IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #121 Posted December 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Oh, I don't know. I'm rarely accused of carelessness in my choice of words - what you can assume though is that they're not intended to be taken personally. I have absolutely no aspirations to know the truth, whatever that is ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here Leica SL a real camera for the pro.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted December 4, 2015 Share #122 Posted December 4, 2015 Tina posted some photos today taken with the M240 and SL, but for some odd reason got complaints about them. So she's pulled them down. Pretty ridiculous that people would complain about her photos! She probably didn't have a sleeping cat in any photo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted December 4, 2015 Share #123 Posted December 4, 2015 The point I was making, for those interested, was that the SL will be more rugged than my M cameras Only time will tell if the SL is more rugged than the M. You appeared to be making the case that the lenses are the weak physical link in the M system, but the fact that decades old M lenses (that have been exposed to the worst that the elements can throw at them) are still working perfectly suggests otherwise. The SL and its lenses are unproven, but a quick glance at the S forum will show you that the seemingly similarly constructed S lenses are not showing the same levels of reliability as their M counterparts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 4, 2015 Share #124 Posted December 4, 2015 A lens with a motor has so many extra points of failure ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted December 4, 2015 Share #125 Posted December 4, 2015 A lens with a motor has so many extra points of failure ..... Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #126 Posted December 4, 2015 Perhaps, though "normal use" will differ. Before we start a completely unfounded rumour, perhaps we should just agree that both lenses are very well made, but Leica makes no claims at all that the M lenses are weather sealed. Use is another issue. The fact that there are lots of secondhand M lenses proves nothing at all about them being even remotely weather proof. My 1948 50 Summitar is in perfect condition, but I sorely doubt it has been used in the rain - we'd both be guessing about that ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted December 4, 2015 Share #127 Posted December 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica makes no claims at all that the M lenses are weather sealed...The fact that there are lots of secondhand M lenses proves nothing at all about them being even remotely weather proof. A mechanical lens doesn't need to be 'weather sealed' in the same way as an autofocus lens. I - along with countless others - know that M lenses are 'weather proof' because I've repeatedly used them in heavy rain with no adverse reaction. You made the assertion that: Weather sealing on my M cameras is pointless without the lenses having similar protection It's not pointless, because without some level of sealing your digital M will cease to function in conditions that won't trouble your lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #128 Posted December 4, 2015 Well, that may work for you, but it doesn't for me. I have three M cameras with no sealing at all, and a fine collection of M lenses, similarly with no comment from Leica they are weather sealed. Similarly, I'm not aware Leica has said anything about the M60 being weather sealed either ... Conversely, having the choice of a weather sealed camera I can take into the tide (that means salt water ...) is useful. For me. I can easily rinse the salt off. Edit - out of curiosity, if you take your M lenses in pouring rain (I mean really pouring rain) what stops water from entering the camera from the lens ... It doesn't really matter which camera. I won't be doing that with any M lens, attached to any camera - M or SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 4, 2015 Share #129 Posted December 4, 2015 If we accept for a moment the unproven hypothesis that M lenses undermine the M's weather sealing, then using M or R lenses on the SL would be equally perilous. So, if as originally stated a lack of weather sealing is a limitation of the M, then then one of the big virtues of the SL, its versatility a a multi-lens platform, is limited to exactly the same extent unless you restrict yourself to SL lenses. In which case size and weight and price become a very significant factor. Not to mention the lack of SL lenses. In fact one might say all of this amounts to a serious set of limitations. None of this applies in reality though, since M lenses are perfectly sound, and weight, size and price are matters for individuals to evaluate for themselves. And eventually, by the time there's a range of SL lenses to choose from, there'll be a new M in the mix too, to further complicate this rather sterile game of comparisons. It all demonstrates, to my mind, the fruitlessness of this sort of argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #130 Posted December 4, 2015 I agree entirely, Peter. Apart from the fruitlessness bit. I've always assumed that I will only have the benefit of weather sealing with the SL & zoom. I have no intention of taking the SL and M or R lens out into anything more than light rain. That's an expensive experiment I'd rather skip. I'd be very interested to know if I'm wrong. I can say with my previous experiences, cameras and lenses were written off - it was more than rain, though. As for size and weight, it's not significantly lighter or heavier wet or dry. If size and weight is a problem, the camera is wrong for you from the start. This camera really only appeals with at least one AF lens, and the 24-90 is the most useful, isn't it? I've always understood it's only weather sealed with native SL lenses (or perhaps S, if the adapter is sealed); and at the moment, there's only one. A useful one, but one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted December 4, 2015 Share #131 Posted December 4, 2015 out of curiosity, if you take your M lenses in pouring rain (I mean really pouring rain) what stops water from entering the camera from the lens ... It doesn't really matter which camera. I won't be doing that with any M lens, attached to any camera - M or SL. The mount is snug enough that it's unlikely any water will reach the interior of the camera via that route. Having said that, I only use film Ms, so it wouldn't be a major problem if rainwater entered the camera anyway. The only issue that I've experienced with Ms in the rain is that the viewfinder of one of my M6s (it doesn't happen with any other M that I've used) steams up (on the inside) to the point I can't see well enough to work. There are other film era cameras that leak like sieves: if you use a Nikon FM2 in heavy rain the film will get wet, which isn't a big problem if you dev the film very soon after; if you don't, the emulsion of the wet spooled film will stick to the adjacent layer as it dries, which is a big problem. I won't be doing that with any M lens, attached to any camera - M or SL Why ever not? Although, if you really want a well proven weather proofed camera to make you feel more comfortable I'd look to a 5D3. Eventually, pretty much all cameras go down in heavy rain, so I'd rather take the hit on a Canon than a $12,500 SL and zoom if bad weather is the motive to not use an M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 4, 2015 Share #132 Posted December 4, 2015 The mount is snug enough that it's unlikely any water will reach the interior of the camera via that route. I'm not so sure. This thread was all about the imperfections of the M mount. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/218866-risked-life-and-limb-to-get-this-shot-and-the-7000-piece-of-crap-let-me-down-again/ I guess if you can get light in, then water can get in by capillary action. I don't know how the SL mount is "weather-sealed" - I don't have the SL lens to inspect and there is no obvious seal on the body mount or on the M-T adapter. Perhaps it's done just by tighter tolerances. In any case, I don't assume the M mount is weatherproof, whatever that means, either on the M or as an M lens on the M-T adapter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 4, 2015 Share #133 Posted December 4, 2015 Yes, quite. My message wasn't specifically limited to the question of weather- resistance. And anyway, no camera or lens is actually weather sealed, but they do have varying degrees of resistance. It was more to do with the overall tenor of the conversation. I still find the SL very tempting. The reason I appear to be arguing against it is that it rankles with me when I feel unjust claims are made on its behalf, just as I do when I hear equivalent claims made about other cameras in the line-up in other threads. It happens each time a new camera is announced. Some reject it out of hand. Some praise it to heaven and sell their proven equipment to fund it before they've even tried it. In that melee of over-excitement people lose perspective. I've seen quite a few statements that have really surprised me. For example people who I can remember explaining how relieved they were to finally have a small and far more convenient camera that matched the quality of their big DSLR , and selling their DSLR outfit as a result, now saying that size is no real issue to them. Or people having extolled at length the virtues of MF or fast prime lenses now proclaiming AF and zooms as the new way forward as though they had only just been invented. I do not argue with what's at the heart of the matter: AF for example is a wonderful thing for most photographers, as are zoom lenses, and I'm very glad indeed that there are now top- level Leica cameras that make all that possible. What I do find myself arguing with is the inconsistency even to the extent of revisionism that goes on in this type of discussion. There have been a few cases of well- respected members of the forum whose judgement is usually quite sound and reliable seemingly going overboard in their rebuttal of any question, no matter how small and innocuous, that just might possibly be read as a criticism of the new camera. No one does it deliberately. but it happens. And being deeply interested in Leica cameras, I respond. You may be surprised to know that there are quite a few logical inconsistencies that I have let go altogether. To everyone's relief, no doubt! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 4, 2015 Share #134 Posted December 4, 2015 . And anyway, no camera or lens is actually weather sealed, but they do have varying degrees of resistance. Probably not what you were thinking of but yes there are and my daughter wants one for her next birthday: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DMC-FT30EB--Waterproof-Action-Camera/dp/B00S9BD0RW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449230066&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+waterproof+camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 4, 2015 Share #135 Posted December 4, 2015 Welcome to the world of human nature, Peter! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 4, 2015 Share #136 Posted December 4, 2015 I ran into a moisture-sealing problem that we might become more aware of in the future. Not with Leica but with an Olympus M5.2 using the also weather-proof 12-50 zoom, which have manufacturer claims and videos of users taking it to the shower. In my case the eye sensor has failed, after taking it on a hike in light rain and copious sweat (camera was strapped across my chest). Since the SL uses the standard eye sensor to switch from LCD to EVF, so watch for this problem as well. In my case, I found a button that makes the switch manually, and will see if Olympus takes this under warranty, once my SL is here. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 4, 2015 Share #137 Posted December 4, 2015 In that melee of over-excitement people lose perspective. I've seen quite a few statements that have really surprised me. For example people who I can remember explaining how relieved they were to finally have a small and far more convenient camera that matched the quality of their big DSLR , and selling their DSLR outfit as a result, now saying that size is no real issue to them. Yes, I'm also (a little) surprised by this. In truth, the SL body is nothing like as large as it looks in some photographs but it is still IMO a completely different proposition from an M camera. It is not a camera, even when fitted with a small M lens, that I would consider carrying around on a casual basis (as I do my M camera). Fitted with the SL 24-90 lens, the SL is the kind of boat anchor that I would only use for a paid job. I know it's a cheap shot but I really do wonder how much enthusiasm the exact same camera (with the exact same lens) would engender (or how many of the apparent "deficiencies" of the SL would be glossed over in the same way) if the SL had been released by another manufacturer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 4, 2015 Share #138 Posted December 4, 2015 I know it's a cheap shot but I really do wonder how much enthusiasm the exact same camera (with the exact same lens) would engender (or how many of the apparent "deficiencies" of the SL would be glossed over in the same way) if the SL had been released by another manufacturer? Not a cheap shot. It would be just the same (those that like the manufacturer would be positive and vice versa). Although with a higher proportion of grumpy old men around, the Leica criticism might be worse! (I claim grumpy old man status). But what are these "glossed over" deficiencies of which you speak? I can't think of any, beyond a rather unimaginative sighting of the zoom button- and that certainly hasn't been glossed over!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 4, 2015 Share #139 Posted December 4, 2015 But what are these "glossed over" deficiencies of which you speak? I can't think of any, beyond a rather unimaginative sighting of the zoom button- and that certainly hasn't been glossed over!) One feature the SL is missing that the a7II has is sensor stabilization. Yes I understand that the SL lenses as proposed have optical stabilization but the Sony stabilizes even my APO-Telyt and other mechanical (i.e., less-stuff-to-go-wrong) lenses. Not a big deal for some users but at 1/200 sec with a 500mm lens tiny vibrations will soften a photo unacceptably. I keep reminding myself that Sony's full-frame mirrorless cameras didn't have sensor stabilization until their second iteration, and the SL is a first-generation (a very enticing one!) product. I'd have to try the SL in my working conditions before committing my $$$$ to it. PS Leica's historic pace of camera revision leaves me wondering how long, if ever, it will take before I see an SL with a stabilized sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 4, 2015 Share #140 Posted December 4, 2015 Good point Doug. It has been glossed over around here (probably because Leica users aren't all used to it). i should have remembered though. It was only last week I had to wet clean a Sony sensor (wibbly wobbly!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.