Great band pics. They are not easy (I ran a theatre for years) and could have done with an SL. What am I talking about, I still could !!
Thanks! what do you think makes it difficult?
Great band pics. They are not easy (I ran a theatre for years) and could have done with an SL. What am I talking about, I still could !!
Mostly the lighting. Stage lighting, forgetting moving heads for a moment, is nowhere near as bright as one imagines so we are down to balancing high ISO and wide apertures to get a decent shot with reasonable depth of field and not too much noise, (we don't all have the latest equipment!) hoping all the time that there is enough light for the auto focus to function properly. Having got all that right the lighting engineer then decides to wack on his blinders and other moving heads and it all goes pear shaped.
Then we have the sound man and all his equipment. Mics in front of faces, monitors up to the knees and so on.
I repeat it is not easy. If you've mastered it well done. I had great access for thirteen years and the hit rate was not as high as I would have liked.
Sorry Dan I did not intend to question your interest.I was genuinely interested .... I wonder if the WB is a little off
http://www.danielcook.com/events/the-hospital-club/
Hello. I am a returner to photography, I've been out of the game for a few years, but I look forward to heading out with my Leica over time. Hopefully this weekend. I only have an entry level model (The leica V lux) and I've not used it for about 4 years or so... I will be reading and following this thread with interest.
I hope you have your wallet ready
I got my SL a couple of days ago and added the 24-90 to give me a one lens carry round solution. I've been pleased so far.
These two are high ISO images taken in the severe fog we've had over the last day or so.
It's comments like this that irk me. And it's no disrespect but TB companies for years have been sharing panels but they aren't all the same quality. It's like all Fuji's being called a Sony it's not true and right. There will be much more that goes on behind the plastic that will alter the image and change things it's not just this has their this has that. Ferrari own fiat but they aren't the same.Whilst I'd like to have the budget to try an M body, the Vlux 114 you've mentioned is a Panasonic FZ1000 with a red plastic dot and and extra £200 for the privilege. Personally, where there are alternative cameras that are exactly the same, I don't see where the Leica adds any benefit?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/panasonic/fz1000/vs/leica/v-lux-(typ-114)/
Whilst I'd like to have the budget to try an M body, the Vlux 114 you've mentioned is a Panasonic FZ1000 with a red plastic dot and and extra £200 for the privilege. Personally, where there are alternative cameras that are exactly the same, I don't see where the Leica adds any benefit?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/panasonic/fz1000/vs/leica/v-lux-(typ-114)/
That's a different set of analogies though. I get companies sharing panels/engines etc but the Panasonic and Leica are exactly the same bar the dot and 'unique jpg processing'. You only need to read the multiple comparison articles between numerous consumer Leica cameras and their Panasonic counterparts to see that these are marketing jobs by Leica, not different cameras.
Just to add an example. If Leica started a strategic partnership with Fuji and took an XT-1, replaced the badge for a red dot then changed the default jpg processing to, (for example) increase the contrast and desaturate it slightly, would that then be a unique Leica camera worth an extra £300 premium or would it be an XT-1 with a different badge and jpg settings?
I've got no problems if people want to own a Leica but I personally feel it would be a better option purchasing the equivalent alternative if one is available and spend the difference on something else. Their M body is a unique system so gives some reason for the premium price but a consumer bride camera doesn't.
It's Fiat that own FerrariIt's comments like this that irk me. And it's no disrespect but TB companies for years have been sharing panels but they aren't all the same quality. It's like all Fuji's being called a Sony it's not true and right. There will be much more that goes on behind the plastic that will alter the image and change things it's not just this has their this has that. Ferrari own fiat but they aren't the same.
Hell lotus have used Astra engines in their cars for years they aren't the same.
Rebranding... Is not the same as the camera.It's Fiat that own Ferrari [emoji14]
Also, AFAIK Leica still do rebrand other cameras. It's not just some Pannys, they've done it with the Fuji instax too.
Heads up they don't any more completely separate now.It's Fiat that own Ferrari [emoji14]
Also, AFAIK Leica still do rebrand other cameras. It's not just some Pannys, they've done it with the Fuji instax too.
