Why Are So Few Buying the S1R?

[saxo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The s1r is a good, feature rich camera. But I believe some of us would prefere the same features in a smaller and lighter body, even if 60p at 4 k wouldn't be possible because of the heat problem.

The L-system is bulky, except sigmas fp and the 45mm lens. But the fp is a video camera without EVF.

The l system offers no option for travel nor landscape photography if you need light equipment.

[ron777]

Smaller and lighter? Sounds like Sony a7rIV, or if you will accept less technology, Hasselblad X1d II.

Edited August 18, 2019 by ron777

[Advertisement]

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

[caissa]

The small weight difference is not really important. (I actually cannot hear it anymore ...  so much fuss about 200-300g). The weight of an apple or a sandwich or a small bottle of drink.   I prefer the better IBIS which causes much of the additional weight, and the better ergonomics, but that is my choice. The lens choice is generally much more important. E.g. the new 200-600 for Sony or the lack of cheap entry lenses for L. The 200-600 could even be a reason to switch from a DSLR. Not clear who could provide a similar offering (at a comparable price) for L.

Edited August 19, 2019 by caissa

[LocalHero1953]

10 hours ago, saxo said:

The s1r is a good, feature rich camera. But I believe some of us would prefere the same features in a smaller and lighter body, even if 60p at 4 k wouldn't be possible because of the heat problem.

The L-system is bulky, except sigmas fp and the 45mm lens. But the fp is a video camera without EVF.

The l system offers no option for travel nor landscape photography if you need light equipment.

The CL and TL2 are available, of course, but I assume you want full frame. For travel, for me, full frame is not necessary.

I've tried the SL and native lenses for travel: too heavy, bulky and obtrusive. I don't have the S1, but it looks similar. I prefer small, light and discreet.

[ron777]

Discreet? I’ve got an old, mint condition Minox I’d sell.

[lik]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

I've tried the SL and native lenses for travel: too heavy, bulky and obtrusive. I don't have the S1, but it looks similar. I prefer small, light and discreet.

After 3 weeks trip in China with  a S1R (before I had the SL) and 3 lenses and a Q2 I absolutely agree! S1R is a very good camera, great to have the same sensor in the Q2, but too bulky for travel. As soon as I have a smaller alternative I'm gonna change again... 

Edited August 19, 2019 by lik

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lik said:

After 3 weeks trip in China with  a S1R (before I had the SL) and 3 lenses and a Q2 I absolutely agree! S1R is a very good camera, great to have the same sensor in the Q2, but too bulky for travel. As soon as I have a smaller alternative I'm gonna change again... 

I spent a week in Bologna with the SL and just the 24-90 shortly after it was launched. I used a hand strap, which I still find the best way to manage the camera, including with the 90-280, but I needed frequent café breaks just to allow me to put it down. A neck strap would have been no better. I have no problems with it for dedicated event, stage or portrait shoots, but it's not for the casual walk-around, AFAIC.

Edited August 19, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[saxo]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

The CL and TL2 are available, of course, but I assume you want full frame. For travel, for me, full frame is not necessary.

I've tried the SL and native lenses for travel: too heavy, bulky and obtrusive. I don't have the S1, but it looks similar. I prefer small, light and discreet.

Yes, I prefer full frame, esp. for better dynamic range.

For travel I use the SL with M lenses. But this is only an option if you already own M-lenses.

(sometimes I mix, e.g. M-Super-Elmar 21, M-Summilux 35 and SL-Summicron 90mm. AF is convenient for portrait / tele lenses. The fast M-summilux 35mm helps me in low light conditions and the Super-Elmar 21mm is a super-wide angle lens with excellent image quality, both lenses have the same filter size.)

[saxo]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb ron777:

Smaller and lighter? Sounds like Sony a7rIV, or if you will accept less technology, Hasselblad X1d II.

I thought about the a7r (I don't know about the IV, haven't seen it yet), but the user interface of the sony is improvable, the Sony lens quality showes a great variability and the a7r is not suited for M-lenses, at least not as good as the SL.

