northern Lights. The brightness wipes out your night vision.
Btw, how do the best ones deal with PL filters these days. A few years back it was impossible to notice the change when rotating PL filters.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Electronic finders sound great - but try one in the dark doing Northern Lights. The brightness wipes out your night vision.
And what good is the OVF in this situation? I have more aurora shots than I care to admit. I use the non flipping screen.
-
And what good is the OVF in this situation? I have more aurora shots than I care to admit. I use the non flipping screen.
Same here. When doing star trails or MW shots, I never use the EVF. I use the LCD screen with minimum brightness. Works fine. Much better than using an OVF which is as dark as the night sky...
-
You can check http://www.lenscore.org/ for a non camera related assessment of lenses quality (they use a 200mp slow CCD with very low ISO).
Zeiss, Nikon, Canon and Leica top the ranking. Few Sony FE lenses have been tested. Those that have (such as the 55mm f1.8 with a very good reputation) are very good, but not outstanding.
Now, to be fair, most of the top lenses are either Zeiss/Leica top primes or super tele lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh, that list makes more sense. The Otus 55mm is #4 on that list, while the Sony/Zeiss FE 55/1.8 is something like #39. Still excellent, but not quite where DxO ranks it.
Of the three Sony lenses in DxO's "top ten", two (FE35/1.4 & FE90/2.8 ) appear to be not as good as Canon's comparable lenses (35/1.4LII & 100/2.8L IS) according to the new LensRentals article linked above. Yet, Canon lenses don't even crack the top ten thanks to their sensor-based scoring (and lack of testing on the 5DS or 5DSR).
-
They said the 55 is comparable to the Otus.
Who said that?
That is clearly not what the lenscore.org results show.
Lensrentals. In their article this week on FE mount lenses.
They wrote, "the Sony 55 does very well on the MTF charts. Its center resolution is superb and it maintains sharpness very well to the edges. The Nikkor 58mm and Zeiss Otus 55m lenses are being tested here at f/1.4, which gives the Sony lens a bit of an unfair advantage, but it's still excellent and holding it's own against the best lenses in this range at the very least."
That's strong praise. Of course lensrentals are pragmatists, not listmakers. Lenscore looks like just another DxOMark with their love of numbers and weightings and aggregation. If #39 on lenscore is that good compared to #4, then why have a list?
-
Lensrentals. In their article this week on FE mount lenses.
They wrote, "the Sony 55 does very well on the MTF charts. Its center resolution is superb and it maintains sharpness very well to the edges. The Nikkor 58mm and Zeiss Otus 55m lenses are being tested here at f/1.4, which gives the Sony lens a bit of an unfair advantage, but it's still excellent and holding it's own against the best lenses in this range at the very least."
That's strong praise. Of course lensrentals are pragmatists, not listmakers. Lenscore looks like just another DxOMark with their love of numbers and weightings and aggregation. If #39 on lenscore is that good compared to #4, then why have a list?
Yes, f1.4 against f1.8 and speaking of sharpness alone. It seems to me you have things backward a bit. Both DxO and lensorg assess lenses more globally than an MTF test could. Whether they rank lenses in list isn't relevant. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
LOL
-
Lenscore looks like just another DxOMark with their love of numbers and weightings and aggregation. If #39 on lenscore is that good compared to #4, then why have a list?
Well, those lenses above #39 are really, really good — some renowned excellent lenses — but they won't crack DxO's famous oft-quoted "top ten" if they weren't tested on a 36mp body. Some absolutely great Canon lenses don't have a chance at DxO's "top ten" because DxO has only tested them on 22mp bodies.
-
Hi,
I don't think Lensrentals is a test site. They do a lot of testing as a part of their business but they only publish some of their findings. The results they publish are normally measured at full aperture. Most lenses improve a lot when stopped down.
MTF testing is widely used in the photographic industry, but it is clearly a measure only related to sharpness.
Lensscore actually discloses very little about their methods and how they calculate the values they publish, it is hard to know if those figures are relevant for my shooting.
With DxO mark it is a bit different, I never look the figure of merit but I go into measurements which allows me to find out strengths and weaknesses of the lenses I consider buying. That site is quite useful. The problem that their measurements are sensor based, so it is not really possible to compare say Canon lens with a Sony lens.
So I would say that DxO-mark test reports are actually useful, Lensrentals testdata is interesting. Lensscore sort of shows that expensive lenses are great lenses but say little about lenses in actual shooting situations.
Below are some screen dumps from DxO-mark tests with the Otus 55, Sony 55 and Nikon 24-120 zoom. DxO-mark gives a lot more information than Lensscore. One thing I see is that the Nikon 24-120 zoom is quite OK at optimum aperture. The Otus is probably best at around f/4.
