ramarren Posted December 7, 2015 Share #181 Posted December 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Perhaps, but I still consider it a mistaken notion to think of it as intended to be a replacement. It's such a different kind of camera it's like saying, "I really love my Ferrari, but I wish it had a back seat and a big trunk. Maybe that new Land Rover with the sporty body will be a good replacement..." .. to me, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Leica SL a real camera for the pro.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted December 7, 2015 Share #182 Posted December 7, 2015 Perhaps, but I still consider it a mistaken notion to think of it as intended to be a replacement. It's such a different kind of camera it's like saying, "I really love my Ferrari, but I wish it had a back seat and a big trunk. Maybe that new Land Rover with the sporty body will be a good replacement..." .. to me, anyway. That's quite amusing, but I'm not aware of anyone looking at it in anything like that way. But quite a few have said they are finding it tricky choosing between the two, which I doubt is a common problem on the Ferrari and Land Rover forecourts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 7, 2015 Share #183 Posted December 7, 2015 I really don't see the point here. Even if there were users that only had R cameras and standard lenses, or M users with a Visoflex, the systems were clearly complementary. Nothing new with the M and the SL. Complementary, but overlapping in functionality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 7, 2015 Share #184 Posted December 7, 2015 I really don't see the point here. Even if there were users that only had R cameras and standard lenses, or M users with a Visoflex, the systems were clearly complementary. Nothing new with the M and the SL. Complementary, but overlapping in functionality. Except that the SL can do everything the M can do, and more. No R could ever take all the M and LTM lenses. That's why as Peter has pointed out, for some users it's an choice between M or SL rather than both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 7, 2015 Share #185 Posted December 7, 2015 But quite a few have said they are finding it tricky choosing between the two, which I doubt is a common problem on the Ferrari and Land Rover forecourts. Perhaps quite a few don't have a clear idea what they want from their camera. I have never considered an M, the R system and now the SL meets my needs to a much greater degree than any M has or will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 7, 2015 Share #186 Posted December 7, 2015 Except that the SL can do everything the M can do, and more. The M's practical advantages have been slipping away as technology advances but the 'window on the world' viewfinder and the view outside the frame lines are still exclusive to the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 7, 2015 Share #187 Posted December 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) The M's practical advantages have been slipping away as technology advances but the 'window on the world' viewfinder and the view outside the frame lines are still exclusive to the M. True, but the SL offers an alternative for M lenses which some users are saying they prefer. No doubt some M sales will be lost to the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted December 7, 2015 Share #188 Posted December 7, 2015 The M's practical advantages have been slipping away as technology advances but the 'window on the world' viewfinder and the view outside the frame lines are still exclusive to the M. And the DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 7, 2015 Share #189 Posted December 7, 2015 And the DMR. And the Q if you select 35mm or 50mm digital crop modes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 7, 2015 Share #190 Posted December 7, 2015 Except that the SL can do everything the M can do, and more. No R could ever take all the M and LTM lenses. That's why as Peter has pointed out, for some users it's an choice between M or SL rather than both. So could the R. The R lenses were often superior variants of the M lenses of the time, or identical. Having been able to handle the SL now, I find the size and weight too close to a serious DSLR to lure me away from the M, like it has been for decades for me. I can imagine getting a used one for long lenses (as I did with R) sometime in the future, provided Leica does not pull something out of their hat in the M line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 7, 2015 Share #191 Posted December 7, 2015 So could the R. The R lenses were often superior variants of the M lenses of the time, or identical. Sorry? You're saying one can use all M and LTM lenses on the R bodies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 7, 2015 Share #192 Posted December 7, 2015 Except that the SL can do everything the M can do, and more. ....................... No it can't. It can't fit in my NorthFace jacket pocket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 7, 2015 Share #193 Posted December 7, 2015 Sorry? You're saying one can use all M and LTM lenses on the R bodies? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 7, 2015 Share #194 Posted December 7, 2015 So to clarify as I said, the SL can, whereas the R can't, take any M/LTM lenses and can therefore do everything an M can do, and more (even if it needs bigger pockets!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 7, 2015 Share #195 Posted December 7, 2015 So to clarify as I said, the SL can, whereas the R can't, take any M/LTM lenses and can therefore do everything an M can do, and more (even if it needs bigger pockets!). Yes. Although many will view the M and SL as complementary systems, the SL is a quite different proposition to the R bodies of old in that it can be used with virtually any Leica lens (or indeed lenses of other mounts). Unlike an R body, the SL can replace an M body for anybody with a collection of M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 7, 2015 Share #196 Posted December 7, 2015 And the DMR. Not really. It may have had the framelines (by virtue of being a 'crop' sensor) but the SLR view (being through the lens) is quite different from the RF view (essentially through a window). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 8, 2015 Share #197 Posted December 8, 2015 Except that the SL can do everything the M can do, and more. I don't agree 1. The SL can not match the M weight 2. The SL can not match the M size 3. The SL is not as good with M lenses as the M. Frankly it's an odd platform IMHO to buy mainly for M lenses 4. The SL does not have the RF manual focusing 5. The SL is not a comfortable to hold as the M, from a grip and centre of gravity perspective 6. The SL doesn't have anything like the lens collection of the M and I doubt it ever will be as extensive 7. The SL can not match the M for optical viewfinder, if that's your thing, and can not see anything "out of frame" Saying the SL can do everything the M can can be said for many systems when compared superficially The SL is a fast, well made, professional camera and I think excels for events. If I had unlimited funds I would prefer the S for studio but in any event I don't believe it can compete with the M for travel As in all these things it also depends on your bank account Rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 8, 2015 Share #198 Posted December 8, 2015 colonel, on 08 Dec 2015 - 09:25, said:colonel, on 08 Dec 2015 - 09:25, said:colonel, on 08 Dec 2015 - 09:25, said:3. The SL is not as good with M lenses as the M. Frankly it's an odd platform IMHO to buy mainly for M lenses I agree with you, but that one will be hotly contested. Unjustly so - one should consider that we are talking two generations of sensor here, and the older one -and Leica's first attempt at a CMOS M sensor- is still good enough to be considered the equal of the newer SL sensor. It would be foolish not to wait what the next M brings to the table in this game of quality leapfrog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted December 8, 2015 Share #199 Posted December 8, 2015 I agree with you, but that one will be hotly contested. Unjustly so - one should consider that we are talking two generations of sensor here, and the older one -and Leica's first attempt at a CMOS M sensor- is still good enough to be considered the equal of the newer SL sensor. It would be foolish not to wait what the next M brings to the table in this game of quality leapfrog. I am merely repeating what Leica themselves said, that the SL is behind the M in terms of usage of M lenses: "Schulz pointed out that, not only will the SL be compatible with S and R lenses, but it will accept M lenses, also via an adaptor, ..... The SL, Schulz enthused, will be the 'second best camera for Leica M lenses in the world market ..... although the Leica M remains King" I think he was refering to a whole range of things, for example corner performance, rather then out and out sensor performance in the centre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 8, 2015 Share #200 Posted December 8, 2015 I don't agree 1. The SL can not match the M weight 2. The SL can not match the M size 3. The SL is not as good with M lenses as the M. Frankly it's an odd platform IMHO to buy mainly for M lenses 4. The SL does not have the RF manual focusing 5. The SL is not a comfortable to hold as the M, from a grip and centre of gravity perspective 6. The SL doesn't have anything like the lens collection of the M and I doubt it ever will be as extensive 7. The SL can not match the M for optical viewfinder, if that's your thing, and can not see anything "out of frame" Saying the SL can do everything the M can can be said for many systems when compared superficially The SL is a fast, well made, professional camera and I think excels for events. If I had unlimited funds I would prefer the S for studio but in any event I don't believe it can compete with the M for travel As in all these things it also depends on your bank account Rgds You're missing the point. Size and weight (within reason) don't stop you from doing anything with the camera, and AFAIK there's only one other FF mirrorless camera on the market. The point is that some current M users have/are going to switch to the SL, because it's a Leica and because it takes their M lenses and offers them a more accurate way of focussing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.