jamie_robertson2

<p>I've said for years that we will eventually end up with the big DSLR companies ditching the mirrors from their cameras and replacing the optical finders with EVFs. Nothing else will change. The big Canons and Nikons will look and handle the same as a DSLR but will effectively become mirrorless (much like the Sony SLT cameras). Why? DSLRs are the tools of most pros because of the way they handle. The are ergonomic, fit perfectly in the hand, can take a lot of rough and tumble and have massive ranges of lenses and accessories. I don't think Canon and Nikon will ditch their lens mounts because the only advantage of a new mount would be to decrease the size of the camera body. And there's no point making DSLR style cameras smaller because then you lose the handling characteristics. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Can this combo really be this BIG? It has to be seen to be believed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Good God, that is truly ridiculous!</p> <blockquote> <p>If they keep the M mount then the SL can't be AF.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Can you explain why? I really don't understand.<br /> <br /> <br /> After thinking about the SL for the last few days I really cannot imagine what on earth Leica were thinking when they dreamed this one up. I will eat my own hair if this new camera proves to be anything like a success.<br /> <br /> My reasons for it's likely demise:</p> <ol> <li>The price is stupid.</li> <li>Leica have had the M39 mount, M mount, R mount, T mount, compact M-mount, S mount and now the L mount. People are surely getting sick to the back teeth of buying into very expensive lens systems that can quickly turn out redundant or require fiddly adapters. Pick a lens mount and bloody well stick to it.</li> <li>The SL is absolutely enormous, especially with the "kit" lens. Add the forthcoming telephoto zoom lens and the camera is the same size as a small church: http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/7448206943/Leica-SL_Leica-APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL_90-280_ASPH_top.jpeg</li> <li>The price is stupid.</li> <li>The resolution, although technically adequate for most applications, is far lower than the obvious competition.</li> <li>No in-body stabilisation, unlike much cheaper competitors.</li> <li>It doesn't even look sexy.</li> <li>The price is stupid.</li> <li>Too large to be a street shooter and not enough resolution for a studio camera.</li> <li>11fps is pretty useless without phase detect tracking autofocus.</li> <li>Early reports indicate the SL is not a stellar performer in low light.</li> <li>The price is stupid.</li> </ol>

<p>You've left the lens cap on.</p> <p>Sorry :-)</p> <p>If you've tried different Compact Flash cards and have formatted each card <strong>in the camera </strong>then I can only suspect it is a camera fault. If that's the case then it will not be economical to repair. The good news is that Rebel XT cameras can be bought for peanuts on the used market these days. Or perhaps you could take this opportunity to upgrade to a newer model. </p>

<blockquote> <p>It shows the respect (or lack of it) for those who have supported the company for decades.</p> </blockquote> <p>I totally agree. I've said all along that a digital M camera with an electronic viewfinder and autofocus would be a top seller, especially as it would natively accept all other M lenses. Instead they present us with an extortionately priced new camera with an all new lens mount at an insane price and with lower resolution than much cheaper competitors. Whoever buys the SL is crazy.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The L mount is not native for M!<br> Like other non L mount lenses on the SL, it is compatible with M lenses only with an expensive adapter (L to M = 395$)</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not native, but they did provide an M mount for the SL. $395 for an adapter is chicken feed when you've paid $7500 for a camera without a lens.</p>

<p>If they just put an EVF and autofocus in an M style camera with an M lens mount it would be an instant hit. That's why the Leica Q is such a success. Surely Leica would know that. </p>

<blockquote> <p>why did they not provide an M mount for the SL?</p> </blockquote> <p>They did. </p>

<blockquote> <p>How else did a <a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/bugatti/veyron" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">$2,250,000 Bugatti Veyron</a> have viability leading the path to a new "Chiron" model?</p> </blockquote> <p>A $2m Bugatti is light years ahead of a $20K Ford. The Leica SL is NOT light years ahead of the latest Sony A7. </p> <blockquote> <p>Just because so many can't afford it, doesn't mean that we shouldn't celebrate this advance towards perfection...</p> </blockquote> <p>I can afford it, I could go out and order a handful of them tomorrow. But why would I? It simply does not make any sense at that insane price. </p>

<blockquote> <p>What SLR system has a 24-90 which is going to be as good as the Leica?</p> </blockquote> <p>Although it's only a 24-70, I would bet that the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II will match the Leica glass, and it's faster too.</p> <blockquote> <p>the Nikon D800E with the best Zeiss lenses (save the Otus line) could not hold a candle to the S2</p> </blockquote> <p>Hardly surprising. The S2 is medium format. </p> <blockquote> <p>I imagine the SL will out-perform any DSLR without an Otus lens on it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Try capturing a bird in flight with a 600mm lens on the Leica SL. You can also put any Leica glass on an A7 body and capture images at a higher resolution than 24 megapixels. </p> <p>My twopenneth? A $100K Porsche is much better than a $20K Ford but the $12K Leica SL (with lens) is not $8K better than the latest Sony A7 (with Zeiss lens). Even if the new lenses are unimaginably great, you can put them on an A7 and capture detail at a higher resolution than the Leica anyway. The SL is for two kinds of people: 1. Those with more money than sense 2. Those with more money than sense.</p>

