After eight months of using the SL, going back to an M seems impossible

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just tried the 24-90, 16-35, 75 & 90 Summicrons at Leica NYC. Super impressed with the Summs - they feel great on the SL. Using them was a little disorienting vs M glass at first, but I got over it. Loved the 75 - might actually buy one.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest VVJ]

Just tried the 24-90, 16-35, 75 & 90 Summicrons at Leica NYC. Super impressed with the Summs - they feel great on the SL. Using them was a little disorienting vs M glass at first, but I got over it. Loved the 75 - might actually buy one.

 

Did they actually have the 75, 90 and 16-35 in stock?  

[trickness]

Did they actually have the 75, 90 and 16-35 in stock?  

 

No, their rep had left the lenses behind so I was able to check them out under supervision.

[Mr.Q]

Just tried the 24-90, 16-35, 75 & 90 Summicrons at Leica NYC. Super impressed with the Summs - they feel great on the SL. Using them was a little disorienting vs M glass at first, but I got over it. Loved the 75 - might actually buy one.

 

I felt the same way and left the store with the 75 SL 

[trickness]

I felt the same way and left the store with the 75 SL

How are you liking it? Any regrets?

[Mr.Q]

How are you liking it? Any regrets?

 

Admittedly I haven't gotten enough use out of it yet, but I'm blown away by the detail from the images. There is an enhanced level of satisfaction shooting with a reference lens of this quality. I've contemplated purchasing the 75-APO-M or 90-APO-M, but given that the size/weight comes out to be similar when coupled with the M-mount-L adapter, I'm glad I ended up with the 75-SL. So no regrets, but it's not a focal length that I shoot as often as 28/35/50, so I guess you need to ask yourself how much use you'd get out of it.

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Admittedly I haven't gotten enough use out of it yet, but I'm blown away by the detail from the images. There is an enhanced level of satisfaction shooting with a reference lens of this quality. I've contemplated purchasing the 75-APO-M or 90-APO-M, but given that the size/weight comes out to be similar when coupled with the M-mount-L adapter, I'm glad I ended up with the 75-SL. So no regrets, but it's not a focal length that I shoot as often as 28/35/50, so I guess you need to ask yourself how much use you'd get out of it.

Yeah, I’d use it less that my 50 M for sure, but for shooting live events autofocus and a 2.0 aperture would be great, plus it would get more general use than the 90 I think. Can’t wait for the 35 SL Summicron.

[lx1713]

Everything could be and will be better in time. I've just said that to me it's already, as it is now, more accurate at focusing and framing than a rangefinder. A fortiori, it will be wonderful when they'll do it even better...

 

The reason why they ask the sensor to do so many things is that, when you are on the focal plane, there are no problems with accuracy, alignment, focus shift, framing, you get exposure WYSIWYG directly in the finder, and so on.

 

Rangefinder does only one thing? Sure, but sometimes does it wrong, or in a less accurate way.

The shutter curtain? Yes, one thing only, but with more noise, more vibrations (look at the Sony A9, sports shooting at 20fps, 1/32.000s with no blackout and no moving parts)

 

Your dad's mechanical alarm clock did just one thing, to wake up you in the morning. Is it better at that thing than your mobile phone, who works as an alarm clock but is capable of dozens of other tasks, just because it did just one thing?

 

And yes, tomorrow's mobile phones will be even better - but the ones of today are already better than your dad's clock at waking you up

 

 

Ah thanks for your correction. It's not about focusing accuracy that I was thinking about but the experience of focusing on the rangefinder and the focusing on the EVF. The moment the experience of focusing on the EVF exceeds that of a rangefinder, Leica will probably experience an acceleration in drop of sales for the rangefinder. That's when, I believe, the era of the rangefinder will end.

 

My context was essentially about it being a good thing for every photographer to at least give the rangefinder some quality time to know photography a little better.

 

I was packing for a trip and my words didn't convey my thoughts well.

