Jeff S Posted October 15, 2019 Share #821 Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 18 minutes ago, bags27 said: downpayment? maybe for a genuine Leica lens cleaner 😀 You’re too new to the forum to appreciate. If I had said ten bucks apiece, I’d probably have 25% down. The M8 wasn’t possible, then it was blasted, then it sold well. The M9 was widely derided initially for color problems, SD card issues, freezes, cracked sensors, colored edges, etc. Most of the Monochrom owners here dismissed the mere notion of a monochrome sensor as either fantasy or a pure waste of time. Every release is the same... not interested... it sucks... I’ll wait for next model... bought it... best ever, will never sell it... Jeff Edited October 15, 2019 by Jeff S 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2019 Posted October 15, 2019 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here "Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted October 15, 2019 Share #822 Posted October 15, 2019 And like the three guys on the balcony in the Muppet Show, “What do you think of it so far?” ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted October 16, 2019 Share #823 Posted October 16, 2019 4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said: And like the three guys on the balcony in the Muppet Show, “What do you think of it so far?” ... c'mon; the two guys on the balcony ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_and_Waldorf 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted October 16, 2019 Share #824 Posted October 16, 2019 This is a unique situation now and not comparable to prior releases of Leica cameras. A competitor/partner released a body which takes Leica lenses natively at roughly half the price one year ago. If the SL2’s IQ and AF performance are identical to the S1R’s, half of the people who are b!tching and moaning now will still switch and half won’t. In the past, all of the people who were b!tching and moaning prior to the release bought the new camera anyway. I won’t, and I’m guessing, Helge won’t, Don won’t, Scott won’t, and silbeers15 will go for the S1R. As stated before, Leica users aren’t as dumb as we look. 😁 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted October 16, 2019 Share #825 Posted October 16, 2019 There is certainly merit to that argument, but it is not a unique situation...it was similar in the M mount with the Hexar RF, Zeiss Ikon and Bessa cameras.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted October 16, 2019 Share #826 Posted October 16, 2019 Good point but there was no social media then to b!tch and moan. 😁 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted October 16, 2019 Share #827 Posted October 16, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 3 hours ago, Chaemono said: Good point but there was no social media then to b!tch and moan. 😁 I guess you were not on Rangefinder forum circa 2003-10...haha 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #828 Posted October 16, 2019 We all might be too hung up on image sensor hardware alone. Like I shared earlier allot has to do with the processor ie processing speed. I was reading the review of Sony A9II. It is essentially the same sensor as A9. All the engineers did was increase the speed to calculation on AF to 60 times per second (with sufficient processor power for sure) and further tweak the firmware. It claims the performance between the A9 and A9II seems like a complete camera for the users. By that same token, I certainly hope the 12 months did Leica SL2 good comparing to the Panasonic S1R which took the light by launching early and it is my sincere hope that SL2 certainly is worth our wait on AF and DR exceeding the standard set by S1R on the 47MPx image sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 16, 2019 Share #829 Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said: There is certainly merit to that argument, but it is not a unique situation...it was similar in the M mount with the Hexar RF, Zeiss Ikon and Bessa cameras.... Yes but those were Konica, Zeiss and Cosina bodies having no link with Leica. What happens to Leica with the SL2 is not totally new to be honest. Reminds me of the film CL that had a Minolta clone accepting C and M lenses in the seventies. What is new now is Leica setting the Pana fox to mind the L geese so to speak. Only the future will say how clever or naive that move has been... Edited October 16, 2019 by lct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #830 Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) As opposed to in film days when technology evolved glacially compared to today, the few high-end buyers left are no longer even pretending that we are buying "our final camera," much less that we will pass this camera down to our children (who prefer cell phone technology anyway). The rapid decline in value of used digital cameras serves to demonstrate this. So, in this disposable world, it may actually be reasonable to suppose that a significant number of SL owners won't buy a SL2 if they can get pretty close to the same camera for half the price. Edited October 16, 2019 by bags27 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #831 Posted October 16, 2019 Just think like that : we are now buying the equivalent of films from camera manufacturers instead of Kodak or Fujifilm. You are buying it upfront instead of when you needed it. The longer you keep the camera and the more you use it, cheaper will be the equivalent of film costs. Leica is doing us a favour by switching from 3 years to 4 years renewal time frame. Even if you are suffering of severe GAS, your equivalent of film cost will be lower. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 16, 2019 Share #832 Posted October 16, 2019 18 minutes ago, bags27 said: it may actually be reasonable to suppose that a significant number of SL owners won't buy a SL2 if they can get pretty close to the same camera for half the price Indeed and that a non insignificant numbers of non-SL owners won't buy a SL2 either. Besides M users perhaps but the latters don't like much big bodies generally. Interesting but difficult times for Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #833 Posted October 16, 2019 Switching from Q to Q2, costed me 1790€ over 55,500 shots and 4 years of use. So my Q equivalent of film costs is 37.29€/month or 3.23 cents per photos. It is quite cheap actually. "lifetime" film cameras would have never been not able to compete with such low cost of usage. So it can reasonable for SL owners to switch to SL2, after 4 years. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #834 Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, nicci78 said: Switching from Q to Q2, costed me 1790€ over 55,500 shots and 4 years of use. So my Q equivalent of film costs is 37.29€/month or 3.23 cents per photos. It is quite cheap actually. "lifetime" film cameras would have never been not able to compete with such low cost of usage. So it can reasonable for SL owners to switch to SL2, after 4 years. I sort of take your point. But only sort of. Digital can be somewhat "spray and pray" and we often take 100 shots knowing we'll have a couple of keepers. So, actual keepers probably costs far more than $.03/shot. With film (and I shoot that as well), we are keenly aware of deferred expenses in development, so compose far more carefully. I don't think there's a reliable way to cost out the difference between analogue and digital: there are far too many variables in personal photographic habits and accompanying costs (e.g. buying developing chemicals vs upgrading post-processing software). Edited October 16, 2019 by bags27 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #835 Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) Digital cameras are like toilet paper. Their value lies in their usage and not in collection. I practice what I preach, I have not kept my older digital Ms (except M8) and I sold off my SL in July while I wait for SL2 to be released. On the contrary, I keep all my Leica lenses. Edited October 16, 2019 by sillbeers15 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #836 Posted October 16, 2019 You are totally right @bags27 But just think this way : With film, you are severely limited yourself because of future costs. With digital, the down payment is already paid. So just enjoy. You can divide by 100 the number of shots. It should still be cheaper than film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted October 16, 2019 Share #837 Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) Not to be overly pedantic, but divided by 100 is 550 shots, even on 6x7 that is 55 rolls of film, which costs 350 dollars (for Portra at B&H). Basically double it or even triple it for processing, and you are still a LONG way from the price of a digital Leica. Granted, you need a scanner etc, but most people interested in film already have one. You can also make your costs cheaper by developing yourself etc. The economics of film vs digital are complicated and extremely user dependent. You shot 55,000 pictures on the Q in 4 years, I have 70,000 images in my Lightroom catalog including all my film scans and all my clients' work for printing etc, and I do this for a living. Looking at my metadata, I have taken 6218 pictures with the S006, which I have had for six years as my main professional camera. But I am used to 4x5, 8x10 and 6x7...I do not take a large volume of pictures...after learning on slide film, I generally get it right the first time and my subject matter is very deliberate. For me, film is a good economic argument in comparison to the cost of using Leica digital cameras. For someone who does sports, weddings, children, events and so on, film could wind up being a huge expense that would quickly make things run out of control. Anyway, just pointing out that these kinds of calculations are not something that can be easily generalized about. Edited October 16, 2019 by Stuart Richardson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m9photo Posted October 16, 2019 Share #838 Posted October 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said: Not to be overly pedantic, but divided by 100 is 550 shots, even on 6x7 that is 55 rolls of film, which costs 350 dollars (for Portra at B&H). Basically double it or even triple it for processing, and you are still a LONG way from the price of a digital Leica. Granted, you need a scanner etc, but most people interested in film already have one. You can also make your costs cheaper by developing yourself etc. The economics of film vs digital are complicated and extremely user dependent. You shot 55,000 pictures on the Q in 4 years, I have 70,000 images in my Lightroom catalog including all my film scans and all my clients' work for printing etc, and I do this for a living. Looking at my metadata, I have taken 6218 pictures with the S006, which I have had for six years as my main professional camera. But I am used to 4x5, 8x10 and 6x7...I do not take a large volume of pictures...after learning on slide film, I generally get it right the first time and my subject matter is very deliberate. For me, film is a good economic argument in comparison to the cost of using Leica digital cameras. For someone who does sports, weddings, children, events and so on, film could wind up being a huge expense that would quickly make things run out of control. Anyway, just pointing out that these kinds of calculations are not something that can be easily generalized about. Back in the film hey days, the cost to process/print was cheaper than nowadays.Today, Digital would be much and much more cost effective in regards of storing the files instead of buying films. Printing is another subject, as this would be different cost compare from own printing and send to pro lab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #839 Posted October 16, 2019 well, dark room costs are significantly less now, with development-anywhere kits. A scanner is a fixed and reasonable cost. Again, I'm not arguing one or the other, because people's habits differ so widely. But if (say) you pay $7k for an SL2 and $5k for the 35 f/2 APO rather than $2k for an M6 and $2k for a 35 f/2 v. 2 or 4, you have to go through a whole lot of film to make up the difference. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted October 16, 2019 Share #840 Posted October 16, 2019 Dont forget you will take much less but therefore better images with film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now