Hasselblad: very good IQ, but comparably very limited lens options. I would rather go for the Fuji system in this case.

[Bonnitaet]

Panasonic is doing today what Sony did some years ago and Olympus/Pana mft even more years ago:

Pansonic introduces a new System with the S1. But unlike Sony or Oly/mft, Pana did not invent the wheel. The Pana, although very nice, I have it and like it very much, is getting bigger and heavier than the competition, and their lenses are even more bigger and heavier. The Alliance with Sigma is nice on the first glance, but second they went into an alliance getting even much more heavier and bigger lenses.

Ignoring the claimed reasons for success of Sony and Oly: "Get a DSLM, it will be smaller and lighter." Trying to sell for even more money than the competitors. Even if the S1 would be classleading in every aspect, that would have been a tough ride. But the S1 lacks a  lot to be classleading. In addition, Panasonic is missing the unique selling point. 

Sony got the Minolta users AND a good partition of the canon users, in addition to a lot of Nikon users. mFT got everyone who does not want to lump kilos of lenses around. So who is going to buy into L Mount? 

A few months after the S1 start, Sony introducing the A7RIV having the same EVF, more MP (need or don't), better AF, more lenses. And the A9 II has yet to come. 

Not the wisest move in an oversaturated market.

It would be very interesting to read the internal papers, why Olympus refused to join. 

[ron777]

1 hour ago, Bonnitaet said:

Panasonic is doing today what Sony did some years ago and Olympus/Pana mft even more years ago:

Pansonic introduces a new System with the S1. But unlike Sony or Oly/mft, Pana did not invent the wheel. The Pana, although very nice, I have it and like it very much, is getting bigger and heavier than the competition, and their lenses are even more bigger and heavier. The Alliance with Sigma is nice on the first glance, but second they went into an alliance getting even much more heavier and bigger lenses.

Ignoring the claimed reasons for success of Sony and Oly: "Get a DSLM, it will be smaller and lighter." Trying to sell for even more money than the competitors. Even if the S1 would be classleading in every aspect, that would have been a tough ride. But the S1 lacks a  lot to be classleading. In addition, Panasonic is missing the unique selling point. 

Sony got the Minolta users AND a good partition of the canon users, in addition to a lot of Nikon users. mFT got everyone who does not want to lump kilos of lenses around. So who is going to buy into L Mount? 

A few months after the S1 start, Sony introducing the A7RIV having the same EVF, more MP (need or don't), better AF, more lenses. And the A9 II has yet to come. 

Not the wisest move in an oversaturated market.

It would be very interesting to read the internal papers, why Olympus refused to join. 

 

There is an entire group of photogs—myself included—who dislike Sony's ergonomics.  In fact, I have a Sony A7rIII. along with all of their GM lenses, just gathering dust on a shelf, while my S1r gets exclusive use.  Smaller is not always better, depends upon your anatomy and philosophy.  Furthermore, Sony's IBIS is not very effective and Panasonic's runs circles around it.  That said, IMO, the rate limiting factor for the S1 and S1r purchasers at the current time is the lens lineup.  When people see "L" lens compatibility they think little red dot (Leica logo) and dollar signs. Let's face it, despite their optical and overall quality, they're costly, large and heavy.  When more economic and varied glass becomes available we might see a change in the purchasing dynamic.  And if not, I am perfectly happy with my S1R and Leica SL lenses.  That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

[Bonnitaet]

17 minutes ago, ron777 said:

 

There is an entire group of photogs—myself included—who dislike Sony's ergonomics.  In fact, I have a Sony A7rIII. along with all of their GM lenses, just gathering dust on a shelf, while my S1r gets exclusive use. ...

Count me in too as my A7RIII sits in the shelves as well since I got the S1 (as addon to my Ms). But Panasonic missed the train despite having a camera, which suits yours and mine requirements better.

