Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

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

barjohn

By barjohn
in Leica SL System

Recommended Posts

IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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). 

 

If you're really going to be fair, James, you'd need to search that "awful lot of people who sell up their SLR gear" and see how many are now saying they're going to buy the SL.  Then what is your point, once you've done that?

 

They're stupid? or they're dilettante's rushing from one shining new Leica camera to the next?  Maybe even "not real photographers" ... or just that because you "recognise that the M isn't a replacement for an SLR and many use/have used both types of camera" you don't need an SL, or the SL is not as good and those using it are lesser beings?  Or is it just that real men use an R3?

 

What is your point, exactly?

 

​Mine is I don't want another film camera (I have two already), and as you say the M doesn't do everything; and it shouldn't be asked to.  I think we agree on that.  So, is there an inherent benefit is using a Canon or Nikon, when I want to use my M lenses as well?  This would involve acceptance that Leica will not release another dSLR, other than the S.  That ship sailed back in 2009.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply
earleygallery

earleygallery

Posted
Posted

John, 

 

When Leica released the Leicaflex they didn't appear to worry about whether M users would be able to use their lenses on it, did they. 

 

It was a different system.

 

I think there is some validity in the OP's point that M users (who will make up the bulk of SL early adopters) are lining up to buy a 'big heavy' DSLR style camera, when really all they want is an M with a better EVF than the low res clip on finder currently offered. 

 

If there had been a new M released at the same time, with the same EVF (built in, switchable a la Fuji) I wonder how many would still want the SL? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

My point (this is surely getting boring) is the SL isn't an M and isn't an SLR - it sits alongside the M at the same price point, offers AF and better integration with both M and R lenses.  The M is a rangefinder.

 

No dig intended, other than to challenge what people are actually saying - I've been saying pretty much the same thing for the last two weeks.  I have no opinion on whether or not the SL is good at what it does, as I don't know.  I've seen other people's images and they're good enough for me to give it a go.

 

What's your point?  I don't see any validity in the OP's post, other than trying to provoke an argument on the forum and to sit back and watch the fun.  Who cares if people sold their dSLRs and are now looking at buying the SL (I didn't, but that is another story told too many times already).  Similarly, if a new M had been released with the same EVF (pretty stupid for Leica to do that, I'd think), I'm sure many here would buy it.  Would they buy it instead of the SL?  I doubt it, but they may have.  So what?

 

Speaking personally (I can only really do that), it's not the EVF that draws me (though black out would kill this camera for me).

Link to post
Share on other sites
earleygallery

earleygallery

Posted
Posted

But people are saying they're buying the SL for their M lenses.

 

Why would it be stupid for Leica to put the same hi res EVF in a future M body? I don't understand why they should hamper it with a lower grade EVF if a better option could be available. 

 

In time the SL might become a great system, when there is a decent range of AF lenses to use with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

Releasing two cameras at once.

 

Leica cannot release an entire system, complete with all lenses, all at once.  They've had to release the camera and one zoom, and point out that 145 existing Leica lenses can also be used with the camera.  While there is a clear distinction between the M & SL systems (EVF v Optical rangefinder, and AF lenses), that distinction is not as clear at the outset.  The SL system will take quite a long time to gain traction, as has the S - this is a long term gambit, where the M is established.

 

Leica knows it's business best, but I'm not at all surprised they're giving the SL breathing space before releasing the upgrade of the M ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
pico

pico

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I cannot blame Leica that the M4 I carried in the Sixties has gained weight. It is all a plot of physics I tell ya! And yesterday I popped a joint lifting a monster steel 8x10 camera onto the tripod. It's a trade-off: lift it straight on in pain or mellow out with a premedication, the joint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted

But people are saying they're buying the SL for their M lenses.

 

 

 

Are they ?

 

Seems a daft idea to me ....... there is no advantage to using M lenses on the SL...... even though you can .....

 

The camera is perfectly usable and covers 90% of what most people need with the current zoom lens...... and it is more suited to R legacy lenses..... particularly the long ones....

 

The real shame is there isn't an early wide zoom like the 11-23mm on the T which a cracking lens ........ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

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.