The last figure compares the Sony 90/2.8G macro with the Otus 85/1.4, those lenses are pretty close at f/8. Would I shoot at f/1.4 the Otus would of course be the obvious choice.
Now, Lensrentals has published some slanted edge based test data on the 90/2.8G, but that uses data from the sensor (as also DxO-mark tests do). The slanted edge data was great and the measured MTF not so great. Lensrentals also checks sample variation and that was not that great on the Sony 90/2.8G.
By the way, I own the 90/2.8G and would say it is very good. I cannot compare with the Otus or say the Canon 100/2.8LII macro, as I own neither lens.
Best regards
Erik
Lensrentals. In their article this week on FE mount lenses.
They wrote, "the Sony 55 does very well on the MTF charts. Its center resolution is superb and it maintains sharpness very well to the edges. The Nikkor 58mm and Zeiss Otus 55m lenses are being tested here at f/1.4, which gives the Sony lens a bit of an unfair advantage, but it's still excellent and holding it's own against the best lenses in this range at the very least."
That's strong praise. Of course lensrentals are pragmatists, not listmakers. Lenscore looks like just another DxOMark with their love of numbers and weightings and aggregation. If #39 on lenscore is that good compared to #4, then why have a list?
-
Same here. When doing star trails or MW shots, I never use the EVF. I use the LCD screen with minimum brightness. Works fine. Much better than using an OVF which is as dark as the night sky...
For example, just this morning, before leaving for work, I went to my balcony to take a photo of the Venus - Jupiter conjunction. I used the A7II with the 55 lens, and I could see very clearly with the EVF. Mind you, this was in pre-sunrise, near dark conditions, at 7.10 am. Much easier than using an OVF.
-
"This is Mercedes territory, not that of Ford"
IMO that is simply not true. If Canon/Nikon/Sony compares to Ford than the Leica SL compare not to Mercedes. Mercedes is expensive but not twice, or even threefold, more expensive than the competition (even only 10-20% compared to BMW/Audi/Jaguar).
Leica SL is Bugatti Veyron territory: a wannahave luxury accessory product for the millionaires/billionaires among us. Not for photographers who make a living out of it.
-
Electronic finders sound great - but try one in the dark doing Northern Lights. The brightness wipes out your night vision.
Have you tried to put viewfinder brightness at minimum? For me that works great when using an EVF for night shooting.
I also reduce the LCD brightness, but that only halfway between minimum and the midpoint and then they seem both equally bright and not blinding at night.
-
Leica SL is Bugatti Veyron territory: a wannahave luxury accessory product for the millionaires/billionaires among us. Not for photographers who make a living out of it.
That's a bit of an exaggeration: the Leica premium is not as bad as the watch-as-male-jewelry premium, where lots of non-milionaires pay a premium of $5000 or more, or over 50 times as much, as for a Casio that tells time more accurately. And it pales in comparison to the BMW-Mercedes-Lexus-Infiniti-etc. premium when it comes to extra dollars over a mainstream alternative with very similar functionality in practice. (Given the number of Rolex-wearing luxury car drivers in this forum, I expect some dissent to these comparisons!)
-
My brother-in-law is a photographer making a living with a Leica S2. He would laugh long and hard at that characterization.
-
And what good is the OVF in this situation? I have more aurora shots than I care to admit. I use the non flipping screen.
Don't know the cameras you use but I can see to compose with the optical finder most of the time with a light show is in progress. A bit of moonlight and it is easier still.
The glare and bright light of the electronic finders and backs both ruin my night vision. I'll check composition after a shot or two to get it right and tweak it and then shoot without any of the brightness to cut down the vision. Put tape over the red light on the back as well.
-
I use a D800E for stills and D7000 that mainly shoot timelapse. I will sometimes use the OVF for quick framing but I always have to focus using liveview. Then I do test shots and chimp for framing usually.
-
Yes, f1.4 against f1.8 and speaking of sharpness alone. It seems to me you have things backward a bit. Both DxO and lensorg assess lenses more globally than an MTF test could. Whether they rank lenses in list isn't relevant. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
You're just angry that you have to buy an MF Zeiss lens for the Nikon when you can get much of the same performance from an AF one for the Sony at fraction of the price - and size and weight.
If one is a "50" shooter, then the Sony/Zeiss combo is probably what one wants. Zooms, teles etc ... goodbye Sony.
Edmund
-
You're just angry that you have to buy an MF Zeiss lens for the Nikon when you can get much of the same performance from an AF one for the Sony at fraction of the price - and size and weight.
Not the least bit, I am all for better lenses at a cheaper price.
I can also get much of the same performance with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and that hasn't prevented me from purchasing the Otii, because "much of" isn't the same as "all of". I have used the FE 55mm f1.8 and like it, it is a very good lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The big issue with lenses is surely head to head comparisons or potentially the lack of them. The Sony system is more developed yet still doesn't have a lens with the same or similar specs to the 24-90mm, only the 24-70mm which is not a great performer. That the Leica lens weighs over 1 kg perhaps tells you why this is the case and also why they haven't attempted to make the SL the size of an A7.
