"Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know what you are are basing all these numbers on...who in their right mind would buy an MA for 4080 euros if they were price sensitive at all? The MA is not even a practical Leica, let alone a practical 35mm camera...huge cost, no meter, etc. It is an extremely esoteric choice for a 35mm camera. Leaving aside the dozens of Leica models you can buy for dramatically less, you can buy a 35mm film camera with a good enough lens to out-resolve the film for a few dollars. Anyway, I do not want to devolve the thread, but I will say in my personal experience I have dropped thousands of dollars on digital cameras which only last a few years versus a comparatively small amount on really high end film bodies, and the film bodies always seemed like a much better deal to me. For my Leica S cameras, I am looking at roughly 3 dollars per shot over 8 years versus a cost of 50 cents per shot for 6x7 black and white (including development cost, excluding labor and scanning). Anyway, it is a boring and very personal discussion...sorry for going down the rabbit hole with this. 

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Same story at each new digicam here. It is less expensive than film and it will be the last of our life . SWMBO doesn't read us folks we don't need to justify our expensive toys err tools .

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

Fun fact. Shooting 24x36 film only compares quite well against Leica digital cameras. Against any cheaper brands, film will stand no chance at all in the cost of usage area. 
 

 

If it were about cost and bang per buck, Leica would not be in the picture at all.

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb sillbeers15:

If it were about cost and bang per buck, Leica would not be in the picture at all.

For color it would be Canon and for everything else Sony. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, sillbeers15.  Perhaps, the SL2 will surprise on the upside on bang per buck.  And then you have the SL lenses on top. 

[sillbeers15]

11 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

For color it would be Canon and for everything else Sony. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, sillbeers15.  Perhaps, the SL2 will surprise on the upside on bang per buck.  And then you have the SL lenses on top. 

Chaemono, I do not see bang per buck coming from Leica, just give us good AF & DR to mount our Leica SL lenses and I will be happy.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'm not sure where these $/shot numbers are being pulled from, but here are two ways of doing it.  First of all, lenses should not count.  They never become obsolete and they should not stop working.  Mine haven't.  So the cost of digital is the cost of moving up to the latest body every three (now four) years. With Leica that seems to be $6-7,000.  With higher volume products this is reduced to $1500-2500.  But you have to divide by the number of exposures taken over the 4 year period.  If that is 5,000, figures like $1 per shot for Leica and $0.50 per shot for, say, Fuji are the result.  If four years creates 50,000 exposures, that's $0.10 per shot for Leica and a few pennies otherwise.  If it is 500,000 exposures, well, few cameras last that long.

Or one can say that GAS requires a new camera body every 2-4 years, and look at the burn rate.  I look at what I used to spend flying small airplanes, what some friends pay to keep a sailboat or a nice car running properly, and what I have seen a few acquaintances put out for exotic watches, and breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's no 'need' to upgrade digital every 3-4 years. For a few years now, digital cameras have been capable of producing technically superior images to film images (better resolution, higher ISO, at least as good colour). I'm NOT saying they are better images, just that the technical argument has mostly gone. But in comparison with analogue photography, digital is only just into the wet collodion process and has not even reached Kodak's rollfilm patent; there's been massive progress in the technical development of digital and it is not surprising people have got into the habit of changing cameras every 3-4 years or sooner. But, from the perspective of taking photographs and using them, there is no need to stay on that treadmill now unless you choose to because boys' toys are fun (they are).

I certainly changed digital camera every couple of years in the early digital era; I was surprised recently, searching through camera data in EXIF in my Lightroom catalogue, how many compact point and shoots I'd actually owned, starting with a 2mp Nikon. But I saw no need to upgrade from M240 to M10 (it would make no practical difference to the photos I could or wanted to take) and it may be the same case now, if the SL2 is just an evolutionary upgrade with some inherent downgrade (too many pixels = higher computer demand).

I've no quibble with those who want to upgrade, but there is nothing inherent in digital compared to film that means upgrading is more necessary*. It's just a question of whether the useful technology change is fast or not.

 

* Until we get through digital's wet collodion era

Edited October 17, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[acapella]

With all the (valuable) speculations on the advantages of the upcoming SL2 (good reading!) I never read anything about the pro’s/cons of this SL2 while using TL lenses. Did I missed that or is it a of no interest? Looks interesting to me.

