colonel Posted October 21, 2015 Share #81 Posted October 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) But it's not for street photography or aimed at the average amateur that posts here. It's a professional camera, and those folk will determine its success Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Hi colonel, Take a look here So, is Leica M 240 still worth buying?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Belle123 Posted October 21, 2015 Share #82 Posted October 21, 2015 No, you're not in another universe, but you're apparently also not seeing the wide-angle distortion that causes the dinner plate to look like it's the size of a billboard. Take a look at Jono Slack's image comparing the size of the SL to the SLII SLR body... that's a much better representation of it's actual size. The SL is definitely not for me, but this hysteria about it being "huge" just isn't accurate. Someone seems to be making and posting a LOT of photos with intentional distortion of the size of this thing. It's not petite by any means, as the Leicaflex SLII wasn't petite, but it's NOT the size of an RB67 either (as it seems someone wants it to be perceived as.) For reference, the Leicaflex SLII was about the same size as most SLRs of it's day; the Minolta SRT101, the Konica Autoreflex T, the Nikon F2, and the Topcon Super D were all of similar size to the Leicaflex SLII. I think I am seeing the wide angle distortion. Are you? Still looks huge with that in mind. Also note in Jonos photo it sits left and slightly farther from the camera lens making it appear ever so slightly smaller than it is, perhaps taken with a wide angle lens as well. Not knocking the camera, but in the context that it replaces the M, it isn't. The M remains the best for the majority of purposes. For what the SL was defined for, I would be happy to buy it if I needed it......which thankfully for my pocket book, I don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted October 21, 2015 Share #83 Posted October 21, 2015 Yes But M repairs are a different world from professional service contracts for the S It should not be, I earn the same amount on a shoot whether I use my M240 or my Hasselblad 501CM / CFV50c back. This is my one and only beef with Leica, if an item has to go to Solms, then you need to buy a new one and sell the one that comes back from repair months later. I sent both a Leica lens ( that I am intending to sell ) and a Hasselblad lens off at the same time to be re-collimated. The Hassy lens came back in 10 days, the Leica lens took 6 weeks to even get entered in the system and I had to call to find that out. When I called I was told it would be another 8 weeks....still waiting. Maybe selling a bunch of giant A7's will help them hire more tech staff..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted October 21, 2015 Share #84 Posted October 21, 2015 I think I am seeing the wide angle distortion. Are you? Still looks huge with that in mind. Also note in Jonos photo it sits left and slightly farther from the camera lens making it appear ever so slightly smaller than it is, perhaps taken with a wide angle lens as well. Not knocking the camera, but in the context that it replaces the M, it isn't. The M remains the best for the majority of purposes. For what the SL was defined for, I would be happy to buy it if I needed it......which thankfully for my pocket book, I don't. Frankly, to me, it looks like it's the size of a Canon EOS1 SLR with a zoom lens. Perhaps having used the EOS line for years has skewed my perspective a little... but that's a pretty common size for full-frame "pro" line SLR/DSLR cameras... even the digitals. I was shooting M Leicas in the early 1970s and have continued to shoot them throughout their fall from grace and their lengthy resurrection in the public opinion. They work for the majority of what I shoot, even with their quirks... and using a Visoflex III when necessary. I admit, though, I'm using the live view on my Fuji X-T1 more than the Viso these days... so you're preaching to the choir on the M series here. And the Leicaflex series has never been my idea of what I wanted to work with. I'm just not an SLR guy. I think everyone is taking the release of the SL out of context. There is no context that it's a replacement for the M, any more than the Leicaflex SLII was a replacement for the M4. It's not intended to replace the M. I don't know where folks seem to have come up with that idea. It's a full-frame, digital, twenty-first century technology replacement for the R9, which is why Jono compares it to it's namesake the SL SLR of 1964 (or actually the 1972 SLII which he happened to have.) I suspect that next to an R8/R9 with motordrive, it would appear small In any event, It's aimed at a wholly different market share than the M cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted October 21, 2015 Share #85 Posted October 21, 2015 It should not be, I earn the same amount on a shoot whether I use my M240 or my Hasselblad 501CM / CFV50c back. This is my one and only beef with Leica, if an item has to go to Solms, then you need to buy a new one and sell the one that comes back from repair months later. I