jaapv Posted April 28, 2018 Share #321 Posted April 28, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Different horse for a different course. You wouldn't bring up a Leica CL in a Hasselblad forum as a comparison - you would be laughed off the thread. At least the CL and the M share a similar design heritage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 28, 2018 Posted April 28, 2018 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Next, a full frame upgrade, ML,. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tgdinamo Posted April 29, 2018 Share #322 Posted April 29, 2018 Different horse for a different course. You wouldn't bring up a Leica CL in a Hasselblad forum as a comparison - you would be laughed off the thread. At least the CL and the M share a similar design heritage. Actually the comparison must not be so crazy when a quick search revealed a thread on this forum, specifically comparing X1D and CL (which you probably remember since you participated in it)? https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/283154-cl-vs-medium-format/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 29, 2018 Share #323 Posted April 29, 2018 I have to say that I do like the look of the all black 4116 edition version of the X1D. If they changed the orange button it would be even better ...... All the chrome on the original looks out of place ...... a retro look that clashes with the modern form factor ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 29, 2018 Share #324 Posted April 29, 2018 Actually the comparison must not be so crazy when a quick search revealed a thread on this forum, specifically comparing X1D and CL (which you probably remember since you participated in it)? https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/283154-cl-vs-medium-format/ You mean the thread that starts thus? : I don't think for a second this is a fair comparison, 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted April 29, 2018 Share #325 Posted April 29, 2018 I have to say that I do like the look of the all black 4116 edition version of the X1D. If they changed the orange button it would be even better ...... All the chrome on the original looks out of place ...... a retro look that clashes with the modern form factor ..... I have the 2-tone silver, as the price was significantly less, but, looks aside the ergonomics of the camera are superb. Very comfortable to carry around. Whether one cares to make a comparison to the CL or not, the IQ and tonal range is just outstanding. Perhaps I am 'fooling myself' but I think even with smaller print sizes, the images are more dynamic than the CL's. (Please don't ask me to define my adjectives. . . As one U.S. Supreme Court justice opined as to what constitutes"pornography": 'You know it when you see it'!) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgdinamo Posted April 29, 2018 Share #326 Posted April 29, 2018 You mean the thread that starts thus? : Yes that one - which then continued for 3 more pages of very civil exchange between multiple participants, about 2 very interesting cameras that for some strange reason people felt should be directly compared. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted April 29, 2018 Share #327 Posted April 29, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes that one - which then continued for 3 more pages of very civil exchange between multiple participants, about 2 very interesting cameras that for some strange reason people felt should be directly compared. Well, we can compare anything to anything http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-8-plus-camera-vs-hasselblad-x1d-2017-10/#-7 Edited April 29, 2018 by jmahto 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgdinamo Posted April 29, 2018 Share #328 Posted April 29, 2018 Well, we can compare anything to anything http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-8-plus-camera-vs-hasselblad-x1d-2017-10/#-7 I agree, although I also agree with Jaap that CL forum is not the right place for this so if I could do it over again I would withdraw my posts (although I still think this particular conversation is perfectly reasonable in some other general forum on this site). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted April 29, 2018 Share #329 Posted April 29, 2018 I don't own a CL or an X1D (though am considering both), but just to say that I find this discussion interesting and helpful. as long as it doesn't result in psychic storms, more discussion, rather than less, is usually better, IMHO, 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 30, 2018 Share #330 Posted April 30, 2018 This thread could be interesting indeed but digressions about MF cameras are too much OT for me. YMMV. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted April 30, 2018 Share #331 Posted April 30, 2018 I was the original poster in that CL vs X1D thread, and I would not for a second suggest the two cameras are equivalent. I made the comparison because I was curious about just how good a smaller format camera can be with regard to image quality specifically. But it was a very limited comparison—base ISO, tripod mounted, plenty of light, plenty of time, stationary subject. Not exactly a wide swath of photographic situations. In the real world there is extremely little overlap in terms of uses. I bought the X1D because of the contrast to the CL, not because of the similarities. Medium format and a small camera like the CL are not intended for the same subjects, and I don’t exactly struggle when deciding which camera to grab for a particular situation. As far as the benefits of an ‘M’ mount camera with an EVF, while I can understand the attraction for an owner of ‘M’ lenses who shoots mostly in the 50mm to 135mm range, I would be really surprised to find there are enough potential additional customers to justify the R&D costs. Note the word ‘additional.’ Selling an EVF ‘M’ to someone instead of an M10 doesn’t help. It would have to be in addition to an M10. Are there enough people out there? Who don’t already own an SL as their EVF platform for M glass? It’s possible, but I doubt it. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djs Posted April 30, 2018 Share #332 Posted April 30, 2018 As far as the benefits of an ‘M’ mount camera with an EVF, while I can understand the attraction for an owner of ‘M’ lenses who shoots mostly in the 50mm to 135mm range, I would be really surprised to find there are enough potential additional customers to justify the R&D costs. Note the word ‘additional.’ Selling an EVF ‘M’ to someone instead of an M10 doesn’t help. It would have to be in addition to an M10. Are there enough people out there? Who don’t already own an SL as their EVF platform for M glass? It’s possible, but I doubt it. I own M lenses, and would buy more if an EVF M existed. Previously, I have used an M8 and an M9, but I have fallen out of love with rangefinders, so will not buy an M10. Additionally, as I have said here previously, the SL is too big (for my taste) and the CL has a cropped sensor. I doubt if I am alone in my desire for an EVF M. I can't see why selling an EVF M to someone instead of an M10, doesn't help. Plenty potential to sell more of the M lenses. I also don't understand why anyone would only be interested in using 50mm to 135mm lenses. An EVF M would be ideal for all focal lenghts. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted April 30, 2018 Share #333 Posted April 30, 2018 I own M lenses, and would buy more if an EVF M existed. Previously, I have used an M8 and an M9, but I have fallen out of love with rangefinders, so will not buy an M10. Additionally, as I have said here previously, the SL is too big (for my taste) and the CL has a cropped sensor. I doubt if I am alone in my desire for an EVF M. I can't see why selling an EVF M to someone instead of an M10, doesn't help. Plenty potential to sell more of the M lenses. I also don't understand why anyone would only be interested in using 50mm to 135mm lenses. An EVF M would be ideal for all focal lenghts. The reason selling an EVF M to someone instead of an M10 is a problem is that you had all the development cost associated with both, all the support costs associated with both, all the spare parts requirements for both, etc., but you only get the revenue from one or the other. Obviously, that's an oversimplification; some people will buy both versions, and some people will buy the EVF who would otherwise skip M's altogether, but there is an awful lot of overlap, so having to design and build two cameras to manage one population of users definitely hurts the bottom line. I picked 50mm to 135mm because those are the focal lengths where an EVF has a clear advantage over a rangefinder in terms of accuracy. I wouldn't want to try to focus the new 75mm f/1.2 or the 50mm f/0.95 without an EVF. Hit rate is too low for my taste. Same for the 135mm Telyt when used wide open. EVF's have a sizable advantage over rangefinders at longer focal lengths, but are not necessarily any faster or more accurate at 50mm and below. Oh, I also failed to mention focal lengths shorter than 28mm where an EVF has an advantage since no external finder for framing is required. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djs Posted May 1, 2018 Share #334 Posted May 1, 2018 The reason selling an EVF M to someone instead of an M10 is a problem is that you had all the development cost associated with both, all the support costs associated with both, all the spare parts requirements for both, etc., but you only get the revenue from one or the other. Obviously, that's an oversimplification; some people will buy both versions, and some people will buy the EVF who would otherwise skip M's altogether, but there is an awful lot of overlap, so having to design and build two cameras to manage one population of users definitely hurts the bottom line. But, as I said before, there may be the potential to sell many more M lenses and that would be good for the bottom line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 1, 2018 Share #335 Posted May 1, 2018 But, as I said before, there may be the potential to sell many more M lenses and that would be good for the bottom line. Indeed. Many M lens users prefer mirrorless to rangefinder cameras. Their only choice so far is a small Sony or a big SL. Question then is not if but when Leica will sell them a compact full frame mirrorless camera. Also if Leica will choose an L or an M mount for it. If it is an L mount i will keep my modded Sony personally but YMMV. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 1, 2018 Share #336 Posted May 1, 2018 Hmmm... Hard to see any difference between a native M mount and an L mount with an active M adapter. Maybe Leica could sell “Leica Superglue” (rebranded Pattex at a 500% markup) to make a fixed M mount out of it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielfrimley Posted May 1, 2018 Share #337 Posted May 1, 2018 Indeed. Many M lens users prefer mirrorless to rangefinder cameras. Their only choice so far is a small Sony or a big SL. Question then is not if but when Leica will sell them a compact full frame mirrorless camera. Also if Leica will choose an L or an M mount for it. If it is an L mount i will keep my modded Sony personally but YMMV. Are you talking about a full frame Sony mirror less? If not, do you mean APS-C with the ready ability to take an M lens - which is the CL surely? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 1, 2018 Share #338 Posted May 1, 2018 Are you talking about a full frame Sony mirror less? If not, do you mean APS-C with the ready ability to take an M lens - which is the CL surely? FF yes i have a Kolari modded A7s, a CL also. Only issue with the modded A7 is the lack of auto zoom with M lenses but an L mount Leica would have the same problem so no interest for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted May 1, 2018 Share #339 Posted May 1, 2018 I wonder whether at least some of the resistance to imagining an M with an EVF is the belief that, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the M was the innovative camera, and that by conceding to the EVF, the M would be following rather than leading.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted May 2, 2018 Share #340 Posted May 2, 2018 Additionally, as I have said here previously, the SL is too big (for my taste) and the CL has a cropped sensor. I doubt if I am alone in my desire for an EVF M. The Leica SL lenses are big but the body itself is really not that big. Width and Depth, you are talking about differences less than 1cm. There is a difference in height when you include the SL EVF but that difference would probably get smaller if you were to put the same EVF in the M. No offense but after 300+ posts into this topic I really still do not see a business case here... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.