What Happened to All the Forum Members that Said Their DSLR Stays Home?

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All this talk about weight and bulk leads me to to ask just what is acceptable. Is the upper limit from the elder Leica users? Is it a special set of younger users accustomed to lesser cameras ?  Just what is too heavy?

 

Things that make my shoulder hurt are too heavy.

[Ai_Print]

I went to an annual gathering of friends this morning. I slung my X under my arm and had a great time. I made five exposures when I went out for a quick walk around the block. The X is small, silent, light, and never in the way. 

 

This is afternoon I needed to capture some items for a sale I'm managing. A short stint of tabletop work, in other words. I could bend the M-P to do it, and did with an adapted lens and the EVF, but it's not the camera best suited to this use. Either of the D750 or E-M1 or SL would do it better and faster. Tomorrow I'll go downtown for lunch and people photos at an event .. The M-P will excel at that. 

 

When I head down to Santa Cruz wharf to capture surfers, seals, gulls, and sails on Thursday, I need long lenses, tripod, etc. the SL or D750 will do that best ... 

 

The right tool for a job, that's all. 

 

And that is how any photographer who has a vision tailors his or her tools to a given job. In these forums, it is pretty common for the Leica fetishists to try and make Leica do every type of photography there is and not only claim it can but take every opportunity to slam other brands in the process. 

 

I took my M3 / 50 Planar out for a walk today, made a couple nice images. If I am shooting a lifestyle ad campaign, ski racing, long exposure low light like star images, then the D750 or D810 are often the ticket. Lately I have been working on a long term series of early season snowfall in black and white on film, so I take out my Hasselblads and bring along a new CFV50c back for when I see a great color shot. 

 

Good photographers not only know that Leica is not the only tool for the job, but would also never restrict them selves needlessly to only the types of shooting that Leica is good for. 

 

I think the OP's post is hilariously revealing of just how full of BS some people are on here.

[IkarusJohn]

That seems an odd mixture of logic, to me. 

 

I agree one one should use the camera for the job; I have been saying that for years - much as I love the M system, it has its limitations.

 

What I find odd (not sure I'd call it hilarious) is when Leica adds a new system to expand its capabilities, we get two very strong reactions (1) it isn't an M (heavier, bigger, more expensive and doesn't play well with M lenses - none of it very convincing, unless your comparing it to the M in isolation); and (2) buy a dSLR, it's better and cheaper.

 

Surely, the short answer is, it is a different system, and there are horses for courses. If I was forced to chose only one camera and one system, at this stage, it would be the M.  But I don't have to ...

[zlatkob]

 

An SL with M lenses will not that much larger than an M 240 with the same lenses.

 

You cannot say the same about a Canon 5D III equipped with the equivalent lenses. 

 

However, a Canon 6D is about there (depending on which lens one chooses, of course):

 

Leica M240 + 35mm Summicron-M = 935 grams

Leica SL + 35mm Summicron-M = 1102 grams (+weight of adapter)

Canon 6D + 35mm f/2 IS = 1105 grams

[Ecaton]

 

An SL with M lenses will not that much larger than an M 240 with the same lenses.

 

You cannot say the same about a Canon 5D III equipped with the equivalent lenses. 

Equivalent lenses? The 1.2 kg 29-90 zoom for the SL does not look too compact to me. And wait until you see the AF primes for the SL.

[jaapv]

And that is how any photographer who has a vision tailors his or her tools to a given job. In these forums, it is pretty common for the Leica fetishists to try and make Leica do every type of photography there is and not only claim it can but take every opportunity to slam other brands in the process. 

 

I took my M3 / 50 Planar out for a walk today, made a couple nice images. If I am shooting a lifestyle ad campaign, ski racing, long exposure low light like star images, then the D750 or D810 are often the ticket. Lately I have been working on a long term series of early season snowfall in black and white on film, so I take out my Hasselblads and bring along a new CFV50c back for when I see a great color shot. 

 

Good photographers not only know that Leica is not the only tool for the job, but would also never restrict them selves needlessly to only the types of shooting that Leica is good for. 

 

I think the OP's post is hilariously revealing of just how full of BS some people are on here.

Yes, but surely there is something to be said for limiting the number of systems one has to carry. We do not all travel with a pack camel. For that reason a versatile system like the M+EVF (or DSLR or SL) is welcome. So it comes down to personal preference in the end.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have allways also had a DSLR for things where the M doesn't work well: Tele, Zooms, Quick AF

So for me the SL would not replace a M but a DSLR (even though I haven't made up my mind IF I want to replace my DSLR with the SL)

[Peter H]

..................... In these forums, it is pretty common for the Leica fetishists to try and make Leica do every type of photography there is and not only claim it can but take every opportunity to slam other brands in the process. 

 

...............................

I think the OP's post is hilariously revealing of just how full of BS some people are on here.

 

I remember quite a number of people selling all their camera gear, usually DSLRs and lenses, to fund a Leica when the M8 and particularly M9 were announced because they so wanted a Leica. The M 240 allowed even more to follow this route.

 

Although you do say it only applies to some people,  it's worth pointing out that the BS call isn't fair to many people who use their Leicas for almost all kinds of photography not as a result of fetishism but because it's too expensive to do otherwise.

[Ai_Print]

Yes, but surely there is something to be said for limiting the number of systems one has to carry. We do not all travel with a pack camel. For that reason a versatile system like the M+EVF (or DSLR or SL) is welcome. So it comes down to personal preference in the end.

Who on Earth would ever imply one would carry all those systems at once? I certainly did not.