[ron777]

19 minutes ago, Bonnitaet said:

Count me in too as my A7RIII sits in the shelves as well since I got the S1 (as addon to my Ms). But Panasonic missed the train despite having a camera, which suits yours and mine requirements better.

Perhaps, but their business decision is our gain.

[Chaemono]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb ron777:

Furthermore, Sony's IBIS is not very effective and Panasonic's runs circles around it. 

+1. Neither is the Z7’s. But that Panasonic IBIS needs to be put in an elegant body. It’s aesthetically painful to use M lenses with the S1/S1R and to be quite open, I don’t like the looks of these cameras with the minimalist design of the Leica L-mount lenses either. Aesthetics matter in how one feels about picking up a camera, holding it, using it. Aesthetics inspire to try to transcend mediocrity (only the trained eye can take nice pictures with any camera, incl. Sony). SL2 with IBIS will be flying off the shelf (by Leica shelf standards) because of this. 50 Summilux-M at 1/5 sec. handheld anyone?

[ron777]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, that said, I for one do not find the SL to be aesthetically pleasing.   Critically speaking, and viewed straight on, it appears to be a slab of metal with a hole for a lens and a protrusion for a grip. Cameras are tools, not jewelry. Choose them for function, not appearance.

[Chaemono]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb ron777:

Cameras are tools, not jewelry. Choose them for function, not appearance.

I find the “form follows function” maxim industrially callous and aesthetically castrating for something one fondles for hours at a time. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Chaemono

[ron777]

15 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

I find the “form follows function” maxim industrially callous and aesthetically castrating for something one fondles for hours at a time. 

Perhaps the connotation of "fondle" was lost in translation, but (Merriam Webster Dictionary) 

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!

This is a hunk of metal and plastic that we're talking about, LOL.  I agree that some quite functional items lack a desirable aesthetic, but in the end, it's the function that counts.  I find it hard to believe that a new and beautiful hammer would inspire a carpenter to do a better job, or a fancy, new paintbrush would inspire the next Picasso.  However, that inspiration can be triggered by external forces is not in question, and one of those forces can most certainly be, as in the case of a camera, its ability to perform above and beyond what one is accustomed to.

[Chaemono]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb ron777:

Perhaps the connotation of "fondle" was lost in translation, but (Merriam Webster Dictionary) 

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!

 

Please, let’s not make this sexual.

vor 17 Minuten schrieb ron777:

I agree that some quite functional items lack a desirable aesthetic, but in the end, it's the function that counts.

This is a very fraternal way of putting it.

vor 17 Minuten schrieb ron777:

I find it hard to believe that a new and beautiful hammer would inspire a carpenter to do a better job,...

It may be a very sobering thought, but ugly things simply don’t inspire.

[ron777]

Only sexual if you view it as such, but it is suggestive of sensuality.

"It may be a very sobering thought, but ugly things simply don’t inspire."   How unfortunate for the aesthetically challenged among us.  However, Leonardo Da Vinci would have taken issue with your statement, since one could argue that his model for the Mona Lisa was hardly beautiful but, then gain, he may have seen something that this modern man might find unacceptable.

Edited August 21, 2019 by ron777

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

18 minutes ago, ron777 said:

Only sexual if you view it as such, but it is suggestive of sensuality.

"It may be a very sobering thought, but ugly things simply don’t inspire."   How unfortunate for the aesthetically challenged among us.  However, Leonard Da Vinci would have taken issue with your statement, since one could argue that his model for the Mona Lisa was hardly beautiful but, then gain, he may have seen something that this modern man might find unacceptable.

I would be happy to argue that neither the Mona Lisa as a painting, nor its subject are particularly aesthetically pleasing. The painting is, of course, extremely important as a milestone in the history of painting and portraiture technique - a bit like the development of a superb new Summicron-L lens - but it doesn't do much for me as an object of beauty. I'd take a Rembrandt portrait over it any day.

Dare I say YMMV?

Edited August 21, 2019 by LocalHero1953