Official Talk Leica thread

dancook said:
I had the RX1R,

AF was frustratingly slow/poor, and you could not zone focus easily - no markings and resets to focus at infinity when coming back from standby, which you'd probably want to use as the battery life isn't great.

Love the quality though, everything here taken with RX1R
https://www.flickr.com/gp/62198876@N02/9xK9p4

I so much love my Leica Q, that I made a blog for it before I even received it :D
https://leicaqstreet.wordpress.com/

also started a Leica Q Photography group on FB
https://www.facebook.com/groups/743947725737190/
Click to expand...

Absolutely fantastic images sir, a real enjoyment to browse!!
 
Hiya,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

Many thanks for the kind comments.


As mentioned above, I'd either save for the Q. It IS worth it :) or go for the Fuji (along with the converters perhaps) - even to see if you can make do with a fixed lens.

I've had the X100 in the past, it's a great camera but not a patch on the Q. I know the price is not comparable - but camera to camera it doesn't come close.

Cheers,
Shane :)
 
dancook said:
I had the RX1R,

AF was frustratingly slow/poor, and you could not zone focus easily - no markings and resets to focus at infinity when coming back from standby, which you'd probably want to use as the battery life isn't great.
Click to expand...

Ditto to Dan's experience. I had an RX1 - in fact I bought one on the day it came out and paid handsomly for the privilege. The image quality from it was outstanding, and the lens was just perfection. But...but...it was very slow to focus and the menu system like all Sonys was just horribly complex.

By comparison the Leica Q is a wonderful thing, much more usable than the RX1 due to the physical aperture & shutter speed dials, and obviously the inbuilt viewfinder. While it's a 28mm instead of a 35mm, I do quite like the 28mm focal length. And the lens on the Q is a delight.

The X100T is also a wonderful camera. It is 35mm equivalent f/2 and the image quality is just great. Also rather brilliant is the viewfinder and the handling, as it has physical aperture and shutter speed dials like the Q. It's also somewhat slimmer than the Q as well as the lens diesn't stick out so much. I really enjoyed my X100T but sold it when I bought my Leica M (which is what the X100T was just a stand in for). It's well worth a look - I wrote up a review of it here: http://tobinators.com/blog/2015/04/gear-and-kit/fuji-x100t-longish-term-user-report/

If you've got the cash, the Q is the one to go for. Then the X100T. I'd put the RX1 last of the three.
 
Yep - got one here:

iu
 
SlimShaney said:
Hiya,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

Many thanks for the kind comments.


As mentioned above, I'd either save for the Q. It IS worth it :) or go for the Fuji (along with the converters perhaps) - even to see if you can make do with a fixed lens.

I've had the X100 in the past, it's a great camera but not a patch on the Q. I know the price is not comparable - but camera to camera it doesn't come close.

Cheers,
Shane :)
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for the feedback sir.
 
Tobers said:
Ditto to Dan's experience. I had an RX1 - in fact I bought one on the day it came out and paid handsomly for the privilege. The image quality from it was outstanding, and the lens was just perfection. But...but...it was very slow to focus and the menu system like all Sonys was just horribly complex.

By comparison the Leica Q is a wonderful thing, much more usable than the RX1 due to the physical aperture & shutter speed dials, and obviously the inbuilt viewfinder. While it's a 28mm instead of a 35mm, I do quite like the 28mm focal length. And the lens on the Q is a delight.

The X100T is also a wonderful camera. It is 35mm equivalent f/2 and the image quality is just great. Also rather brilliant is the viewfinder and the handling, as it has physical aperture and shutter speed dials like the Q. It's also somewhat slimmer than the Q as well as the lens diesn't stick out so much. I really enjoyed my X100T but sold it when I bought my Leica M (which is what the X100T was just a stand in for). It's well worth a look - I wrote up a review of it here: http://tobinators.com/blog/2015/04/gear-and-kit/fuji-x100t-longish-term-user-report/

If you've got the cash, the Q is the one to go for. Then the X100T. I'd put the RX1 last of the three.
Click to expand...