[ramarren]

With respect to focusing:

 

- a coupled rangefinder is about approximation.

- a TTL viewfinder, whether optical or electronic.

 

There's nothing wrong with either approximation or precision. It all depends upon what it is you are doing, how well you use them, and why.

[Steve McGarrett]

With respect to focusing:

 

- a coupled rangefinder is about approximation.

- a TTL viewfinder, whether optical or electronic.

 

There's nothing wrong with either approximation or precision. It all depends upon what it is you are doing, how well you use them, and why.

 

I agree.

That's why I don't agree with "when the EVF will offer a better experience than the rangefinder, then the rangefinder will end" from lx1713: either you love the rangefinder feeling, then you'll stick with it no matter what ML or SLR cameras there are in the future, 'cause no TTL view would give you the same feeling - or you value more EVF's accuracy, precision, WYSIWYG exposure and colors etc, then you already use an EVF today (and perhaps an SLR yesterday...)

[ramarren]

With respect to focusing:

 

- a coupled rangefinder is about approximation.

- a TTL viewfinder, whether optical or electronic.

 

There's nothing wrong with either approximation or precision. It all depends upon what it is you are doing, how well you use them, and why.

 

 

I don't know what happened to my post and the edit option is no longer available to correct it. It should read: 

 

"With respect to focusing:

 

- a coupled rangefinder is about approximation.

 - a TTL viewfinder, whether optical or electronic, is about precision.

 

There's nothing wrong with either approximation or precision. It all depends upon what it is you are doing, how well you use them, and why."

 

For the record, I have uses for and use cameras with both types of viewing/focusing systems. And with scale focus as well ...

I like using all of them and have no preference outside of the context of what I'm shooting at a given moment. For example: I wouldn't pull out the M-D to do macro and tabletop work, it's simply not the efficient camera for that effort and my TTL viewfinder camera is. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by ramarren

[Steve McGarrett]

I don't know what happened to my post and the edit option is no longer available to correct it. It should read: 

 

"With respect to focusing:

 

- a coupled rangefinder is about approximation.

 - a TTL viewfinder, whether optical or electronic, is about precision.

 

Don't worry, it was clear in context

[lx1713]

I agree.

That's why I don't agree with "when the EVF will offer a better experience than the rangefinder, then the rangefinder will end" from lx1713: either you love the rangefinder feeling, then you'll stick with it no matter what ML or SLR cameras there are in the future, 'cause no TTL view would give you the same feeling - or you value more EVF's accuracy, precision, WYSIWYG exposure and colors etc, then you already use an EVF today (and perhaps an SLR yesterday...)

 

It's alright to disagree. No worries on that. But that's not what I meant so never mind.

 

I do love the rangefinder feeling but it's a tool I no longer need even if it's still superior in some ways to the SL. For me, the EVF is not yet a superior experience to the rangefinder patch in some ways but it doesn't prevent me from moving on but would I give up having had used the rangefinder for 10 years. What quantifies the rangefinder experience for you is likely a different one from myself.

[lx1713]

I don't know what happened to my post and the edit option is no longer available to correct it. It should read: 

 

"With respect to focusing:

 

- a coupled rangefinder is about approximation.

 - a TTL viewfinder, whether optical or electronic, is about precision.

 

There's nothing wrong with either approximation or precision. It all depends upon what it is you are doing, how well you use them, and why."

 

For the record, I have uses for and use cameras with both types of viewing/focusing systems. And with scale focus as well ...

I like using all of them and have no preference outside of the context of what I'm shooting at a given moment. For example: I wouldn't pull out the M-D to do macro and tabletop work, it's simply not the efficient camera for that effort and my TTL viewfinder camera is. 

 As Steve said, it was clear in what you want to convey.

 

Btw, thanks. When you recounted your experience of preferring to manually set your flash. I started revisiting old skills. Very old and rusty skills I must say as I've become dependent on TTL flash since DSLR days.

Edited June 15, 2018 by lx1713