IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #61 Posted October 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I like the look of the Noctilux on the SL - very nicely proportioned. A brief review here: http://www.bjp-online.com/2015/10/leica-sl-test-exclusive-first-impressions-review-from-wetzlar/ So, we've reached the stage where the diehard M users have expressed their disappointment at the size of the camera, it's weight, and others have announced that the lack of aperture stop down and magnification buttons in reach of the right thumb are deal breakers; then the honest have just stated its ugly or too expensive. We seem to be over that inevitable hump where dedicated Leica users show, yet again, their resistance to change.* Now we're in the interregnum, where Jono is yet to publish his comparison shots, and Sean is to do more than set out how he does his testing (the first article was really good, actually - the second was the "Intro" to M and R testing, without actually any testing). We have lots of published comments, but it has become clear that they are all reports of the launch event, re-packaging what most of us now know. Three weeks till the cameras are available, and not much happening but us lot bickering over the small scraps of information available. I've even skimmed through the manual (what for, is any one's guess). A slight case of overload, perhaps; but the residual issue for me remains the sizes of those lenses. I guess this is the price you pay for design "without compromise". I'm really looking forward to more in depth reviews of the lenses on the camera - that is the deal breaker for me. I would live with the size of the 24-90 zoom if it lives up to the hype of its quality. Leica knows what it's doing when it comes to lens designs, as I recall. I doubt this is a kit lens ... Oh, the wait for real information! * Please don't take my flippancy personally - it is important that we laugh at ourselves from time to time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here Reviews. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #62 Posted October 26, 2015 Steve Huff has moderated his tune slightly over the SL (though he still seems to miss the point that the SL is basically priced in the same place as the M(240) - a camera he loves). Apparently he had signed an NDA (if he is to be believed), though he doesn't seem to have shared any information that isn't in the public domain, which is odd. He's dropping hints about the new M (and perhaps that is what the NDA is about): I seriously can’t wait for the new M which I feel will be out in 2016, and be MUCH different from what the M 240 or M9 or M8 was. THAT will be my dream camera if what I am thinking is happening really is. of course I know nothing and am saying nothing but my crystal ball showed me a few things recently, hehehe. Then again, maybe Oskar Barnack has told him. He says he signed an NDA, clearly knows no more about the SL than the rest of us and says he knows nothing about the new M. Then again, it just might be a load of old tosh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davewolfs Posted October 26, 2015 Share #63 Posted October 26, 2015 If I had to guess, Steve is alluding to an M that contains some form of the opto-electronic distance meter mentioned in one of Leica's patents. If this were done, there would be quite a few benefits - cheaper and potentially more reliable design as well as highly accurate focusing without changing the interface that an M user is accustomed to. Since the RF is digital it would probably also give Leica the opportunity to make focusing with something like this "easy" for those of us who don't have the greatest vision. Imagine the ability for a user to select their focus point on the RF and have the RF focus point go from translucent to a selected color when perfect focus is achieved. As someone who doesn't currently own an M or M glass but is interested this type of M would appeal to me, probably more so than the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #64 Posted October 26, 2015 Sean Reid's comparison of the Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH and the CV 35/2.5 Skopar LTM on the SL and M(246) are up on his website. A good read - not sure I'm allowed to summarise, but his findings are consistent with Jono's. Interestingly the SL resolves better in the centre but is marginally softer in the the corners than the M(246), but much better than the A7r, with challenging wide and compact M lenses. Bearing in mind the resolution advantage the M(246) has generally, it doesn't look like cause for concern to me, unless one is looking for cause for concern, of course! He reflects Jono's comment that this is marginal stuff ... Once we have more M lenses tested, it would be good to generate a list of "challenging compact M wides" - I'm guessing my 28 Summicron ASPH might be a candidate. If I lived near to Sean, I would happily drive over to his place with my entire M lens selection and let him choose what to test. I appreciate that a $400 CV Skopar lens might identify problems, but I really would rather see how the more modern M lenses perform. But, I must say - Sean's review is worth reading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 26, 2015 Share #65 Posted October 26, 2015 Sean Reid's comparison of the Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH and the CV 35/2.5 Skopar LTM on the SL and M(246) are up on his website. A good read - not sure I'm allowed to summarise, but his findings are consistent with Jono's. Interestingly the SL resolves better in the centre but is marginally softer in the the corners than the M(246), but much better than the A7r, with challenging wide and compact M lenses. Bearing in mind the resolution advantage the M(246) has generally, it doesn't look like cause for concern to me, unless one is looking for cause for concern, of course! He reflects Jono's comment that this is marginal stuff ... Once we have more M lenses tested, it would be good to generate a list of "challenging compact M wides" - I'm guessing my 28 Summicron ASPH might be a candidate. If I lived near to Sean, I would happily drive over to his place with my entire M lens selection and let him choose what to test. I appreciate that a $400 CV Skopar lens might identify problems, but I really would rather see how the more modern M lenses perform. But, I must say - Sean's review is worth reading. You know very well that Sean asks subscribers not to summarise his reviews. Just because you can does not mean to say you should … I pay to subscribe to his reviews as do other subscribers and object to others giving the info away 'for free' to everyone else. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #66 Posted October 26, 2015 You know very well that Sean asks subscribers not to summarise his reviews. Just because you can does not mean to say you should … I pay to subscribe to his reviews as do other subscribers and object to others giving the info away 'for free' to everyone else. dunk Dunk, I only know that from your posting here (not that it really matters how or where); but as a subscriber I am not prepared for reasons I have already discussed to comply with that request. From a copyright perspective, there is not even the flimsiest of intellectual property laws which prevents people from discussing opinions and reviews. The converse would be completely perverse - the fact that Sean speaks of "compact, wide" lenses being problematic means that there is then an embargo on discussing the issue because he has raised it? That would be silly. Jono has already made the same comment. The fact is he is credited with the information, and I am entitled to discuss his findings; as a matter of law. As a matter of courtesy, if Sean asked me not to disclose what is in his reviews, I would decline. I will, though, repeat that his review is worth reading, and no I'm not going to even remotely quote from him without attribution or post his review here in breach of his copyright. I am, though, entitled and will discuss his findings. I hope he can understand that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 26, 2015 Share #67 Posted October 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Dunk, I only know that from your posting here (not that it really matters how or where); but as a subscriber I am not prepared for reasons I have already discussed to comply with that request. From a copyright perspective, there is not even the flimsiest of intellectual property laws which prevents people from discussing opinions and reviews. The converse would be completely perverse - the fact that Sean speaks of "compact, wide" lenses being problematic means that there is then an embargo on discussing the issue because he has raised it? That would be silly. Jono has already made the same comment. The fact is he is credited with the information, and I am entitled to discuss his findings; as a matter of law. As a matter of courtesy, if Sean asked me not to disclose what is in his reviews, I would decline. I will, though, repeat that his review is worth reading, and no I'm not going to even remotely quote from him without attribution or post his review here in breach of his copyright. I am, though, entitled and will discuss his findings. I hope he can understand that. Others have very different views and principles. If I was in Sean's shoes and a subscriber had not complied with a very reasonable request (I liken it to a gentleman's agreement ... it's documented for any subscriber to read before they pay the subscription), I'd cancel their subscription and offer them a pro rata refund ... to prevent them doing it again. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 26, 2015 Share #68 Posted October 26, 2015 From a copyright perspective, there is not even the flimsiest of intellectual property laws which prevents people from discussing opinions and reviews. The converse would be completely perverse - the fact that Sean speaks of "compact, wide" lenses being problematic means that there is then an embargo on discussing the issue because he has raised it? You are right, of course. Sean has not a leg to stand upon in this case. There are so many arguments against his posture that the subject deserves no further comment, but there will be some regardless and it will all foster greater evidence that he is dead wrong. More! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 26, 2015 Share #69 Posted October 26, 2015 Others have very different views and principles. If I was in Sean's shoes and a subscriber had not complied with a very reasonable request, I'd cancel their subscription and offer them a pro rata refund ... to prevent them doing it again. dunk Well, I guess that's Sean's prerogative, and you may well recommend that course of action to him if you like. If I were a litigious fellow, I might look at the terms of his site and the local laws where I accessed the material (internet law works like that) and try to force him to reinstate my access. I think we all know I wouldn't bother, but we're talking the ethereal concept of moral right if I understand your post. I realise my response may be read as intemperate. It wasn't intended to be, and if you read it that way I apologise. Leaving Sean's "reasonable request" to one side (and as I say, I've missed any such comment directly from him), let's look at the facts and then consider whether or not the request actually is reasonable. In the ordinary course of events, you pay to subscribe to a new or professional publishing service. Let's say the Economist. It's expensive, but you get to download the latest edition every Friday, read it at you leisure offline, comment on it, quote it and even share the odd article with friends, if that's your want. Other services (WestLaw springs to mind) allow similar, wide ranging services, but less on the comments and sharing - not because they're writing original material but because they are collating material and that is the service they provide. Even more expensive is i-Law, which sends me flimsy monthly newsletter that costs me over £100 per edition. IN each of those cases, I get to keep what I have purchased. I can use it, I can photocopy it for my own use, but not for distribution. Where i-law is concerned, I can download any previous edition I like onto