gvaliquette Posted November 7, 2015 Share #101 Posted November 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) First, let me preface this post by saying that I am speaking for myself and that I have yet to hold an SL in my hands, but this is how I see the SL's future from my point of view. Just to be 100% truthful, I also own and use a Leica M3, M4-2 (my first M), M9 and M240, as well as an R6.2, an R9 and a DMR, as well as a bunch of R and M lenses. But this is where I see the SL in my future, and I don't think I am alone. Us Leica R owners are an aging breed (need I elaborate?). But we also like high quality/resolution photos; after all, we bought a Leica camera(s) and lense(s). I, personally, also like to travel and I use my camera(s) mostly away from home. An SL, particularly with a "smart R-adapter", would be my "R-solution" for now. I have R primes from 21 to 500, and the 21-35, 28-90 and 80-200 zooms and I look forward to finally getting a full-frame digital image with them. But I am not getting any younger (who is?). As the lineup of lenses for the SL, and I, mature, and, maybe, after my cataract surgery (;-(), I see myself buying the autofocus lenses native to the SL system. Leica will have to wait to get (more) money out of me, but eventually they will! So, to repeat what was posted earlier in this thread, "in 2009, NO, in 2015, YES". Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Hi gvaliquette, Take a look here Would you prefer an R10 over SL?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Leicaiste Posted November 7, 2015 Share #102 Posted November 7, 2015 It is interesting to note in Erwin Puts review of the R9 + DMR, that the price of this combo was 7.500 Euros in 2005. http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/camera/page48.html Ten years later the SL price is 6.900 Euros. In 2006, the price of the M8 was 4.300 Euros. Today, the price of the M 240 is 6.950 Euros. One could guess that the price of a new R10 DSLR today would be around 11.000 euros. Still cheaper than the Leica S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 8, 2015 Share #103 Posted November 8, 2015 I've just read this thread from start to finish, and I was completely at a loss as to what to say . . . . . . . . . and then I thought of some things which might be relevant: 1. I've just spent a week walking around Venice with the SL and the 24-90 in my hand - and I can't remember thinking once that I'd prefer to have an OVF - more to the point I can't remember noticing that I wasn't using one! 2. In September I spent 3 weeks in Crete with the SL and various R and M lenses and I can't remember once thinking that stop down metering would be good. . . . and missing focus simply wasn't an issue. Of course, it doesn't mean that a stop down adapter wouldn't be good . . . but the current solution with the stacked adapter is really efficient (and intelligent) . . and it doesn't mean that OVFs aren't lovely to use either . . . but the 4mp EVF really does well for everything except perhaps judging dynamic range (and optical finders aren't great for that either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 8, 2015 Share #104 Posted November 8, 2015 Just supposing Leica had produced an R10 i.e. a FF DSLR: Highly unlikely it would have have been designed primarily for R lenses - although it would have been R compatible, and AF, much like the SL And likely it would have been much larger than e.g. the R9 and R8 in order to accommodate a FF sensor … because TTBOMK the R9 and R8 bodies were not capable of use with a FF sensor hence the 1.37 cropped sensor. Being larger, and having a mirror box, it would likely have been heavier than the SL. But … then again … and again … … some might say … and have already said .. "make it another cropped sensor !" But then the relatively few wide angle R lenses do not really work as wides (just like they don't work as wides on the DMR) ... because of the crop factor. So … maybe Leica have got their sums right by introducing the mirrorless SL. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 8, 2015 Share #105 Posted November 8, 2015 And likely it would have been much larger than e.g. the R9 and R8 in order to accommodate a FF sensor … because TTBOMK the R9 and R8 bodies were not capable of use with a FF sensor hence the 1.37 cropped sensor. That restriction was imposed by the requirement of keeping the R8/R9 unmodified so it could still be used as a film camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Walker Posted November 10, 2015 Share #106 Posted November 10, 2015 I think using the Sonys would have been a distraction. scott After, 3 months with the A7Rii, I can confirm that the Sony can be a distraction. With the right lens, there's nothing wrong with the results. But the amount of junk Sony put between the photographer and the photograph is mind-boggling. Even with simplifying the options and saving the profile onto the mode dial, there's still a lot of distraction to ignore. E.g. Any shot at a slow shutter speed causes that annoying steady-shot indicator to flash ominously, over part of the image, even if you have steady-shot turned on. And so on... regards Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 10, 2015 Share #107 Posted November 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) After, 3 months with the A7Rii, I can confirm that the Sony can be a distraction. With the right lens, there's nothing wrong with the results. But the amount of junk Sony put between the photographer and the photograph is mind-boggling. Even with simplifying the options and saving the profile onto the mode dial, there's still a lot of distraction to ignore. E.g. Any shot at a slow shutter speed causes that annoying steady-shot indicator to flash ominously, over part of the image, even if you have steady-shot turned on. And so on... regards Peter I've never used a Sony. Do you think this interpretation of what you describe is fair: it sounds to me as though the technology that Sony produces should be capable of becoming a truly first-class camera, but the implementation of the user interface and some of the goody-bag approach to features are just too intrusive. If that's the case I wouldn't understand until someone explains again why it would be necessary to abandon the idea of an interchangeable-lens AF camera around the size of the Q capable of accepting a wide range of lenses old and new; a camera combining the undeniable strengths of the Sonys and the non-RF Leicas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Walker Posted November 10, 2015 Share #108 Posted November 10, 2015 If that's the case I wouldn't understand until someone explains again why it would be necessary to abandon the idea of an interchangeable-lens AF camera around the size of the Q capable of accepting a wide range of lenses old and new; a camera combining the undeniable strengths of the Sonys and the non-RF Leicas. Who