So- if you are on the road for five weeks what will you do? Carry two systems @ 14 Kgs like I used to do with M and R or one versatile M system @ 8.5 Kg like I do now? Travel photography has no convenient access to one's home camera cupboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlashGordonPhotography

FlashGordonPhotography

Posted
Posted

John, 

 

I think there is some validity in the OP's point that M users (who will make up the bulk of SL early adopters) are lining up to buy a 'big heavy' DSLR style camera, when really all they want is an M with a better EVF than the low res clip on finder currently offered. 

 

If there had been a new M released at the same time, with the same EVF (built in, switchable a la Fuji) I wonder how many would still want the SL? 

 

 

The SL body weighs 847 grams sans battery (EDIT: 847 WITH battery). The M240 with EVF and GPS grip weighs 837 grams (with battery). So we're arguing over 100 grams or so. Not only that. clip the EVF and multifunction grip to a type 240 and they're almost the same size and cost as the SL and you still can't put a flash on the M hotshoe.

 

This thread is bizarre. people are acting like the SL is a D4s replacement. It's a very small full frame camera. It's the smallest 35mm camera with wifi and GPS ever.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. Had the Sl been out when I bought my 2nd type 240 I definitely would have purchased a SL instead. EVF and flash are essential for what I do and the M is a kludge. As it is i'll probably get the XPro2 in January.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Geschlecht

Michael Geschlecht

Posted
Posted

Hello Everybody,

 

And don't forget that there is the possibility of "updated legacy lenses" - possibly meaning the reformulation of older, longer or/& faster lenses for which a 601 is very well configured:

 

Longer lenses mean a less divergent optical path travelling to the sensor because the second nodal point will be further from the sensor plane. A less divergent image path means that the peripheral receptors don't need to accommodate for as steeply angled of an optical path.

 

Longer or/& faster lenses should be easier to focus with a 601 than they would be with a range/viewfinder that has a basic image magnification of .68X.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
barjohn

barjohn

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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).

Jono, to me, the Leica CL was the perfect sized camera and the Q, which I love, is very close to it in size.  However, I have seen repeated far more often than warranted that the larger size and weight of DSLRs was a major negative factor and that this was a major factor in the purchase of an M.  I, like many others was expecting Leica to produce a Q sized camera with interchangeable lenses.  I fully expected the T mount to be used as I mentioned in a post back when the T was first available that the size would easily accommodate FF.  As I recall, I was ridiculed for that comment.  For Leica to go off in the direction of a larger and heavier camera and lens combination did not make sense to me, and still doesn't.  The difficult M lenses still produce soft corners on the images I have seen from the SL, including Sean's review site so if one owns an M why take inferior pictures with an SL?  The only real beneficiary appears to be the R lens owner, provided someone releases an adapter that automates the aperture function.  The images I have seen of the SL 24-90 don't justify the size or high price.  I would not compare it to either S lenses or M lenses from what I have seen.

 

That is not to say you can't get excellent images as even my iPhone 6S Plus can produce some stunning images on occasion.  The Q images appear to me to be equally as good or better within its limited FL.

 

Can you see yourself going out to dinner with friends and lugging that huge camera and lens?  Where do you put it down so you can eat or have a drink?  Add two or three SL primes and you will need to be like a pro golfer and have a caddy to carry it for you.   :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
ramarren

ramarren

Posted
Posted

But people are saying they're buying the SL for their M lenses.

 

Why would it be stupid for Leica to put the same hi res EVF in a future M body? I don't understand why they should hamper it with a lower grade EVF if a better option could be available. 

 

In time the SL might become a great system, when there is a decent range of AF lenses to use with it. 

 

Putting the hires EVF into the M would take such a rework that you'd essentially be creating a different camera .. An SL minus, if it didn't have all the stuff the SL has. Why on earth should Leica do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ramarren

ramarren

Posted
Posted

Are they ?

 

Seems a daft idea to me ....... there is no advantage to using M lenses on the SL...... even though you can .....

 

The camera is perfectly usable and covers 90% of what most people need with the current zoom lens...... and it is more suited to R legacy lenses..... particularly the long ones....

 

The real shame is there isn't an early wide zoom like the 11-23mm on the T which a cracking lens ........ 

 

It took a while for that lens to be released for the T. And look: you can use it on the SL too. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...