Thank you I shall be have a good read of that! :)
 
Hello, I'm feeling strangely bereft as my M9 has gone back to Leica Land for a new sensor because of the dreaded rot. It might be away some time... (it told me as it left) Anyway, as I understand the whole sensor is replaced, (is it?) anyone here had theirs return from the same trip and have they found any improvements or upgrades to the old sensor or is it exactly the same?

Here are a couple of shots to share with you from the M9 taken with my aged 35 year old 35mm f2 Summicron.

Rest-Period.jpg
Class-Divide.jpg
 
Nick Owen said:
Hello, I'm feeling strangely bereft as my M9 has gone back to Leica Land for a new sensor because of the dreaded rot. It might be away some time... (it told me as it left) Anyway, as I understand the whole sensor is replaced, (is it?) anyone here had theirs return from the same trip and have they found any improvements or upgrades to the old sensor or is it exactly the same? ]
Click to expand...

I haven't found any difference between the old sensor and the replacement. They do put a new cover on it though.
 
I know it's been said before but that's a huuuuge 50/body combo! Do Leica need that extra room in the body and lens to squeeze in unicorn tears? The separation is nice on that example image but do you think it's any better than you got with the Sony A7 kit you used to have?
 
stevelmx5 said:
I know it's been said before but that's a huuuuge 50/body combo! Do Leica need that extra room in the body and lens to squeeze in unicorn tears? The separation is nice on that example image but do you think it's any better than you got with the Sony A7 kit you used to have?
Click to expand...

I didn't have the 55mm 1.8 for long, my favourite lens in the end was the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 - which was a huge lens for 35mm.
 
Nick Owen said:
Hello, I'm feeling strangely bereft as my M9 has gone back to Leica Land for a new sensor because of the dreaded rot. It might be away some time... (it told me as it left) Anyway, as I understand the whole sensor is replaced, (is it?) anyone here had theirs return from the same trip and have they found any improvements or upgrades to the old sensor or is it exactly the same?

Here are a couple of shots to share with you from the M9 taken with my aged 35 year old 35mm f2 Summicron.

View attachment 90059
View attachment 90060
Click to expand...

These are great. I believe the whole sensor is replaced. Hopefully it won't be away too long.

I bought mine with a new sensor from Leica Manchester. It's good that Leica are replacing these still though, considering the initial cost for replacement was around £2k at one point I believe.
 
Sassafras said:
I haven't found any difference between the old sensor and the replacement. They do put a new cover on it though.
Click to expand...

I have read a few people say that the colour temp was slightly different (cooler), however I don't know how true that is as mine always had the new sensor. There is possible a very slight difference with the new layer but it's likely minor.

The main thing is getting the new sensor.
 
Ruffmeister said:
I have read a few people say that the colour temp was slightly different (cooler), however I don't know how true that is as mine always had the new sensor. There is possible a very slight difference with the new layer but it's likely minor.

The main thing is getting the new sensor.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I expect it'll not be returned until the new year now, but here's hoping!
 
Ruffmeister said:
Thats a beast!! How are you finding it? Congrats!
Click to expand...

Quite easily ;)

A pleasure to use, having to temper my af expectations coming from a D750 but I will work out what I'm happy with. I will post something, but first I need to process a school fashion shoot from Friday which I can't share.
 
dancook said:
Quite easily ;)

A pleasure to use, having to temper my af expectations coming from a D750 but I will work out what I'm happy with. I will post something, but first I need to process a school fashion shoot from Friday which I can't share.
Click to expand...
Is the AF on the SL a big step back? What would you liken it to?
 
snerkler said:
Is the AF on the SL a big step back? What would you liken it to?
Click to expand...

Continuous AF in a dim environment can cause it to hunt :) doesn't mean I've exhausted the options though.
I might quite likely have not chosen optimal AF selection points for such a task or something, I was using pinpoint focus for a bit which is a cross hair instead of a box! It will take some time to understand what works best in what situations.
 
