wattsy Posted December 4, 2015 Share #141 Posted December 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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!) Jono, I meant more subjective "deficiencies" (I guess preferences in a sense) like weight, size, the EVF, size of the native lens, etc. These aspects of the SL differentiate it quite a bit from the M and are differences that many fans of the M system have previously highlighted as reasons for liking the latter system. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it seems that some M users, in embracing the new SL as the new system of choice, are now finding the size of the camera and the lenses, the manual focus and the optical rangefinder no longer so important and it is in that sense that I see "deficiencies" as being glossed over. From a personal perspective, the SL has a certain amount of appeal – it oozes quality and I like the inherent flexibility it offers in terms of working with multiple lens systems, both manual and autofocus – but I could never see myself using one outside of a paid job scenario (where I would be bringing enough equipment that weight and size are not really so important). I like the idea of the SL enough that I could possibly even gloss over the lack of an optical viewfinder (which is for me its greatest deficiency) but I'm afraid it has no appeal whatsoever as a camera for personal use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 Hi wattsy, Take a look here Leica SL a real camera for the pro.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Leicaiste Posted December 4, 2015 Share #142 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? Impossible. [emoji1] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #143 Posted December 4, 2015 Cognitive dissonance. It's nothing more than human nature. The excitement over a new Sony, Nikon, Canon, insert flavour here, is really no different. Read Steve Huff - each company has its own specific approach and priorities. Sony pushes the technology boundaries, and we all benefit from that, though many here aren't really impressed by spec sheet numbers. Leica says it is more interested in the overall user experience etc, but that is largely sophistry. It now boasts the fastest AF in its class and best EVF. I know I sound like a silly old twit when I say that the test for me is when I hold the camera in my hands, look at how the user interface is set up, and then look at the image quality. The images from my M9 (my first Leica) blew my socks off. My ex-wife said rather scornfully "it's just a toy" at first. Once she saw those first images, that comment was never heard again. Having spent a lot on fantastic M or R lenses, it's not unreasonable for people to want to stay with Leica ... I'm assuming when the Leicaflex camera was introduced, many M owners were similarly sceptical. What's different here? The film SL was presumably considered bigger and heavier than the M; the first SL was certainly expensive; and how many lenses were released with it? I haven't looked, but I imagine Leica released the R lenses progressively over the 40 or so years it made R mount cameras and lenses. I have no issue with criticism of a new product - heaven knows I done my fair share. I don't blame people's enthusiasm or over-excitement. What interests me is understanding the point to the camera. What was the design intent, what is it intended to provide, why was it made? The fanboyism and the scorn join the marketing materials by being ignored in equal measure - I still haven't read the brochures for any camera, car or other product I've bought. I did try to read the brochure for my Ducati, but gave up - too much uninformative meaningless fluff. Words have meaning, and used well they can be informative, challenging or entertaining. The rest is noise. However, I have been interested in some negative reaction here for the simple reason that I don't (or rather didn't) understand it. After playing with the SL for half an hour, I picked up my M60 and was charmed by its size, in the same way my M-A is fabulously compact after using the M60. None of them are light. Does the size and weight of the SL bother me? Not really - it is what it is. Will there be times I won't want a camera that big with me? Certainly. Will I use the SL & zoom as a travel camera? Absolutely. Is it for everyone? Of course not. But it isn't an M. Never was, was never going to be. I suspect many people dumping their M gear for the SL won't sell their lenses and will buy the next M, Leica will make a profit, and we'll all be better off. In 20 years time, when Leica won't/can't repair my M60, I will still be grumpy about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 4, 2015 Share #144 Posted December 4, 2015 Jono, I meant more subjective "deficiencies" (I guess preferences in a sense) like weight, size, the EVF, size of the native lens, etc. These aspects of the SL differentiate it quite a bit from the M and are differences that many fans of the M system have previously highlighted as reasons for liking the latter system. