Rick Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1481 Posted October 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) My guess is that no matter how good the camera is, the cost alone will keep it out of most pro hands. It's likely to be really expensive compared to Canon/Nikon/Sony. I agree. And, why would a pro trade all of their Nikon or Canon gear just to get something a little smaller? The reason given has been that a mirror less system will be cheaper to produce. Leica needs to make the SL affordable like a razor handle and then make a range of lenses too good to ignore. I don't envision Leica making an affordable camera. But, I guess the S sells well enough? Not sure how many professionals actually use it. I just read an article that stated that the average US pro photographer makes between $20-$28k. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Hi Rick, Take a look here NEW M.. This year.. This Fall.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1482 Posted October 6, 2015 ... why would a pro trade all of their Nikon or Canon gear just to get something a little smaller? The reason given has been that a mirror less system will be cheaper to produce. Leica needs to make the SL affordable like a razor handle and then make a range of lenses too good to ignore. Leica has been known to make good lenses There's much more to mirrorless than a little smaller. WYSIWYG exposure, better viewfinders and accurate AF without micro-adjustment, for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1483 Posted October 6, 2015 Leica has been known to make good lenses There's much more to mirrorless than a little smaller. WYSIWYG exposure, better viewfinders and accurate AF without micro-adjustment, for example. Maybe some of these points are true, but I really don't think a pro standing on the sidelines of a football game, for example, has a problem with exposure, the viewfinder or accurate AF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1484 Posted October 6, 2015 Maybe some of these points are true, but I really don't think a pro standing on the sidelines of a football game, for example, has a problem with exposure, the viewfinder or accurate AF. The AF of most DLSR cameras isn't accurate without micro-adjustment, which is a compromise at best especially with zoom lenses. There's much more to professional photography than standing on a sideline of a football game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1485 Posted October 6, 2015 I agree. And, why would a pro trade all of their Nikon or Canon gear just to get something a little smaller? The reason given has been that a mirror less system will be cheaper to produce. Leica needs to make the SL affordable like a razor handle and then make a range of lenses too good to ignore. I don't envision Leica making an affordable camera. But, I guess the S sells well enough? Not sure how many professionals actually use it. I just read an article that stated that the average US pro photographer makes between $20-$28k. The Sony mirrorless full-frame is not that cheap either once you added the hefty Zeiss lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1486 Posted October 6, 2015 The Sony mirrorless full-frame is not that cheap either once you added the hefty Zeiss lenses. The hefty Zeiss lenses aren't the only option. The lens choices for the Sony mirrorless cameras are vastly greater than for either Nikon or Canon SLR cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luele Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1487 Posted October 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica has been known to make good lenses There's much more to mirrorless than a little smaller. WYSIWYG exposure, better viewfinders and accurate AF without micro-adjustment, for example. ... sorry, WYSIWYG maybe (but not in all situations) but the viewfinder better? I tested the A7R and the viewfinder was terrible in my opinion - special against the light. When Leica will make points this must be better. Till now, the Pentaprism is the second best for me - the best is the rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1488 Posted October 6, 2015 ... sorry, WYSIWYG maybe (but not in all situations) but the viewfinder better? I tested the A7R and the viewfinder was terrible in my opinion - special against the light. When Leica will make points this must be better. Till now, the Pentaprism is the second best for me - the best is the rangefinder. Sorry, 'better' is a subjective description, a shortcut I used because tendonitis has made typing rather painful. Allow me to clarify: the EVF allows a more accurate representation of DOF and allows precise manual focus at any point in the picture area while using the eye-level finder. I'm not sure why you brought the rangefinder into the discussion, neither Canon nor Nikon make such a camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1489 Posted October 6, 2015 The AF of most DLSR cameras isn't accurate without micro-adjustment, which is a compromise at best especially with zoom lenses. There's much more to professional photography than standing on a sideline of a football game. Of course, but micro adjustments can be made. I'm not sure how many pros go to the trouble anyway. I wouldn't say a pro photographer standing on the sidelines is any less of a professional than any other, maybe better paid? That's why I used them as an example of someone that might have enough money to dump their current gear and buy into something like the SL. I guess I really don't know for sure which pros are making a bunch of money. I'm sure there must be some very well paid pros, but most don't make much money. The article I read has photographer as the worst paid profession to go into after a college degree. It seems that other pros like doctors, lawyers and dentist are the only "pros" that can afford to buy this stuff anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1490 Posted October 6, 2015 One consideration, albeit maybe not significant, is that pros can can expense gear tax-wise. I would think, too, that pros also care not just about the quality of the gear (however they define that), but the reliability and efficiency of servicing that gear....including timely replacement if necessary. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1491 Posted October 6, 2015 Rick raises a point that has been bothering me for a while - the distinction between professional and amateur is simply that the professional makes money; we also have "professions" which aspire to standards of expertise, performance and behaviour above the norm. So when we throw around the word "professional", what do we mean? A photographer who is more skilled than an amateur? That's a huge assumption. Most paid photographers would, I hazard, make their money with little potential for artistic flare - it's all about the money shot. Okay, so I generalise, but I don't see any paparazzi, sports photographers, portrait photographers or wedding photographers using Leicas of any flavour. It's almost universally 5Ds and D800s. I really don't understand the reference to professional photography on this forum, unless it is what would loosely be called fine art. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I like riding my motor bike, and I enjoy a good road trip - I have no desire to be a taxi driver ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1492 Posted October 6, 2015 Pro...I mean a person who makes the majority of his/her income from photography. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1493 Posted October 6, 2015 Pro...I mean a person who makes the majority of his/her income from photography. Jeff If that's what is generally meant by pro, it's hard to see what features a camera built for pro use would have. A coin slot? A timer for billing purposes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1494 Posted October 6, 2015 If that's what is generally meant by pro, it's hard to see what features a camera built for pro use would have. Exactly my point (and my personal definition, for better or worse)....thanks. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1495 Posted October 6, 2015 One consideration, albeit maybe not significant, is that pros can can expense gear tax-wise. I would think, too, that pros also care not just about the quality of the gear (however they define that), but the reliability and efficiency of servicing that gear....including timely replacement if necessary. Jeff As already stated. People have different needs, priorities and preferences....amateur or pro...just read the forum. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1496 Posted October 6, 2015 If that's what is generally meant by pro, it's hard to see what features a camera built for pro use would have. A coin slot? A timer for billing purposes? Reliability. Fast servicing and repair turnaround. Availability of product range off shelf. Rentals. Loaners... It's not so much the cameras make the distinction but rather the associated services. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1497 Posted October 6, 2015 generally speaking, something built to professional standards has the associated services Keith mentions, and the unit itself can withstand more abuse and there is less variability from unit to unit. In other words, camera and lens are built to more exacting standards and can be handled much more roughly, including taking a lot more pictures before breakdown, than what a consumer camera is designed to endure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1498 Posted October 6, 2015 Reliability. Fast servicing and repair turnaround. Availability of product range off shelf. Rentals. Loaners... It's not so much the cameras make the distinction but rather the associated services. Yep, post #1490.... services, in addition to gear needs, as the photographer defines. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freitz Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1499 Posted October 6, 2015 http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/10/06/taking-the-week-off-for-some-rr/ Steve Huff posted something interesting today. "This will be my 1st time taking off a week entirely from here, Facebook and all work in 7-8 years! When I return next week I will have a world exclusive review of something new from a major brand Something 99% of you have no idea even exists yet, so that should be fun!" Hm............ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted October 6, 2015 Share #1500 Posted October 6, 2015 Probably an x pro 2... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.