my computer and use it at will, forever. I can only read Sean's reviews online while my subscription is current, by comparison. Now, from an intellectual property perspective, as I've said before laws change from country to country, and probably from State to State in the US, I don't know. But, what you are allowed to do when you pay for content is to use it for the purposes for which it was provided. Sean's use is so tight that quoting it is really very impractical, even though this is generally permitted. Quoting, with attribution, for the purposes of wider discussion is permitted in pretty much any jurisdiction. In the US, it's called "fair use". We don't have that concept here, but we are more focused on direct copying without attribution. So, perhaps more conciliatory, I don't believe that legally Sean has any right to do what you say he requires and morally, I disagree pretty much with that position as well. I'm not disrespecting his work, or actually breaching his copyright as I understand it. I am using what I have paid for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #70 Posted October 27, 2015 You are right, of course. Sean has not a leg to stand upon in this case. There are so many arguments against his posture that the subject deserves no further comment, but there will be some regardless and it will all foster greater evidence that he is dead wrong. More! I should have read your post before I wrote mine. My intent, though, was to try to deflect any offence that Dunk may have felt. It would be a sad day indeed if Sean's contributions were not acknowledged widely, or if people felt that because Sean was the first to write about an issue, no one else could discuss it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitztozeiss Posted October 27, 2015 Share #71 Posted October 27, 2015 Dunk, I only know that from your posting here (not that it really matters how or where); but as a subscriber I am not prepared for reasons I have already discussed to comply with that request. From a copyright perspective, there is not even the flimsiest of intellectual property laws which prevents people from discussing opinions and reviews. Any limitations in the subscription agreement? Contract law might apply even if copyright doesn't. Just asking, I am not a subscriber and haven't read the fine print, if any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #72 Posted October 27, 2015 Any limitations in the subscription agreement? Contract law might apply even if copyright doesn't. Just asking, I am not a subscriber and haven't read the fine print, if any. Well, being primarily a contract lawyer, I did go in search of terms and conditions, and didn't find any. Similarly, I didn't receive any email or other notification along the lines Dunk refers to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitztozeiss Posted October 27, 2015 Share #73 Posted October 27, 2015 Well, being primarily a contract lawyer, I did go in search of terms and conditions, and didn't find any. Similarly, I didn't receive any email or other notification along the lines Dunk refers to. Being an intellectual property attorney, I thought I'd raise the potential contract issue. I digress. I'm going to order an SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 27, 2015 Share #74 Posted October 27, 2015 Excellent! I might not be too far behind you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean ASA Posted October 27, 2015 Share #75 Posted October 27, 2015 Just in case you missed it Sean has written a guest piece on the SL at Luminous Landscape. I got it from the other Reviews tab that's here on the Leica Forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firststream Posted October 27, 2015 Share #76 Posted October 27, 2015 Erwin Puts has just written that he'll post a review of the SL (typ 601)sometime in December: http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/ Rightly, he wants to study the camera for some time in order to pull out the nuanced benefits of the system. As I read his premise, it's to be a review for the photo enthusiast, as opposed to the camera enthusiast. (Read: For the person who buys cameras in order to take pictures, as opposed to those who take pictures in order to buy cameras!) It's reminiscent of the 'Slow Photography' School, where long-term contemplative work opens hidden mysteries to the story studied. Hopefully, it will answer the fundamental question of how the SL will offer unique features that will improve the photographer's work, resulting in - simply - a better photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 28, 2015 Share #77 Posted October 28, 2015 I read somewhere that it is in a forthcoming firmware update. Sorry, I've read so much in the past 3-4 days that I can't remember where I saw that. That is Sean Reid who said that. Leica Camera AG discovered an error in the firmware and will correct it in a new released before the camera becomes available for delivery (around November 12) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 11, 2015 Share #78 Posted November 11, 2015 Part one of Puts' review.... http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-52/ Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 11, 2015 Share #79 Posted November 11, 2015 That is Sean Reid who said that. Leica Camera AG discovered an error in the firmware and will correct it in a new released before the camera becomes available for delivery (around November 12) The problem Sean referred to was some mosaic noise in corners (not evident in the pictures in his article) which went away in going from 1.0 to 1.10. Cameras that are in the stores as demos now (Thighslapper's, for example) are coming with 1.10. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 17, 2015 Share #80 Posted November 17, 2015 Part one of Puts' review.... http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/styled-52/ Jeff Prior to publishing his Part two of the above review, Puts offers some reflections (on reviews and on the SL)... http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/138abdf970a86433cdd0b48bb53181d4-18.html Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.