Leica of course already have a system aimed at significant size saving with the M so creating another might be questionable. If someone wants a Leica though but doesn't want an M with everything that comes with that then I would guess a good quality mid range and tele zooms are quite likely to be what they want.
-
Not the least bit, I am all for better lenses at a cheaper price.
I can also get much of the same performance with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and that hasn't prevented me from purchasing the Otii, because "much of" isn't the same as "all of". I have used the FE 55mm f1.8 and like it, it is a very good lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
You are very gentle...
The FE 55 is as good as any f1.8 lens from Nikon. It is only a sharp lens. All other characteristics who can make it a "great" lens aren't here. Same goes for the Sigma art. It is sharp and only sharp. The Otus are not "only" sharp, they are gorgeous and completely worth the price. The 58mm nikkor is a great lens, if you have the good copy.
So all in one we face again some utter childish Sony fanboys, technicians over photographer Imho, and some frustrated ppl who do not accept the fact that some ppl have money and some other don't have money. Welcome on planet Earth guys.... Not worth the read.
-
You are very gentle...
The FE 55 is as good as any f1.8 lens from Nikon. It is only a sharp lens. All other characteristics who can make it a "great" lens aren't here. Same goes for the Sigma art. It is sharp and only sharp. The Otus are not "only" sharp, they are gorgeous and completely worth the price. The 58mm nikkor is a great lens, if you have the good copy.
So all in one we face again some utter childish Sony fanboys, technicians over photographer Imho, and some frustrated ppl who do not accept the fact that some ppl have money and some other don't have money. Welcome on planet Earth guys.... Not worth the read.
And that's the basis which underlines so much angst, envy and hatred in the world - LuLa not excluded. Your Leica may be a sin, but God help you if should you enjoy going Ferrari and I cannot...
Rob C
-
You are very gentle...
The FE 55 is as good as any f1.8 lens from Nikon. It is only a sharp lens. All other characteristics who can make it a "great" lens aren't here. Same goes for the Sigma art. It is sharp and only sharp. The Otus are not "only" sharp, they are gorgeous and completely worth the price. The 58mm nikkor is a great lens, if you have the good copy.
So all in one we face again some utter childish Sony fanboys, technicians over photographer Imho, and some frustrated ppl who do not accept the fact that some ppl have money and some other don't have money. Welcome on planet Earth guys.... Not worth the read.
Some people have eyes, some are old. My days of manual focus are over. Even if it means that I have to substitute my own technical and inferior vision of a subject for the beautiful rendering of a superior lens. One can actually see this at work in the picture below, the rendering is too hard and wrecks the image.
Edmund
-
Some people have eyes, some are old. My days of manual focus are over. Even if it means that I have to substitute my own technical and inferior vision of a subject for the beautiful rendering of a superior lens. One can actually see this at work in the picture below, the rendering is too hard and wrecks the image.
Edmund
You are right; it needs gentle!
Rob C
-
No discussion of the DPReview Leica SL samples?!
Please tell me their SL is defective! Hideous banding everywhere in the shadows, even at base ISO.
-
I'm sure that it's a great camera. Not something I'd call a system, yet.
While the price isn't a big problem (well not too big of one), I wouldn't commit until they demonstrate their seriousness with native lens releases. 3 native lenses by the end of 2016 doesn't really do it for me. I look at the T lens releases as an example. At what stage will Leica look at sales and decide it isn't worth developing more lenses.
-
I'm sure that it's a great camera. Not something I'd call a system, yet.
While the price isn't a big problem (well not too big of one), I wouldn't commit until they demonstrate their seriousness with native lens releases. 3 native lenses by the end of 2016 doesn't really do it for me. I look at the T lens releases as an example. At what stage will Leica look at sales and decide it isn't worth developing more lenses.
My guess is the lenses will like the S system aim at quite a narrow userbase, I wouldn't expect lots of cheaper/smaller zooms and primes in the future however successful it is, I suspect future releases if they come will be along the lines of 35mm/85mm F/1.4's and an UWA zoom.
Again my guess is that despite the pro talk Leica are probably looking at marketing this mostly to high end amateurs early on, for a lot of them then lenses announced so far might be all they need.
-
I've seen some pictures from someone I know through a mutual friend. He's a Leica fanatic and definitely a high end amateur.
I still think that, especially from the front, the SL looks ugly as all hell (more so with tiny M lenses). It's not a workhorse and never will be, but at least it delivers on quality as one would expect.
-
Re: the Ethiopa article and Aram, the SL shooter. Michael, if possible, please provide a link to Aram's work once he posts it. I'd like to see what he did with the SL. Thanks.