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it seems that some M users, in embracing the new SL as the new system of choice, are now finding the size of the camera and the lenses, the manual focus and the optical rangefinder no longer so important and it is in that sense that I see "deficiencies" as being glossed over. From a personal perspective, the SL has a certain amount of appeal – it oozes quality and I like the inherent flexibility it offers in terms of working with multiple lens systems, both manual and autofocus – but I could never see myself using one outside of a paid job scenario (where I would be bringing enough equipment that weight and size are not really so important). I like the idea of the SL enough that I could possibly even gloss over the lack of an optical viewfinder (which is for me its greatest deficiency) but I'm afraid it has no appeal whatsoever as a camera for personal use. Hi, I went in to Leica Mayfair yesterday when I had an hour to kill at the end of a meeting in town... thought I would take the opportunity to see the SL in the flesh. Looking at the post above - I could have written every word... completely agree. First, the SL is much smaller in real life than it looks i n pictures... even comparative pictures. It is NOT a big camera at all! On holding it for the first time, it just oozes quality. It felt much smaller than the Nikon digital cameras I moved away from a while ago and every part, even the top liquid crystal screen, was in a totally different league in terms of fit, finish, clarity... the buttons, the switches... everything, just beautifully engineered. (But ) It looked, and felt, like a fabulously built SLR camera. I don't mind that at all... I LIKE the look of SLR cameras... but no matter how you want to argue. Thats what it looks like in the flesh. A fantastically built SLR camera which makes everything else look cheap and nasty. As system camera, it was fabulous. So I thought I would see what it handled like with an M lens on it. I put my Summilux 50 - M on and, honestly, really, it felt odd to me... and looked a bit odd too. The 24-90 on the SL looked and felt really well balanced and although heavy, not really that much heavier than an equivalent Nikon or Canon but at a much higher build quality. If I was buying an SL I would buy the 24-90 and just get used to the weight and use it a lot over the coming months... and then look at the other system lenses as they arrive, because by then I will know what I needed and what I merely wanted... As far as the weight of the 24-90 is concerned, if you hold the camera properly you don't even notice it... and the diameter is much more in proportion to the shape and the body size compared to using an M lens on the SL. It is actually very comfortable indeed. As I said, M lenses just felt awkward. If I wanted to use M lenses, I would use an M. Simple. The AF was incredible, the EVF was excellent, the image quality is clearly stunning from the results found here and elsewhere, the whole system is just exceptional in build quality. Would I buy one, now I have seen and held it? No... not because there is anything wrong with it... it almost looks perfect, especially if you go into it with the mindset that it is going to look and feel like an SLR. But, and its a big 'but', I saw my M240P sitting on the display case and realised that that was who I am now... maybe that was the first time I really understood it, too. Understood that I had fully embraced the M without really realising it. The 'P' version of the next M will probably be the camera for me (assuming I feel the need for a change in three or four years). Although I would change immediately is if the next M looked like the current M-P with the engraving and a little more discreet - and an updated sensor similar to the SL/Q with some of the other benefits... If it had Live View and Video removed, thats fine, I don't use them... and if it was even smaller, then great... but none of those are deal breakers ( ). One thing is very clear though. The SL sets a really high standard for the forthcoming M... it will have to be very good to not look like an anticlimax. Honestly, I was blown away with the SL. Incredible quality camera in every respect. If Live View/AF/Video, exceptional build and image quality, true TTL metering and focussing, both manual and AF, with traditional controls and an SLR type shooting style, then I would buy the SL in a heartbeat. Its that impressive in real life. But I only need one camera, and for who I am now, thats my M... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #145 Posted December 4, 2015 Well said, Bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 4, 2015 Share #146 Posted December 4, 2015 Jono, I meant more subjective "deficiencies" (I guess preferences in a sense) like weight, size, the EVF, size of the native lens, etc. These aspects of the SL differentiate it quite a bit from the M and are differences that many fans of the M system have previously highlighted as reasons for liking the latter system. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it seems that some M users, in embracing the new SL as the new system of choice, are now finding the size of the camera and the lenses, the manual focus and the optical rangefinder no longer so important and it is in that sense that I see "deficiencies" as being glossed over. Interesting - but I think that many of us (I seem to fall neatly into your group here) have always had a second system beyond our M system - for me at least it's that system which has been replaced by the SL - My M and MM are having a little rest whilst I get to grips with the opportunities and possibilities of the SL, but will surely be back in hand before to long - but to be honest, I didn't really see Doug's IBIS complaint as a deficiency either - because I think the proof of this particular pudding is in the eating, and I've found the excellent high ISO, the solid body and quiet shutter have meant shooting with the SL has few light /handholding issues. . . manual focusing with the EVF is probably easier than it is with a rangefinder in all situations (certainly in many situations). If