 

Of course if I am carrying my M240 for a documentary piece and I see a nice landscape I am going to take the photo. Conversely if I am shooting inbounds ski area landscapes with my Hasselblad and see a great documentary shot, I am going to take that too.

 

The only camera system I can not readily adapt to any situation is my 4x5 field camera...I usually carry a Leica with me when using that.

 

You love Leica, I love Leica, most folks on here love Leica too. But I *never* get my head wrapped up in the brand to the point that I would say or do something as stupid as to say I leave my DSLRs at home because I find them inferior to a Leica.

 

That would be like saying I leave my flat head screw drivers at home because I find Phillips head to be far superior.

[davewolfs]

I actually find it comical. Leica users have been slamming DSLRs and zooms about size for years. Leica decides to produce a DSLR sized camera with an EVF and a 1.1 Kg f/4 lens and now some think it's the best thing since sliced bread. 

 

Been there, done that many years ago. For me an M or A7 style camera is still the way to go. If I want zooms a D750 or D810 are both fantastic. 

[jaapv]

I actually find it comical. Leica users have been slamming DSLRs and zooms about size for years.

 

 

Have we? I wonder where all my (and other Leica users') R gear including zooms and a DMR comes from then...

[IkarusJohn]

I don't really see this thread heading anywhere that is not pointlessly unpleasant. 

[wildlightphoto]

I don't really see this thread heading anywhere that is not pointlessly unpleasant. 

 

Agreed.  The OP's premise was flawed.

[IkarusJohn]

Oh, I'm not sure it was flawed - it had a purpose, just not a very good one ...

[earleygallery]

To be fair an awful lot of people who sell up their SLR gear to buy into the M system will cite lower weight/size as an issue - search the archives if you can spare the time and read them for yourselves. 

 

When the last M was announced many people moaned about it being 'so much bigger' - that was the few mm protrusion on the rear for the thumbwheel!! 

 

So yes it is odd how suddenly accepting people are of the notion of a very large (for a mirrorless) camera and zooms. 

 

However, some of us recognise that the M isn't a replacement for an SLR and many use/have used both types of camera - it's basically why the M and R systems ran alongside each other for so many years. 

 

The M's compact size and particularly the lens typical size, is still a big advantage for people who prefer to travel light(er). 

[ramarren]

Another thing just came to mind about why the SL feels so comfortable to me. Look at the body and compare it to the Sony A7 and even the M typ 240 ... notice how spare and devoid of buttons and such it is, how much clear space there is. With the A7 and even the M-P, whenever I take it out of a bag my fingers are pressing buttons, switches, etc. ... If the camera happens to be on, I'm changing settings hither and yon without intending to. With the SL, there are fewer buttons and none of them occlude the space where I want to grip the camera normally. I can stuff it in a bag and pull it out just as I do with the R8 and Leicaflex SL ... I have to work to accidentally put my fingers on controls and change things. 

 

There are a lot of nuances to camera haptics. This is just another one of them: easily grip-able without making errors. 

 

My little Olympus E-PL7 is horrid this way. No matter how I pick it up, I have to figure out how to hold it with some delicacy and precision or I'm smacking around my camera settings. 

 

The SL, like the M-P and the X, is the "right" size. Leica is good at this ... :-)

[wildlightphoto]

To be fair an awful lot of people who sell up their SLR gear to buy into the M system will cite lower weight/size as an issue - search the archives if you can spare the time and read them for yourselves. 

 

When the last M was announced many people moaned about it being 'so much bigger' - that was the few mm protrusion on the rear for the thumbwheel!! 

 

So yes it is odd how suddenly accepting people are of the notion of a very large (for a mirrorless) camera and zooms. 

 

However, some of us recognise that the M isn't a replacement for an SLR and many use/have used both types of camera - it's basically why the M and R systems ran alongside each other for so many years. 

 

The M's compact size and particularly the lens typical size, is still a big advantage for people who prefer to travel light(er). 

 

This accepting person was never in the market for an M camera and I'm not interested in the zoom.  I'm interested in the SL because I want to use my R lenses on a responsive camera with a good TTL viewfinder with color discrimination more like the DMR than like the CaNikon or Sony cameras, weighs less than the R8/DMR and I can get repairs, spare batteries and new fast memory cards for it.

[wildlightphoto]

.... With the SL, there are fewer buttons and none of them occlude the space where I want to grip the camera normally. I can stuff it in a bag and pull it out just as I do with the R8 and Leicaflex SL ... I have to work to accidentally put my fingers on controls and change things....

 

This!  My a7II has too many buttons in too little space for my too big fingers.

[jonoslack]

I always understood that the perfect 'Troll' post was one which you started . . . .

and then sat back and watched everyone being rude to each other without even having to chip in.

 

Not of course that I'm suggesting that the OP is a troll . . . . (I'm really not).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

To be fair an awful lot of people who sell up their SLR gear to buy into the M system will cite lower weight/size as an issue - search the archives if you can spare the time and read them for yourselves. 

 

When the last M was announced many people moaned about it being 'so much bigger' - that was the few mm protrusion on the rear for the thumbwheel!! 

 

So yes it is odd how suddenly accepting people are of the notion of a very large (for a mirrorless) camera and zooms. 

 

However, some of us recognise that the M isn't a replacement for an SLR and many use/have used both types of camera - it's basically why the M and R systems ran alongside each other for so many years. 

 

The M's compact size and particularly the lens typical size, is still a big advantage for people who prefer to travel light(er). 

Maybe people recognize the differences in concept between different camera systems. As you indicate in your post.