For those that haven't had the privilege of touching and using the SL in the flesh you need to. The camera isnt huge it's a good size, the premium finish of the camera outshines the Q, the buttons are well made the EVF is amazing it's like watching TV is just superb. The screen as well to look at your photos is nice and big and crisp and one of the best if not best I've seen.
With the 90-280mm you need to be strong to hand hold it and I'm far from that.
For those that know me will know I struggle at shooting below 100 but I managed to get to 60 with no issues and still a good level of focus which is bloody good for me.
Right I'm off to sell me arse and give hand jobs for £20 to buy one.
 
I had a play with an SL last week, with my 24 and 50 M lenses on it. With the M lenses it is really quite compact. Manual focus is well thought out (better than the A7 series) and very effective. A minor learning curve needs to be negotiated to figure out the buttons, but I'd say it will be remarkably intuitive after that.

Build quality is just beautiful. It's a properly solid piece of kit.

The 24-90 is somewhat chunky, but I would venture that an SL with 24-90 is lighter than my M with 24, 50 and 90 lenses (though I've got f/1.4-f.2). The 90-280 looks no larger/heavier than a Sigma 100-300 f4, which is a nice lens as it happens.

After having tested an A7ii against my M, with the same M lenses, and found very little difference in IQ at all, I think the SL's value will be in the user experience and effectiveness of its UI rather than any significant image quality differences. Personally I prefer to use my M above all other cameras however advanced they may be, though the SL looks like it could be a very close contender. I'm keen to see what the M10 brings.
 
Took delivery of my Zeiss 1.4/35 today. Looking forward to getting out over the weekend to try it out. I'll let you have my thoughts on the lens in due course.
 
opps haha- yeh id really rather sell on here for cheaper than risk some randomer on ebay!
 
but fear not, i'm keeping my M240 and after many different 50s.. My favourite.. The 50 Sonnar 1.5.
 
I had a good play with @dancook's SL on Tuesday on a shoot for a local business. It's winning me over - very nice indeed. I used it with my Summilux-M 24 lens for wide shots while keeping my 50 1.4 on my M-240.

Image quality from the SL is very good, especially with that rather luscious 24mm on it. It's very nice to hold and use - beautifully built, positive actions on all the buttons etc. and nicely sized - not a lot bigger than the M. Works fine with off-camera flash using Pocket Wizards.

On the downside, when shooting in a dim environment with the lens stopped down, if only to f/5.6, the viewfinder "gains up" so much that it becomes so noisy it's hard to see correct focus, even when zoomed in. In this environment the M is actually better. The problem is that there is less light getting into the lens so the EVF can's see as much so has to increase gain to work. The solution is to open the aperture, zoom in, focus, close the aperture to the desired setting, then shoot. A bit of a faff.

Aside from that, very lovely.

Mind you, the M-240 was rather good too!
 
Tobers said:
I had a good play with @dancook's SL on Tuesday on a shoot for a local business. It's winning me over - very nice indeed. I used it with my Summilux-M 24 lens for wide shots while keeping my 50 1.4 on my M-240.

Image quality from the SL is very good, especially with that rather luscious 24mm on it. It's very nice to hold and use - beautifully built, positive actions on all the buttons etc. and nicely sized - not a lot bigger than the M. Works fine with off-camera flash using Pocket Wizards.

On the downside, when shooting in a dim environment with the lens stopped down, if only to f/5.6, the viewfinder "gains up" so much that it becomes so noisy it's hard to see correct focus, even when zoomed in. In this environment the M is actually better. The problem is that there is less light getting into the lens so the EVF can's see as much so has to increase gain to work. The solution is to open the aperture, zoom in, focus, close the aperture to the desired setting, then shoot. A bit of a faff.

Aside from that, very lovely.

Mind you, the M-240 was rather good too!
Click to expand...
Why does stopping down darken the EVF as the actual aperture only stops down when actually taking the shot doesn't it, unless Leica work differently?
 
snerkler said:
Why does stopping down darken the EVF as the actual aperture only stops down when actually taking the shot doesn't it, unless Leica work differently?
Click to expand...

Because he was using a manual focus, manual aperture lens. Leica-M adapted to SL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top