we're talking size and weight - sure the 24-90 is big - but so are all quality full frame zoom lenses (there really aren't any exceptions), however, the camera is not that much heavier than an M, and shooting it with M lenses is rather satisfactory, and for snappin' away with AF T lenses make a great option (and 10 good MP are often enough). What I'm getting at is that I don't think that these deficiencies really exist - the advantages/disadvantages are different that's all EXCEPT That shooting with a rangefinder is a completely different experience - giving a different relationship between the shooter and the shot, getting the camera 'out of the way' the SL doesn't do any of this stuff, it's just a camera, like a Nikon D810 or an Olympus E-M1 or a Sony A7. The SL doesn't impinge on the special attributes of an M at all From a personal perspective, the SL has a certain amount of appeal – it oozes quality and I like the inherent flexibility it offers in terms of working with multiple lens systems, both manual and autofocus – but I could never see myself using one outside of a paid job scenario (where I would be bringing enough equipment that weight and size are not really so important). I like the idea of the SL enough that I could possibly even gloss over the lack of an optical viewfinder (which is for me its greatest deficiency) but I'm afraid it has no appeal whatsoever as a camera for personal use. We've been in Venice recently, normally I would have carried 2 M bodies and 4 lenses, which would have weighed more than the SL with the 24-90 and the WATE (which gave me a slightly wider focal length range). In the evenings I often took the SL with a 28 'lux and a 50 'cron - probably a few hundred grams more, but nothing significant. I just disagree with you about the EVF - it's lovely - as far as I can see it has less lag than an M240 (take a picture of someone when they blink and you get the blink) Manual focusing is great (forget the magnification and focus peaking - I just don't think they help) the huge 'ground glass' screen is lovely to see, and lovely to focus with. But all of this fan boy stuff doesn't detract from how lovely it is to shoot with an M - I'll be back there again before long. But I do think that Leica have produced a cracking camera, which answer's the needs of professional photographers much more precisely than the Sony A7 cameras: looking at the shots in the facebook groups, it's noticeable how many clearly professional images are being posted. We amateurs are much too interested in the nuances of the kit - those professionals are just interested in whether they can get the shot, and that's the beauty of the SL - it gets you the shot - with lots of different lenses in lots of different situations - fast and accurately with no pause and no lag. With a bit of practice it becomes instinctive to use . . and picking it up again after a month it's still instinctive to use (not true of so many cameras). oops, sorry, blathering again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 4, 2015 Share #147 Posted December 4, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Does the size and weight of the SL bother me? Not really - it is what it is. Will there be times I won't want a camera that big with me? Certainly. Will I use the SL & zoom as a travel camera? Absolutely. Is it for everyone? Of course not. But it isn't an M. Never was, was never going to be. I suspect many people dumping their M gear for the SL won't sell their lenses and will buy the next M, Leica will make a profit, and we'll all be better off. In 20 years time, when Leica won't/can't repair my M60, I will still be grumpy about it. Thank you John Put beautifully (your whole post). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 4, 2015 Share #148 Posted December 4, 2015 ... I meant more subjective "deficiencies" (I guess preferences in a sense) like weight, size, the EVF, size of the native lens, etc. These aspects of the SL differentiate it quite a bit from the M and are differences that many fans of the M system have previously highlighted as reasons for liking the latter system. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it seems that some M users, in embracing the new SL as the new system of choice, are now finding the size of the camera and the lenses, the manual focus and the optical rangefinder no longer so important and it is in that sense that I see "deficiencies" as being glossed over. I don't know why you'd count weight, size, EVF, etc as "deficiencies" ... makes no sense to me. The SL is not a follow-on or replacement for the M; it's a different camera with different features, dimensions, etc. I think the whole notion of thinking of it as an alternative to the M is a 'deficiency' if you will, or an 'error' in more blunt terms. I like my Ms for exactly the reason of their (relative) light weight, optical viewfinder, small lenses, and so forth. I didn't buy the SL to obtain those things ... I have them already. I bought the SL for its unique, new features and capabilities to complement my M system. The body's size and weight are within range of the M-P, just as an R system body was always a little bit larger than that of an M. I don't consider this a deficiency. It has an EVF which provides better performance and functionality compared to an R system finder. I don't consider this a deficiency either. I do think the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm lens is a bit large and heavy, and would have preferred a smaller, lighter lens or two as a starting point. Does this obvious fact constitute a deficiency? I didn't have to buy it. So