Leica SL a real camera for the pro.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Come now, Jaap. Don't be a pedant, it doesn't make any useful contribution to the discussion. Only the M(240) (and M(240 series cameras, I assume - I'm not prepared to test my M60) is "weather sealed", whatever that means. As far as I'm aware, no M lens is, which rather defeats the purpose. 

 

Having seen a bottle of water poured over the SL with zoom attached, I wouldn't repeat that test with any of my M cameras (with lenses fitted). Feel free to repeat that test - please post a video here, and report on the repair bill. 

 

I'm not prepared to pour a bottle of water over any camera for the sake of a silly argument, but I've used my M here on the wild west coast of Scotland, at sea, tand in the exposed hills, in as severe weather as you're ever likely to use an SL in, wiped it off or not as circumstances have allowed and then used it again without the trace of a problem, so I'd argue agains a lack of weather-sealing on the non-electrical M lenses being a limitation of the weather-sealed M. 

 

But this is a silly way of looking at it.

 

Both the M and the SL are severely limited if they happen not to match your personal set of priorities. I think it's the absolute terms that are being used about the SL, that grate. It will be better at some things than the M and not so capable of others. Take your choice. Arguing which is more versatile, or more limited, or more or less compromised, is a waste of breathe to which I plead guilty and have now ceased.

 

I know you are speaking about how it fits your own purposes, but we are all, including you and me, too easily drawn into specious comparisons and to universalising specifics to support personal preferences. Let's stop.

[colonel]

FWIW I have used the M-E and MM in heavy rain, with a bit of shielding, and just wiped them off afterwards

 

Not that I recommend it, but water sealing is a bit overated in that:

1. Most cameras can take a few splahes

2. Ones that are supposed to be water resistant are not water proof. Don't believe me ? dunk one in your bath. Before you do that remember that no manufaturer will do any repairs on a camera that has suffered water damage

[Jeff S]

 

Don't be so ungraceous to want the SL to fail, or to mock the reasons people may want one. I'm quite sure I've explained my reasons at tedious length already. 

Ironic, since you go even a step further by regularly implying, if not flat out saying, that the M240 has already failed....sometimes you're even 'gracious' enough to obliquely say that's for your use...but mostly not.

 

You might also want to re-read Peter's and your recent posts....and see who is being churlish.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

... [The SL] will be better at some things than the M and not so capable of others. ...

 

That has always been my point. You will recall, I'm sure, that my concern from the start of this discussion has been the expectation that the SL has to match up to the M.  I'll be surprised if the SL ever replaces the M altogether for me. There are too many situations where I want a smaller camera and don't need the electronics and complications of the SL.  I bought the M60 for good reason, as Alan has acknowledged. 

 

Some here are a little over-excited about the new camera, which is understandable, I guess. 

 

I'm sorry you find my taking issue with Jaap is a "silly argument". Weather sealing on my M cameras is pointless without the lenses having similar protection. I'm outdoors a lot (NZ can have very Scottish weather), and, for example, standing in the sea photographing kite surfers with an M camera is not a comfortable experience. Having witnessed the SL literally drenched, I can see the benefit of proper weather sealing. 

 

Your position clearly varies. I certainly wouldn't call that "silly". 

[IkarusJohn]

Ironic, since you go even a step further by regularly implying, if not flat out saying, that the M240 has already failed....

 

In the words of Churchill, Jeff - we seem to be divided by a common language. 

 

I don't recall saying any Leica product had "failed" - other than to capture my interest. 

[Jeff S]

 

 

I don't recall saying any Leica product had "failed" - other than to capture my interest. 

That's only because you prefer other descriptions like 'hopeless compromise'...  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248322-new-m-this-year-this-fall/?p=2898741   That's but one example of many.

 

You wrote...    "The new "SL" (or whatever it's called) - I don't see that having anything to do with the M at all. But I do see that as a far more attractive  proposition than the hopeless compromise that the M(240) is."

 

If you can't recognize the condescending tone (implying a failure), well beyond just stating your preference, well then we do comprehend language differently.

 

Jeff

[Joshua Lowe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Weather sealed" is such a vague bit of marketeer speak.

[IkarusJohn]

That's only because you prefer other descriptions like 'hopeless compromise'...  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248322-new-m-this-year-this-fall/?p=2898741   That's but one example of many.

 

You wrote...    "The new "SL" (or whatever it's called) - I don't see that having anything to do with the M at all. But I do see that as a far more attractive  proposition than the hopeless compromise that the M(240) is."

 

If you can't recognize the condescending tone (implying a failure), well beyond just stating your preference, well then we do comprehend language differently.

 

Jeff

You forgot half-baked, kludge and a number of others, Jeff; each of which is an expression of opinion.

 

Failure would need sales figures, which none of us have. Anecdotally, I see no justification for the camera being a failure. Compromised, yes; failure, no. It could be argued the M Edition 60 was a failure in sales terms, but I wonder if that project was about sales - the limited production run would suggest it was not just about numbers.

 

The M5 and perhaps Leica's slow entry into single lens reflex could be argued as "failures", I guess; but the owners of those cameras would disagree, I suspect. Vehemently.

[jaapv]

"Weather sealed" is such a vague bit of marketeer speak.