Look at the Vlux 109 and LX100, same internals, lens etc. Vlux just has a different case and a red dot, likewise the Vlux 114 and Panny FZ1000. Not all Leica are high end masterpiecesRebranding... Is not the same as the camera.
Panasonic by LG panels for their new OLED but the picture is far better than the LG. I'm sure they may make a basic setup but it's for a company not rebranding the same product.
So they are, every day's a school dayHeads up they don't any more completely separate now.
Wise words. And I agree - I look forward to having a oroper look at the X series (although the Leica T series does look rather revolutionary!?) and indeed the FZ1000 (although perhaps this is an awkward thing to mention in the Leica thread!)
The T is older there is a new TL which I have been quite interested in.Sorry to sound like a real Leica downer but I'm not sure how revolutionary the T is either? It's an APS-C body like an XT-1/XT-2/A6000/6300/6500 but has no built in viewfinder and instead features a larger touchscreen for the majority of controls. It's over £1k for the body alone and the kit lens is no more exciting than the Sony 16-50 (Leica is 18-56 3.5-5.6) but costs a ridiculous £1200! The only other lens is a 23mm F2 prime that's also over £1300. It's a solid aluminium body which is nice but will be freezing in the winter :0).
Again, it feels like the Leica badge is trying to justify the cost rather than technical value so I'd choose an XT2 or A6500 with their wider selection of lenses any day.
You are comparing apples and oranges though.That's the funny thing about Leica and brand loyalty. They're expensive across the board which makes them an aspirational product but that doesn't mean they're actually any better than other brands. The T/TL appears to be a nice looking APS-C system that has minimal lenses that are ridiculously expensive. In comparison, either Fuji or Sony offer the same sensor size along with a more complete lens lineup for considerably less outlay. I obviously haven't shot with a T/TL myself so can't compare actual results but having seen the struggles Dan has had with his SL which are exactly the same as any other mirrorless system with slow variable aperture lenses it proves again that more expensive doesn't necessarily make it better.
Steve Anichabe is a premier league striker so is Diego Costa.I shoot with an A6000 so am speaking as a user rather than someone reading reviews. A camera is a camera. All mirrorless bodies have EVF gain issues that make viewing in low light more difficult. They all have more trouble autofocusing in lower light than a DSLR and they all have more trouble tracking than a DSLR. The fact the SL makes you go weak at the knees confirms it's an inspirational product but when it comes down to it, it's a full frame mirrorless camera like an A7 with a variable aperture huge zoom lens that if Sony released it the forums would have a field day about it.
As I commented on Dan's shots, in good conditions or with studio lights, the lens/sensor combo delivers lovely results but so does an A7/D750/5D realistically.
Just to add an example. If Leica started a strategic partnership with Fuji and took an XT-1, replaced the badge for a red dot then changed the default jpg processing to, (for example) increase the contrast and desaturate it slightly, would that then be a unique Leica camera worth an extra £300 premium or would it be an XT-1 with a different badge and jpg settings?
I've got no problems if people want to own a Leica but I personally feel it would be a better option purchasing the equivalent alternative if one is available and spend the difference on something else. Their M body is a unique system so gives some reason for the premium price but a consumer bridge camera doesn't.
Which would probably put it about a 1k piece of kit when it was first released. And that photo does nothing for me.
And my point was that they aren't just rebrands their are differencesYup, the FM2 was obviously the high end model of its' day but I can buy one today for a few hundred and it still gives the same result.
My point though was initially in relation to the rebranded Panasonic cameras in that they won't magically deliver better results because they've got a plastic dot on them.
Shall I find Ken Rockwell's review?http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/leica_v_lux_typ_114_review/conclusion/
"That just leaves it to contend with the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000, which, at £750, undercuts the Leica by around £175, yet is essentially the same camera. However, it’s not quite that simple. Leica bundles the V-Lux with Adobe Lightroom, which at the time of writing will set you back £102.57 for a standalone licence. This closes the price gap to just under £75, but remember that the V-Lux also comes with a three year warranty, compared to Panasonic’s one year protection for the FZ1000. Given that many camera retailers will charge more than that for an extended warranty, the V-Lux actually makes good financial sense, should you want added peace of mind and not already own Lightroom."
So it comes with a copy of Lightroom and a 3 year warranty