far, the SL has been every bit the performer I expected. Its true deficiencies ... a couple of options in button assignment or placement, a couple of minor firmware aberrations ... have been discussed at length. I haven't seen anything being glossed over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 4, 2015 Share #149 Posted December 4, 2015 Thank you, Jono. I'm still not sure, and won't be until I've used the camera extensively, exactly what the overall impact of this camera will be. Much like you, right now if I go away, I'll pack two M bodies, 21-28-50-75. With accessories, that lot weighs a ton and I still have no telephoto. It seems I will get the SL & zoom into my Billingham M combination bag, covering pretty much the same range. With my Mono_9 bag, I will probably get another lens in. I have a Filson which will take even more ... Bloat. There will be times when the M60, or Monochrom with one lens will be perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 4, 2015 Share #150 Posted December 4, 2015 mmmm...... for the first time in a long while I am off on holiday with a single camera in a small bag ( after further rummaging in cupboards I have now found it fits in a Dothebag Mono-7 perfectly .... which is small by most camera bag standards) and don't feel I have left something behind I might need 'just in case'. In a months use I have never had a 'wish I had' moment.... so far, anyway, and apart from taking a WATE (probably) and a Marumi +5 macro screw in lens I am freed of the anguish of filling and unfilling a suitcase/bag with stuff I feel I have to take so I don't miss anything .... only to find it all gets left in the hotel most of the time.... and then I worry about security and getting it nicked ...... or forgetting the safe code so I end up paying ransom to have it opened by the smirking manager laughing all his way to the bank ..... basically ..... for a short time at least .... the SL has freed me from these neuroses and allowed me to get down to the task of actually taking some pictures with a limited amount of gear which is pleasurable and easy to use. of course when the new M appears this may change ...... but life would be a bit boring without a new camera round the corner every now and again ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 4, 2015 Share #151 Posted December 4, 2015 Interesting - but I think that many of us (I seem to fall neatly into your group here) have always had a second system beyond our M system - for me at least it's that system which has been replaced by the SL - There are clearly two types of person looking at the SL- those thinking of it as a possible replacement for the M and those thinking of it as an addition. When it comes to buying cameras, l am normally (for instinctive and financial reasons) one of the former. This time l find myself one of the latter: even though my OMD EM5ii is to be shown the door (along with my little Ricoh), having two cameras of the calibre of the M and SL is not what | would have considered before. The difference is that l see them as complementary across the work I do, even though their capabilities overlap. Though a rank amateur, l do a fair amount of portraits, publicity shots and event photography in the local (classical) music/performance scene - the M can be used for this, but it has limitations (focus in low light, longer lenses) that I'd dearly love to avoid - and can with the SL. For any sort of travel where l could be carrying stuff all day, or if I'm just out with family and friends, l wouldn't think of using anything but the M. So, if your photographs calls for their distinctive features, you can get both without worrying about ovelap. If you can only afford one or only see the need for one - it's a tough call! Edit: off to shoot a kiddies music and movement class with the SL and M/R lenses in a dim church hall next week. Perhaps l should have got the AF 24-90SL after all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 5, 2015 Share #152 Posted December 5, 2015 The SL is not a follow-on or replacement for the M; it's a different camera with different features, dimensions, etc. I think the whole notion of thinking of it as an alternative to the M is a 'deficiency' if you will, or an 'error' in more blunt terms. I think you underestimate the interest in the SL as an alternative or replacement for the M rather than as a complementary system (see this recent thread as an example). My comments apply to the former. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 5, 2015 Share #153 Posted December 5, 2015 I think you underestimate the interest in the SL as an alternative or replacement for the M rather than as a complementary system (see this recent thread as an example). My comments apply to the former. Also, for many Leica users at present, the, or an, M is their standard camera. So when considering a newly released camera (SL), it is perfectly natural and correct to compare it with their current camera to discover where it may offer benefits. If the benefits are sufficient they may buy one, and if not, they may not. All perfectly logical, whether it's a complementary system or a replacement, which will always be a personal choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 5, 2015 Share #154 Posted December 5, 2015 mmmm...... for the first time in a long while I am off on holiday with a single camera in a small bag ( after further rummaging in cupboards I have now found it fits in a Dothebag Mono-7 perfectly .... which is small by most camera bag standards) and don't feel I have left something behind I might need 'just in case'. basically ..... for a short time at least .... the SL has freed me from these neuroses and allowed me to get down to the task of actually taking some pictures with a limited amount of gear which is pleasurable and easy to use. There's a lot to be said for being able to take only a minimal kit, and I know the dilemma when choosing between bits of equipment, so I can appreciate the attraction of the SL/24-90 combination in that respect (even if it wouldn't be a piece of kit I'd want to lug around on a casual basis). That said, wouldn't an M camera and 3 M lenses also fit into a Dothebag (with room to spare)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 5, 2015 Share #155 Posted December 5, 2015 There's a lot to be said for being able to take only a minimal kit, and I know the dilemma when choosing between bits of equipment, so I can appreciate the attraction of the SL/24-90 combination in that respect (even if it wouldn't be a piece of kit I'd want to lug around on a casual basis). That said, wouldn't an M camera and 3 M lenses also fit into a Dothebag (with room to spare)? ...... errr ...... yes ..... but whenever has anything to do with Leica stuff been dictated by logic and common sense ..... actually I've managed a T body, 2-3 lenses and an M with lens attached in this little bag in the past ...... but I suspect, like most people, I end up using one camera and one lens most of the day as it's too fiddly to keep changing things ....... especially when 'she who must be obeyed' is striding off to the next sight ( = shop, in her case) leaving me fumbling with lens caps and trying to get everything back into a bag where you need to be a Rubiks cube expert to locate the single arrangement where it all actually fits ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 5, 2015 Share #156 Posted December 5, 2015 There's a lot to be said for being able to take only a minimal kit, and I know the dilemma when choosing between bits of equipment, so I can appreciate the attraction of the SL/24-90 combination in that respect (even if it wouldn't be a piece of kit I'd want to lug around on a casual basis). That said, wouldn't an M camera and 3 M lenses also fit into a Dothebag (with room to spare)? I can get the SL+24-90 into a Fogg B-Laika with room for a WATE underneath the lens . . . to be honest an M with 3 lenses isn't going to be a great deal lighter than the SL/24-90 (I they could be heavier if we're talking 24'lux, Nocti and 75 'lux ) okay okay - I just got the scales out. SL+24-90 = 2150 gms M-P240 +28 'lux, 50 lux, 75 'lux is 2250gms (it's a chrome 50 lux) M-P240 +28 elmarit, 50 APO and 75 APO 'cron is 1650 gms Is this enlightening? Probably not, but interested me! . . . and with just the one quick camera you might occasionally be able to get a front view of the boss Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2015 Share #157 Posted December 5, 2015 I had the opportunity to use an SL today for 30 mins or so with the Novoflex Magic Studio (table). I came away thinking I love this camera even when using the T lenses like the 18-56mm Summicron. I like the handling, the viewfinder with or without my glasses (easily adjusts to either). The only thing I hate is the weight. In a studio, I would use the SL without hesitation. With the 24-90, I feel I would do myself an injury carrying it about. So until I build my strength up, I will stick with my equally lovely T-701 as I can not afford to have the two. The pictures coming out of the T with the zoom lenses especially are nothing short of fantastic. You only need to look on this forum at the lengthy 'Post your T shots.....'! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 5, 2015 Share #158 Posted December 5, 2015 I think you underestimate the interest in the SL as an alternative or replacement for the M rather than as a complementary system (see this recent thread as an example). My comments apply to the former. That same observation applies to the people you referred to earlier who sold their entire SLR kit, and became advocates for their new lives of simplicity, stealth and minimalism with an M camera and a swiftly increasing selection of M lenses. What at is different here is that there is genuine compatibility with lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 5, 2015 Share #159 Posted December 5, 2015 okay okay - I just got the scales out. SL+24-90 = 2150 gms M-P240 +28 'lux, 50 lux, 75 'lux is 2250gms (it's a chrome 50 lux) M-P240 +28 elmarit, 50 APO and 75 APO 'cron is 1650 gms Is this enlightening? Probably not, but interested me! It is enlightening but does serve to confirm my prejudices. The pertinent comparison for me (when considering a camera I want to carry around on a casual basis) is with a single M body plus 35 Summicron. Even that combination is no lightweight (my Summicron is one of the brass ones and it feels like a small cannonball). My thinking is that if was to carry around 2KG of camera on a routine basis I might as well carry a Hasselblad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 5, 2015 Share #160 Posted December 5, 2015 When going out I often carry a small backback with some stuff for our kids and myslef, maybe 1 l of wate (=1kg) some bananas etc. Overall its probably betwenn 3-5kg. If the small girl gets tired I sometimes put her on my shoulders. I think she weights about 18kg +- So I am sometimes really surprised how people discuss about 200 gramm more or less. Have you ever weighted your shoos or coats? Size is another thing since other people might feel strange if a big camera/lens is pointed ot them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.