Jump to content

"Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have the Z7 and A7R3 as well, plus the S1R. In real world shooting there's little difference between them. When pushed the Z7 is *slightly* better at low ISO. It does especially well at ISO 64. The A7R3 handles high ISO noise very slightly better than the other two. But the A7R3 very occasionally suffers from banding due to the PDAF points on the sensor. But it only shows occasionally. The S1R has a slight dip in DR between 250 and 640 but roughly equivalent at ISO 100. But it retains a bit mo

I sincerely hope that the Japanese website is wrong about the new "dumbed down" fixed/labelled function rear button layout. The original programmable/unlabelled 4 button layout of the SL was one of the best things about the SL and along with the configurable other buttons, made the SL really stand out from the crowd of "me too" DSLR cameras, when it became the first high end mirrorless. It is why in spite of its weight, I still prefer using the SL to the CL. Changing to a fixed button layout wou

original image with S1R+90-280 SL Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By tedwill
      I'm planning a trip next year to Iceland.  Mainly, I'll be shooting landscape and Northern lights Photos.  I'll be taking a class and traveling with a small group of students and an instructor.  
      I currently have an M10R and a 50 Summilux, 21 Super Elmar and a 35 Summilux.  I will most likely take that as the backup since the weather can be cold and rainy.  If it's nice out, I'll certainly use the M10R and especially the 21 for landscape shots.  However, I am told by the instructor that I will need a weather proof body and lenses.  
      I am planning on renting an SL2 (or maybe buying one, taking advantage of the deal with the free M adapter to use my M lenses) and renting a short, medium and longer focal length lens - 90-280, 24-70 f/2.8, etc for the beautiful landscape of Iceland - mountains, waterfalls, etc.
      However for the night time Northern Lights photos. I know that using a wide lens with a fast aperture is highly recommended. Since the SL2 is part of the L family, I was thinking Panasonic or Sigma for something wide and fast.
      First question - I've done a lot of research and and actually shot the Northern Lights when they came as far south as Michigan in 2004.  I used a full frame Canon DSLR and the 16-35mm f/2.8, set it to ISO 200 with a 30 second exposure and got some pretty decent photos.  However, I'd be curious what you have used in the past to capture the Northern Lights.
      What is the ideal L lens for shooting the Northern Lights in Iceland?  
      Any help is greatly appreciated.
      Thanks!
      -Ted
    • By BlackDoc
      In meinem fotographischen Einzugsgebiet liegt der Harz, und gestern versprach der Himmel zum wiederholten Male spannend zu werden. Anders als sonst hatte ich aber Zeit und auch die Chance noch einmal "auszurücken" (die Tour mit der Berliner Truppe um Hartmut aka @hartgraefkonnte ich im Juni ja leider nicht begleiten...) Gesagt getan, Sachen gepackt und im niedersächsischen Starkregen und Gewitter los ins Ilsetal. Als Ziel hatte ich mir in der Hoffnung von Nebelbänken den Ilse FELSEN überlegt, von wo man einen Bli ck über den bewaldeten Teil des Tales bis zum Brocken hat/ haben kann. 
      Vom Parkplatz aus recht schnell nach links noch vor Erreichen der Ilse in den Wald war ich dann einigermaßen überrascht,  dass die Wege gesperrt waren. Der Borkenkäfer und die Witterung/ Stürme haben eben doch deutlich mehr Spuren hinterlassen an den Bäumen als so manchem lieb ist.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
      Entsprechend der doch eindeutig erhöhten Gefahr auf diesem Weg (im Hang liegen ungesicherte Stämme) hab ich mir angesichts des Wetters einen anderen (längeren) Weg gesucht um Zum Ziel zu kommen. Ich hab auch da ne ordentliche Packung Regen abbekommen, aber das ist sicher besser als Baumstämme....
       
       
       
    • By pele2010
      Hey , 
       
      I can't find an angle viewfinder for the SL2.
       
      How do you manage to make low or high angle picture without using your phone. 
      Is there any DIY that you can recommend? 
       
      And apart of this: 
      is there a menu point to mirror the image of the camera? If so we could just use a mirror or something reflective 
      as a mirror. 
       
      And yes I know that you can take the picture and alter the framing. But sometimes its quit nice to see what you are doing.
      I am enjoying both methods but I would like to achieve the method with more control. 
      Curious how you solve this challenge. 
       
      kind regards Peter
    • By chris_tribble
      This may seem a bit obvious, but after having followed a general principle of having a 2 minute auto power off, and being left with 50% power after a day's walking and maybe 60 images, I decided to switch to a 10 second auto power off, and I'm finding I still have a full bar indicated after the same kind of use.  If you've been unhappy with battery-life, I'd recommend playing with the power-off settings and seeing what improvements you can make.  For information, I'm not experiencing significant start up delays either.  Just touch the shutter button and everything's good to go pretty well immediately.
    • By Ciamprob
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
×
×
  • Create New...