sent both a Leica lens ( that I am intending to sell ) and a Hasselblad lens off at the same time to be re-collimated. The Hassy lens came back in 10 days, the Leica lens took 6 weeks to even get entered in the system and I had to call to find that out. When I called I was told it would be another 8 weeks....still waiting. Maybe selling a bunch of giant A7's will help them hire more tech staff..... No, it shouldn't be. Leica, for whatever reason, don't offer a LPP for the M series but they do for the S. This inter-alia guarantees a replacement camera within 24 hours anywhere in the world (maybe some limitations) whilst it is being fixed. This is professional protection. If Leica offers it for the SL it will be as good as any other pro camera company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle123 Posted October 21, 2015 Share #86 Posted October 21, 2015 Frankly, to me, it looks like it's the size of a Canon EOS1 SLR with a zoom lens. Perhaps having used the EOS line for years has skewed my perspective a little... but that's a pretty common size for full-frame "pro" line SLR/DSLR cameras... even the digitals. I was shooting M Leicas in the early 1970s and have continued to shoot them throughout their fall from grace and their lengthy resurrection in the public opinion. They work for the majority of what I shoot, even with their quirks... and using a Visoflex III when necessary. I admit, though, I'm using the live view on my Fuji X-T1 more than the Viso these days... so you're preaching to the choir on the M series here. And the Leicaflex series has never been my idea of what I wanted to work with. I'm just not an SLR guy. I think everyone is taking the release of the SL out of context. There is no context that it's a replacement for the M, any more than the Leicaflex SLII was a replacement for the M4. It's not intended to replace the M. I don't know where folks seem to have come up with that idea. It's a full-frame, digital, twenty-first century technology replacement for the R9, which is why Jono compares it to it's namesake the SL SLR of 1964 (or actually the 1972 SLII which he happened to have.) I suspect that next to an R8/R9 with motordrive, it would appear small In any event, It's aimed at a wholly different market share than the M cameras. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted October 21, 2015 Share #87 Posted October 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This post by Zlatkob in the "first images of the SL" has a photo that is perhaps even a better comparison of size... it shows the A7, the SL, and a Nikon D800 comparatively: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/251825-first-images-of-the-new-sl/?p=2909209 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodin Clark Posted October 21, 2015 Share #88 Posted October 21, 2015 To me it looks like the SL addresses the segments of the market that are not rangefinder oriented, just as the R system did in the 60's and 70's. That would include pros and some R lens owners, but I would wager most of the buyers will be well-heeled amateurs after the distinction of a Leica without the fuss of changing lenses and having the convenience of WYSIWYG composing and an autofocus walk around zoom that works as easily as a Nikon or Canon. The SL more effectively fulfills Leica's commitment to R system owners than the M240 does, so that Leica could well say that is genuinely done, which I don't really think it can say about the M240. I doubt the SL will cannabilize the rangefinder segment very much, but I also don't expect the segment will see great growth. Conversely, though, if the SL uses M lenses effectively it would free Leica to diminish investment in the M line, and even abandon optical rangefinders at some future time. The M240 is not only worth buying still, it might be a good idea to buy one, if you love using the rangefinder M Leica in the digital space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted October 21, 2015 Share #89 Posted October 21, 2015 http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,389 "Leica SL Typ 601 is 6% (8 mm) wider and 30% (24 mm) taller than Leica M.Leica SL Typ 601 is 7% (3 mm) thinner than Leica M.Leica SL Typ 601 [847 g] weights 25% (167 grams) more than Leica M [680 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).Leica SL Typ 601 dimensions: 147x104x39 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)" A good move from Leica. For me only makes the M a better choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack-tucker Posted October 21, 2015 Share #90 Posted October 21, 2015 Despite the size I would buy, and maybe will some day, a second M. Another 240 or the next or next to next model as a backup. Depends on financial situation, of course. I am sure the SL is great, but I like the compactness of the M and even more I want to have an optical viewfinder. For me that matters most, so it is not always 100% exact. I can live with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardgb Posted October 21, 2015 Share #91 Posted October 21, 2015 I would suggest that the reason why Leica didn't call the M (Typ 240) the 'M10' was because they saw the M as the last major