<p>Good luck Hop, I am 100% convinced that you have a defective lens. </p>

<p>If they charged you $400 to repair it then I suppose they must have found something wrong with it. What does it say they repaired on the paperwork?</p> <p>You should see the image stabilise in the viewfinder at least a little bit when IS is activated, especially at 400mm. If you can't see it stabilise then surely it must be faulty. </p>

<p>Peter, it's so obvious now you mention it. That makes perfect sense, thank you.<br> That would explain why I can successfully autofocus in a dim room with an f/5.6 lens but not outdoors in blazing sunshine with an f/8 lens. I got it now :-)</p>

<p>I feel as though I should know this but after wracking my brain I just can't figure out the answer...</p> <p>We all know that EOS bodies can usually only autofocus with lenses that have max apertures of f/5.6 or wider (f8 for some pro bodies) so why can our cameras still autofocus properly when we have an ND filter or polariser attached?</p> <p>Example: What's the difference between putting a 1 stop ND filter on an f/5.6 lens or using a 1.4x extender? Both reduce incoming light by 1 stop but one configuration will autofocus and the other won't.</p>

<p>Mamiya C330 too :-)</p>

<p>I am friends with Old School Photo Lab on Twitter. I've never used his services but he's a great guy who goes out of his way to help so he'd be my top recommendation. Just be careful sending film overseas by air. Many packages are X-Rayed for security so make enquiries with the shipping company before sending valuable rolls.</p>

<p>Or you could do what we all used to do last century: Don't get any scans and just send away the negative when you want a print made :-)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why then to get a focused shot I don't coincide the double image, actually leaving the two images separate?</p> </blockquote> <p>If other lenses focus correctly on the M8 using the same adapter then the fault has to be with the cam on the lens. I cannot see any other likely explanation. The lens needs to be looked at by someone who knows what they are doing.</p>

<p>I'm another long time 5D2 user. No point in changing a camera that does just about everything you could wish for. Nikons are no better built than Canons. DSLRs will eventually morph into cameras that look almost identical but will have EVFs instead of optical viewfinders. They fit better in the hand and have far better handling than smaller mirrorless bodies and, for a working photographer, that's what matters. That is why the mirrorless offerings of both Nikon and Canon have been half-hearted... they know what the future holds.</p>

<p>I suspect it is a ribbon cable that is crumbling. It's probably stretched more at full zoom hence the errors. Definitely a repair centre job.</p>

<p>I use the latest DPP software from Canon. It's much better than the older version and I personally find it quicker for sifting through large numbers of photos. It's easy to rate and/or delete photos quickly. I do have Lightroom but I prefer DPP for everything shot on a Canon camera. It's simpler and quicker to use. You should also try to shoot fewer photos if possible as it makes the culling process much quicker.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, that's a great help. I shall wait until I get the second warning :-)</p>

<p>Hi folks,</p> <p>I'm wondering when the most economical time is to change the ink cartridges on this printer. Do I change the cartridge as soon as I get a warning or do I wait longer until I start to see a problem on the prints? If it's the latter are there any problems with ink flow after installing a new cartridge i.e. does it need to be purged etc?</p>

<blockquote> <p>However, I do not like the SQ-AI. It uses four button batteries that are loaded into a flimsy holder, which is then inserted into the battery compartment and secured with a spring-loaded door.</p> </blockquote> <p>The SQ-A series of cameras uses a single 6 volt 4SR44 or 4LR44 battery (<a href="https://www.jackthehat.co.uk/varta-4sr44-silver-oxide-camera-battery-p-587.html">link</a>). There is absolutely no point in sandwiching 4 x 1.5v batteries together in a flimsy holder. That's just asking for trouble. </p>

<p>For those subjects the 5D2 is definitely the better option. Better image quality, better in low light and a better pairing for the 24-105mm lens. I've had the 5D2 since it first came out and the only subjects it struggles with are birds in flight and very fast action such as dogs running and fast paced people sports. Airshows, racing cars etc are not a problem for the 5D2.</p>

<p>Use Vuescan and scan the negatives as negatives. In other words, let Vuescan do the inversions and stop trying to do it yourself in Photoshop. That will save you lots of time and you'll end up with better colours anyway. </p> <p>Here's a rough guide to using Vuescan to scan Portra:</p> <p>Resolution: 4000dpi (if you have it)<br> Filter: Light<br> Film type: Colour / Generic<br> Brightness: 1<br> White point: Run a preview scan first and then start at 0.02 and gradually increase if necessary being careful not to blow out the highlights.<br> Colour Balance: Auto Levels</p>