Regards

[scott kirkpatrick]

Wet collodion made beautiful big images (once you got a chance to print them somewhere) but required a mule and a small covered wagon.  Are we to compare that to the 100 MPx Hasselblad, or the 180 "pixel" multi-shot S1R?  And we do already have "You push the button, we do the rest!" in the iPhone 6 or more with apps to share our experiences with the eagerly waiting world, however fuzzily they are expressed.  So what's next?

Edited October 17, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[nicci78]

 

42 minutes ago, acapella said:

With all the (valuable) speculations on the advantages of the upcoming SL2 (good reading!) I never read anything about the pro’s/cons of this SL2 while using TL lenses. Did I missed that or is it a of no interest? Looks interesting to me.

Regards

47MP will make it more sensible to use TL lenses with SL2, with 20.7MP in APS-C mode.

You may not need to have a CL aside as a kinda 1.5X converter. 

 

I can't wait to see, what SL2 with IBIS can do with APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60mm

SL2 IBIS will make the APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135mm even better. 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by nicci78

[acapella]

And how about the 90-280!?

[nicci78]

What do you prefer ?

• SL2 + APO-Summicron-SL 2/90mm with 46.6MP - 1,547g - 1:5 = smallest object is 120mm
• SL2 + APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 2.8/60mm with 20.7MP - 1,167g - 1.5:1 = smallest object is 16mm

SL2 should be slightly lighter. 

 

 

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!

Edited October 17, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Now the comical comparison :

 

• SL2 + APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4 with 46.6MP - 2,557g - smallest object is 114mm
• SL2 + APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135mm f/3.5-4.5 with 20.7MP - 1,347g - smallest object is 125mm

May TL lenses the solution for too bulky SL zoom lenses ? At the cost of resolution of course. Paired with tiny M lenses, the SL2 can be quite manageable, size and weight wise

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!

[nicci78]

Last comparison 

• SL2 + Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm f/3.5-4.5 with 46.6MP - 1,837g - smallest object is 90mm
• SL2 + Super-Vario-Elmar-TL 11-23mm f/3.5-4.5 with 20.7MP - 1,233g - smallest object is 85mm

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!

[nicci78]

I see the SL2 as my CL replacement and Q2 best friend.

It should cure several issues with CL : 

• in body stabilisation. Several TL lenses really needed it : Vario-Elmar-TL 18-56 ; APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60 & APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135
• depth of field scaled displayed on top screen. APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60 really needed it for macro work.
• even better EVF
• more function buttons, AF ON button & AF joystick. 
• sturdier body. Handling bigger lenses such as R lenses,  biggest M lens and Summilux-TL 35 & APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135 shouldn't be a problem at all
• weather sealing. Only with SL lenses and kinda protected with M lenses tight tolerance when mounted with M-Adapter-L
• 20.7MP in APS-C crop mode is close enough to 24MP
• using my M lenses in their full frame glory
• sharing same battery as Q2
• slightly lighter SL2 and smallest TL and M lenses, should make SL2 quite easy to handle and hauled around.  

I will keep most of my TL and M lenses. Just add an APO-Summicron-SL 50 and sell my Summilux-TL 35. 

Of course I will never buy silly huge SL zooms. TL zooms should be a more sensible choice with SL2
 

Edited October 17, 2019 by nicci78

[tom0511]

vor einer Stunde schrieb nicci78:

What do you prefer ?

• SL2 + APO-Summicron-SL 2/90mm with 46.6MP - 1,547g - 1:5 = smallest object is 120mm
• SL2 + APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 2.8/60mm with 20.7MP - 1,167g - 1.5:1 = smallest object is 16mm

SL2 should be slightly lighter. 

 

 

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!

I would prefer the 60 Macro for Macro images and the 90 with 46 MP and 2 stops shallower DOF for portraits shots.

The ability to use dx-lenses with 20MP is one advantage when having 46MP FF sensor. (Indeed it was one of the reasons why I choose the s1r over the s1.

[nicci78]

Oh yes you are right. I might need Macro-APO-Elmarit-R 100 

[tom0511]

I have used the 23mm on the s1r, is also a nice "compact" combo.

I think it is one of the cool things, that the SL (and hopefully SL2) work so good with M/CL/S lenses as well.

Eventhough it makes most sense with SL lenses most of the time (for my taste) 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hillavoider]

I like the idea of the 11-23 on the SL 

 

damn you Nicci I wasn't going to upgrade!  

[bags27]

Which is precisely why just last week I grabbed a very slightly used TL 11-23. Keeping that and the 55-135; otherwise, all M and R mounts, though, like nicci, I suspect I may eventually weaken for an L prime.