step forward of the type. With the advent of a future-leading body in the -SL, my suspicion is that the next M will i) be a long time coming, and ii) will only see marginal improvements. No-one now complains about the shutter noise (compared to the M9). How could (or, indeed, why should) the rangefinder be improved, when it now fulfills the accuracy requirements related to the M lenses (er, assuming everything's calibrated as it should be)? Sure, one day there may be a sensor with more pixels, but this is likely to be the result of development of the SL, not for the M itself. The EVF for the M is already an accessory, and in this Forum we have read that it would be good to have the -SL type available for the M. If I hadn't bought an M 6 months ago, I'd be sorely tempted to look at the SL. However, I'd probably still get the M as Leica's reputation when introducing new products would steer me away from becoming an early adopter of the SL. If I can use my M lenses on an SL, with little or no loss of quality, then that's fine with me. Finally, just to make it clear, lest some Forum members 'interpret' my words and ascribe their own meaning, I am not saying the M is doomed. But it is, and will be, a niche product. The pinnacle of mechanical perfection and all that, but nevertheless in its own world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hepcat Posted October 21, 2015 Share #92 Posted October 21, 2015 Finally, just to make it clear, lest some Forum members 'interpret' my words and ascribe their own meaning, I am not saying the M is doomed. But it is, and will be, a niche product. The pinnacle of mechanical perfection and all that, but nevertheless in its own world. Richard, the M series has been a niche product since the introduction of the Nikon F in 1959. It's been a "dying" market since the introduction of the M5. I wouldn't pronounce it "dead" just yet. As long as there's a profit to be made in the M series (and as with any product, it's the consumables and accessories... lenses in this case) there will be a current M body available to generate those profit-making accessory sales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted October 21, 2015 Share #93 Posted October 21, 2015 So, is Leica M 240 still worth buying? Yes - without question, even though it does not have ISO 50,000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas Soldati Posted October 21, 2015 Share #94 Posted October 21, 2015 Interesting to see how some images can be misleading. I found this interesting picture of an SL with a Cron-M 28 lens. Not so big after all.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas Soldati Posted October 21, 2015 Share #95 Posted October 21, 2015 Another interesting comparison picture found on the web. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 22, 2015 Share #96 Posted October 22, 2015 Well... a M lens of small size like the 28 gives a so-so look on the SL (much better on the M... )... speaking only on the stylish side, probably some bulkier M lenses like WA Summiluxes, Noctilux, Summicron 90 APO... will give a very fine look on the SL... surely better than the 24-90 which imho is the main factor that makes SL perceived as a "big" camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted October 22, 2015 Share #97 Posted October 22, 2015 I can't understand the increase in size of the SL over that of the M. Yes, the throat diameter is necessarily bigger than that of the M and the need to support other lenses may have an impact on the body thickness The lack of a rangefinder in the SL will shave considerable volume The electronics should not take up more volume than that for the M. In fact is should be less considering the advancements in technology The sensor is the same size There is a lot of flexibility in battery shapes A more oval viewfinder cup could have been used like that on the Q avoiding the need for an additional hump The LCD is also not much bigger than the M Is there something else in the body that needs the space? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted October 22, 2015 Share #98 Posted October 22, 2015 Another interesting comparison picture found on the web. Put a grip on the M and it would be about the same size... Use the GPS grip to get closer to the functionality and the SL would probably look and feel smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 22, 2015 Share #99 Posted October 22, 2015 "The SL is huge" …compared to what? Bigger than the A7 surely. Marginally larger than the M. (see above) But compared to the pro DSLRs that Leica is actually targeting with this camera, it is not. Even with its allegedly "ginormous" 24-90 AF zoom, it is still considerably smaller than the Canikons with their 24-70 zooms which also have less reach: http://camerasize.com/compact/#557.479,639.496,595.286,wa,t Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted October 22, 2015 Share #100 Posted October 22, 2015 I think the issue is the size of the camera + lens combo. If there were smaller native lenses available at release there would be no such complaints. As it stands, the SL and 24-90 together is HUGE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.