No it is not; it is a stringent norm. (IEC standard 60529),The M240 is protected to IP3, but could probably make IP4. The SL is certainly IP4.

The S is IP7. These are norms for electrical equipment.

[mmradman]

Plain IP3 or IP4 is just wire mesh, weather sealing is described with two digit classification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code

No it is not; it is a stringent norm.The M240 is protected to IP3, but could probably make IP4. The SL is certainly IP4.

The S is IP7. These are norms for electrical equipment.

[Jeff S]

You forgot half-baked, kludge and a number of others, Jeff

   

Actually I didn't, but thanks for the additions.

 

There are lots of ways to fail besides sales-wise, in the minds of consumers.   

 

Your expressions of opinion are routinely more inflammatory in nature than most other folks here who express the opinion that this or that product or feature is just not for them, or doesn't meet a specific need.  

 

Just my opinion.

 

Jeff

[jonoslack]

 

Not that I recommend it, but water sealing is a bit overated in that:

1. Most cameras can take a few splahes

2. Ones that are supposed to be water resistant are not water proof. Don't believe me ? dunk one in your bath. Before you do that remember that no manufaturer will do any repairs on a camera that has suffered water damage

Actually - Olympus will - (repair water damaged cameras) and I think that Pentax will too. 

. . . and there are shots taken underwater with an Olympus E1 as well. . . . actually, there's a picture taken underwater with the SL somewhere around here too. 

[jonoslack]

No it is not; it is a stringent norm. (IEC standard 60529),The M240 is protected to IP3, but could probably make IP4. The SL is certainly IP4.

The S is IP7. These are norms for electrical equipment.

I understand that the SL has sealing to the same standard as the S . . . Whatever

Someone (Roger Cicala?) defined Weather Sealed as:

The manufacturer will fix it if it leaks

 

I think that's a pretty good definition - but not one many companies will do that. 

[Manoleica]

Hi Peter

I couldn't agree more - all the cameras available these days (and lots of phones) are capable of taking a good enough photos (if the photo is good enough ). . . . 

 

I like to keep the End and the Means in completely different boxes in my brain -> Spilt Personality 

[jdlaing]

Actually - Olympus will - (repair water damaged cameras) and I think that Pentax will too. 

. . . and there are shots taken underwater with an Olympus E1 as well. . . . actually, there's a picture taken underwater with the SL somewhere around here too. 

Yes they will. I can testify to Olympus.

[AlanJW]

Actually I didn't, but thanks for the additions.

 

There are lots of ways to fail besides sales-wise, in the minds of consumers.   

 

Your expressions of opinion are routinely more inflammatory in nature than most other folks here who express the opinion that this or that product or feature is just not for them, or doesn't meet a specific need.  

 

Just my opinion.

 

Jeff

Well said.  Of course much of what gets posted here is opinion and there are many who are truly convinced that they are the only ones who know the truth.   I don't think John is deliberately provocative, like some others.  I would like to think that sometimes there is just a bit of carelessness in his choice of words. 

[Manoleica]

Pro? when I worked P/T for an advertising agency (car ads) they issued us with Canon S900's... Is it therefore a Pro camera.. lol..

[jaapv]

That has always been my point. You will recall, I'm sure, that my concern from the start of this discussion has been the expectation that the SL has to match up to the M.  I'll be surprised if the SL ever replaces the M altogether for me. There are too many situations where I want a smaller camera and don't need the electronics and complications of the SL.  I bought the M60 for good reason, as Alan has acknowledged. 

 

Some here are a little over-excited about the new camera, which is understandable, I guess. 

 

I'm sorry you find my taking issue with Jaap is a "silly argument". Weather sealing on my M cameras is pointless without the lenses having similar protection. I'm outdoors a lot (NZ can have very Scottish weather), and, for example, standing in the sea photographing kite surfers with an M camera is not a comfortable experience. Having witnessed the SL literally drenched, I can see the benefit of proper weather sealing. 

 

Your position clearly varies. I certainly wouldn't call that "silly". 

And Leica explaining that the lenses are sufficently weatherproofed by tolerances and lubricants. Do you have proof that they are wrong?

[almoore]

Do you have proof that they are wrong?

 

No he hasn't. 

 

What IkarusJohn forgets is that film era photographers unhesitatingly used their M cameras and lenses in torrential rain with very few problems. A 'weatherproofed' digital M is more vulnerable to heavy rain than its purely mechanical lens. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

No, I'm not sure that's true almoore.  I have been taking pictures since the mid-1960s, and still shoot film from time to time.

 

In that time, from recollection, I think I've destroyed 3 cameras in water - an FE, an FM and an FM2.  In each case, I was told the mistake I made was to bend down and pick up the camera.  Insurance fixed me up with a new camera in each case.

 

I think this particular issue has got somewhat lost in the detail.  The point I was making, for those interested, was that the SL will be more rugged than my M cameras, and that is an appeal to me.  Not to others?  Fine.  I think I also mentioned at some point that I don't have an M(240), and I'm not about to test the weather proofing of my M Edition 60.

 

There also seems to be general acknowledgement that the weather proofing of the SL is to a higher standard than that of the M(240).  I won't be going diving with it.