Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/05/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thank you Geoff. Your opinions (esp. the bonus one!) are always helpful. Nice to hear from you, Bob Bob Adler www.robertadlerphotography.com > On May 8, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Bob (and all) I have the M (Typ 240) and the SL. I have used only the > Summilux M 50 ASPH and the Apo Summicron M 75 ASPH (via adapter) a very > limited amount to try it out. > So my opinions just on your specific questions, > 1. None that I am aware of. > 2. the native colour rendering from the SL is a little more neutral, reds > especially 'better' > Bottom line...Not in my opinion , the M sensors are more optimised. I bet > that the differences are very subtle though. > > Bonus opinion, get the SL, it does lots more stuff that the M cannot and > the 24-90 is excellent. > > > > > Cheers > Geoff > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > , 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 positive 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 Adler >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information