johnbuckley Posted March 8, 2019 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) At long last, here’s the first faint glimmer of an SL2 release date: Leica Rumors just out this up. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2019 Posted March 8, 2019 Hi johnbuckley, Take a look here First Notice That SL2 Will Be Announced In June. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AZN Posted March 8, 2019 Share #2 Posted March 8, 2019 It will be interesting to see how the SL2 copes with wide M glass. That was the big pleasant surprise when I got the SL (after years of irritation at being unable to use wide M glass on the Sony A7R or A7Riii) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 8, 2019 Share #3 Posted March 8, 2019 Well, not the first rumor.... https://www.l-rumors.com/l4-leica-sl2-will-be-in-market-in-late-2019-only/ The Leica Rumors site doesn’t trust this source, but both could be in the same ballpark if the rumored June announcement includes a later delivery date. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timwright Posted March 14, 2019 Share #4 Posted March 14, 2019 Ya I think we should get back to complaining about the crazy costs of Leica cameras and lenses and the wait till they are released. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 14, 2019 Share #5 Posted March 14, 2019 On Saturday, while cross-country skiing, I wiped out on a fast turn. It was all Disney-esque, with arms and legs and skis twirling at a great rate. Post facto, I could only barely stand up – certainly not ski or hobble out to the road (about 2kms). My wife called 911 (middle of the bush) and in quite short order a snowmobile arrived with two paramedics, who took me to a waiting ambulance, and thence to a local hospital. An x-ray showed no break and I went home to a week and likely more of very stiff joints and pulled muscles. The only negative was some wait for the x-ray – there were other more urgent cases than mine. Perfectly acceptable. No money changed hand for all this service, which would not have been bettered anywhere else in the world. The whole thing was not free – I pay taxes and a fee for health care funding and so do employers. But I am not bankrupt as a result of my mishap. And the care I received was way beyond adequate. This is a practical on-the-ground example why I bristle and resent no-nothing bad mouthing of Canada’s health care system. It is not perfect, but it treats all Canadians equitably, it provides health care that is as good as can be had anywhere, and it costs very much less per capita than many other systems. 4 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 14, 2019 Share #6 Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, ron777 said: I know that I've said that I was done with this topic, but I couldn't resist responding. Sir, if you're in the 35% tax bracket you are reporting between $200,000-500,000 in income ... way above average. Secondly, if you're referring to the "Medicare for all" proposal, you'd be looking at a very significant increase in your income tax bill. And in regards to healthcare for profit, do you work gratis? Everyone, including the healthcare profession, has to deal with overhead. That said, I can agree with you in regards to the outrageous charges related to the pharmaceutical industry. As for you statement about "every country in the western world...," there are very few, if any, who can compete with the quality of and availability of service the USA has to offer. And you should know that most, if not all of those healthcare for all countries have a multitiered system that permits the existence of private, pay as you go medicine for those who can afford or who desire same. Where you ask? England, Italy, Spain, France, and so on. Me? I'm not in the US ... So, here 35% kicks in at NZD70,000 (average income NZD50,000 in 2017), what's Medicare? If you wish to know what we have (rather than making assumptions), we have centralised cover for personal injury by accident (ACC) and free hospital healthcare for all. We pay for visits to our GPs. If you want what is described as "elective" surgery, ie nothing life threatening, then you self insure. So, for my leukaemia (life threatening), there was no private health option - my care was immediate, world class and at no cost to me. Not sure why I would have an increase in my tax bill - we've had this health system for as long as I have been alive (universal cover for personal injury by accident came into force on 1 April 1974) - I suspect universal healthcare came into force in the 1950s. I'm a barrister - I don't work gratis. Doctors generally do a combination of private and public healthcare - no one in our healthcare system works for free, though nurses are appallingly underpaid, in my view. We're very unpopular with the US pharmaceutical companies as our Government procurement agency, Pharmac, buys all our publicly funded drugs. Even though we're a very small country (4.5 million), that gives us significant buying power - the benefit of the free market! I disagree with you on the US health system, but that is another issue. For those with the best insurance in the US, I'm very sure they do get the best healthcare of anywhere in the world. The uninsured, I understand, get pretty much the worst. In a recent(ish) international study (Lancet?) - for dollar spent, NZ was one of the most efficient in terms of the quality healthcare provided across the population, the UK also very high; the US, the worst. Don't ask me to find it - I read it and filed it in the round cabinet. The core issue is not whether your system is better than ours for the richest few or the UK's universal NHS (Voldemort says it's broken), but how effective the system is as a whole at delivering healthcare across the entire community and how much of the dollar collected (insurance premium and tax) ends up being spent on the patient. Apparently, what we're doing is very efficient ... Meanwhile, the more pressing issue is how much the SL2 will deliver - I don't think it will have a tillable LCD or do away with LENR, nor do I think it will have IBIS ... EDIT - I did some Googling, as I was unsure about the figures I was relying on (from memory) - http://digg.com/2018/world-healthcare-system-ranking-data-vizBloomberg 2018 report on efficiency of healthcare around the world. Average life expectancy in the US is 79 years (the second highest spend on healthcare per capita after Switzerland) ... easy to google the others. Japan and Switzerland highest (83 years?), NZ not bad at just under 82. Edited March 14, 2019 by IkarusJohn 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 14, 2019 Share #7 Posted March 14, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 24 minutes ago, Michael Hiles said: On Saturday, while cross-country skiing, I wiped out on a fast turn. It was all Disney-esque, with arms and legs and skis twirling at a great rate. Post facto, I could only barely stand up – certainly not ski or hobble out to the road (about 2kms). My wife called 911 (middle of the bush) and in quite short order a snowmobile arrived with two paramedics, who took me to a waiting ambulance, and thence to a local hospital. An x-ray showed no break and I went home to a week and likely more of very stiff joints and pulled muscles. The only negative was some wait for the x-ray – there were other more urgent cases than mine. Perfectly acceptable. No money changed hand for all this service, which would not have been bettered anywhere else in the world. The whole thing was not free – I pay taxes and a fee for health care funding and so do employers. But I am not bankrupt as a result of my mishap. And the care I received was way beyond adequate. This is a practical on-the-ground example why I bristle and resent no-nothing bad mouthing of Canada’s health care system. It is not perfect, but it treats all Canadians equitably, it provides health care that is as good as can be had anywhere, and it costs very much less per capita than many other systems. For what it's worth, our system would treat you the same way, whether you live here or not. You have an accident in New Zealand, then your rehabilitation is paid for by us. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted March 14, 2019 Share #8 Posted March 14, 2019 are there an SL lenses scheduled for release this year? maybe Leica will release the SL2 + a new Lens at the same time. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timwright Posted March 14, 2019 Share #9 Posted March 14, 2019 Summicron 35 coming soon and 50 summicron supposed to be in first half of year. I think 21-24-28 summicron are next year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 14, 2019 Share #10 Posted March 14, 2019 As the mid range focal length primes are so well served by the M system, and the 16-35mm AF zoom such a good lens, the only lens I'm holding out for is a moderate telephoto - a 180/2.8 would be nice. That said, the 35mm or a 28mm Summicron remains tempting ... SL2, not so much. It's a good camera as is, and is fundamentally bullet proof. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timwright Posted March 15, 2019 Share #11 Posted March 15, 2019 I have the 16-35, the 90-280, the 50 lux and the 90 summicron. Of them all the 90 SL is probably the best lens I have ever used. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted March 15, 2019 Share #12 Posted March 15, 2019 10 hours ago, Timwright said: I have the 16-35, the 90-280, the 50 lux and the 90 summicron. Of them all the 90 SL is probably the best lens I have ever used. I have the 90mm and think the same way about it. Although I have the 50Lux, I think I will nab the 50Cron when it comes out. It will likely be on par with the 90mm and will easier to travel with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 15, 2019 Share #13 Posted March 15, 2019 I also got the Summicron 90 SL recently and find it stunning, for OOF smoothness, colour and in focus sharpness. I got it for portraiture on the SL, but it also works superbly on the CL - not too heavy or bulky. In fact my cogitations about getting the Summilux-TL 35 have morphed into lecherous thoughts about the Summicron-SL 35 instead, for use on both bodies. The SL lens is quite a bit longer, but a similar diameter, so may not feel much different in the hand. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted March 15, 2019 Share #14 Posted March 15, 2019 vor 14 Stunden schrieb Timwright: I have the 16-35, the 90-280, the 50 lux and the 90 summicron. Of them all the 90 SL is probably the best lens I have ever used. the difference between the outstanding APO Summicron 90mm and APO 90-280 at 90mm focal length and corresponding aperture is quite subtle in my experience, means: the APO 90-280 is the best zoom I've ever had. Maybe with more MPx the difference gets more obvious, but I'm fine with 24MPx. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 15, 2019 Share #15 Posted March 15, 2019 7 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: I also got the Summicron 90 SL recently and find it stunning, for OOF smoothness, colour and in focus sharpness. I got it for portraiture on the SL, but it also works superbly on the CL - not too heavy or bulky. In fact my cogitations about getting the Summilux-TL 35 have morphed into lecherous thoughts about the Summicron-SL 35 instead, for use on both bodies. The SL lens is quite a bit longer, but a similar diameter, so may not feel much different in the hand. The 35 Summicron-SL is very tempting, I agree ... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 16, 2019 Share #16 Posted March 16, 2019 (edited) I harbor similar thoughts. I now have an order in for the SL 35. The 75 became widely available recently, and I have been using it heavily. On the CL as well as on the SL. The size difference between the SL Summicrons and the CL 35 Summilux is not great at all: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! R1000075 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr One catch is that lens hood that Leica supplies for the SL 35 looks like the big ugly one that comes with the 16-35. Here's a wild speculation. Wouldn't it be nice if Leica released a 16 or 14 Summilux-CL in the same mechanical format as the CL 35. I could use one, and I wonder if that would lower the development cost significantly and make it possible. Edited March 16, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! R1000075 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr One catch is that lens hood that Leica supplies for the SL 35 looks like the big ugly one that comes with the 16-35. Here's a wild speculation. Wouldn't it be nice if Leica released a 16 or 14 Summilux-CL in the same mechanical format as the CL 35. I could use one, and I wonder if that would lower the development cost significantly and make it possible. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295016-first-notice-that-sl2-will-be-announced-in-june/?do=findComment&comment=3703455'>More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted March 16, 2019 Share #17 Posted March 16, 2019 It would be interesting to see the two lenses side by side Scott. (off the camera(s) possibly, and sans hoods. The CL been out in a desert storm? 😀 Gary 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 16, 2019 Share #18 Posted March 16, 2019 How's this? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! C1120358 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! C1120358 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295016-first-notice-that-sl2-will-be-announced-in-june/?do=findComment&comment=3703851'>More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted March 16, 2019 Share #19 Posted March 16, 2019 Perfect, thank you Scott. I have been a somewhat vociferous (my wife puts it down to being a grumpy old fart) opponent of the increasing size and weight of the newer A/F lenses. I'm over banging on about their sizes etc, and have simply used the SL a my digital back for the R lenses I own, and occasional M lens use. This new comparison has given hope that the sizes are not too excessive, maybe I need to consider this course again. Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 16, 2019 Share #20 Posted March 16, 2019 My R Summilux 80, on its R to L adapter, is the same size as the new 75 and 90 Summicron SL 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.