abandoned what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 10, 2015 Share #109 Posted November 10, 2015 Who abandoned what? When some of us expressed our initial disappointment that the announcement of the SL wasn't either the new M or something along the lines of an IL Q, there was quite a strong response suggesting that a small- bodied FF IL AF camera was just unrealistic. If it is unrealistic, that's fine because there's no point asking for the impossible but your post reminded me that the Sony might suggest that it's not impossible at all, hence my question to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 10, 2015 Share #110 Posted November 10, 2015 When some of us expressed our initial disappointment that the announcement of the SL wasn't either the new M or something along the lines of an IL Q, there was quite a strong response suggesting that a small- bodied FF IL AF camera was just unrealistic. If it is unrealistic, that's fine because there's no point asking for the impossible but your post reminded me that the Sony might suggest that it's not impossible at all, hence my question to you. Ho hum. Well, I don't think it's impossible to produce the body. ( the Q and the Sony cameras prove this).......but the lenses are a different matter. I don't think the size of the 24-90 vario elmarit is leica being macho! These days we all expect sterling quality from our lenses: producing a nice small lens with compromised image quality is really a no go ( even were it useful ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 10, 2015 Share #111 Posted November 10, 2015 Ho hum. Well, I don't think it's impossible to produce the body. ( the Q and the Sony cameras prove this).......but the lenses are a different matter. I don't think the size of the 24-90 vario elmarit is leica being macho! These days we all expect sterling quality from our lenses: producing a nice small lens with compromised image quality is really a no go ( even were it useful ) I understand that Jono, but we don't have to limit our thinking to zoom lenses do we? Many, probably most of us on this forum, have been quite happy using prime lenses for a good number of years. I'd certainly be happy to carry on doing so. The Q with its relatively diminutive yet fast AF lens demonstrates that there is at least a chance that those of us who don't want large DSLR-style AF camera systems but who would like to see Leica values in a small AF full-frame camera might still have something to look forward to, doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted November 10, 2015 Share #112 Posted November 10, 2015 I understand that Jono, but we don't have to limit our thinking to zoom lenses do we? Many, probably most of us on this forum, have been quite happy using prime lenses for a good number of years. I'd certainly be happy to carry on doing so. The Q with its relatively diminutive yet fast AF lens demonstrates that there is at least a chance that those of us who don't want large DSLR-style AF camera systems but who would like to see Leica values in a small AF full-frame camera might still have something to look forward to, doesn't it? By their own admission, Leica commenced the Q series using a 28mm lens because it's the easiest to design as a compact lens; longer focal length FF Q lenses will be larger; how much larger depends on the max apertures decided on. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 10, 2015 Share #113 Posted November 10, 2015 The planned 50 Summilux-SL looks huge, but then they are apparently aiming high (the best 50 they've ever produced? or is that just marketing hype). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 10, 2015 Share #114 Posted November 10, 2015 I understand that Jono, but we don't have to limit our thinking to zoom lenses do we? HI There Peter It isn't just zooms - prime lenses have the same issues - look at the size of the 55 f1.8 for Sony (fine, but hardly CL like). Look at the Otus - modern lenses are going to be big if they're going to be good, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 11, 2015 Share #115 Posted November 11, 2015 The planned 50 Summilux-SL looks huge, but then they are apparently aiming high (the best 50 they've ever produced? or is that just marketing hype). Look at the Size of the Otus - even the sigma 50 f1.4 is a big lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 11, 2015 Share #116 Posted November 11, 2015 The planned 50 Summilux-SL looks huge, but then they are apparently aiming high (the best 50 they've ever produced? or is that just marketing hype). Look at the other class leading 50mm lenses ... The Zeiss Otus and Signa Art. These are all designed with the "make it the best performer, regardless of size, weight" et cetera. All pretty darn huge. It's probably the nature of the beast. Designing best possible performance, no holds barred, for digital sensors implies a set of issues to solve that are very different from traditional solutions for film cameras. So we see lenses that look bloated and gross compared to what we're used to even from the traditionally largish SLR designs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 11, 2015 Share #117 Posted November 11, 2015 Look at the Size of the Otus - even the sigma 50 f1.4 is a big lens. Pleased I still have my 0.95 Noctilux. Oh, hold on. You sold yours? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 11, 2015 Share #118 Posted November 11, 2015 Pleased I still have my 0.95 Noctilux. Oh, hold on. You sold yours? Don't rub it in - I'm still regretting it It was about a week before I heard about the SL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 11, 2015 Share #119 Posted November 11, 2015 Don't rub it in - I'm still regretting it It was about a week before I heard about the SL They've just released a nice 0.95 Special Edition - it looks like all the depth of field markings and settings on the lens are blacked out, apart from 0.95 which is still in white! You can even buy a matching cigarette lighter! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 11, 2015 Share #120 Posted November 11, 2015 HI There Peter It isn't just zooms - prime lenses have the same issues - look at the size of the 55 f1.8 for Sony (fine, but hardly CL like). Look at the Otus - modern lenses are going to be big if they're going to be good, Yes, but this, the ability to find a solution to this kind of problem, is Leica's territory. M lenses are, like for like, smaller than Zeiss lenses or Nikon/ Canon MF equivalents. That combination of small size and top quality is the thing that genuinely justifies a premium price. But now we seem to be moving into new territory where we give up that objectively distinguishable and unique advantage. This is why it feels like a step backward. Should we be so ready to start justifying the whole thing on the grounds that Zeiss et al can't do it better? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.