lct Posted November 13, 2019 Share #41 Posted November 13, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 minute ago, otto.f said: Oh I didn't know that or interpreted an interview otherwise, but an EVF instead of a rangefinder in a body with the name M...? M like M mount camera of course. What else? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2019 Posted November 13, 2019 Hi lct, Take a look here anyone thinking of upgrade from CL to SL2?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cirke Posted November 13, 2019 Share #42 Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) a ERF then , Electronic Range Finder or EVF or whatever but it will come Edited November 13, 2019 by cirke Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 13, 2019 Share #43 Posted November 13, 2019 1 hour ago, bags27 said: My eyes and hands are not what they used to be, and the potential attraction of the SL2 is the in-camera stabilization and the EVF. Compared with my CL, it would be easier to focus my M and R glass, and my TL 11-23 and 55-135 could be used in much lower light. Eventually, Panasonic or Sigma will make a small weather-proof auto-focusing all-round lens (the Sigma 45 f/2.8 I take it is not weather-proof) and then I'd be set for the weather as well--not that that's an essential consideration for me. I grew up in an era when image stabilization comprised a sturdy tripod. That is still my solution around home. I admit there is a case for IS for wildlife photography; but otherwise I feel too much is made of the feature. We have a fine selection of higher shutter speeds to arrest movement of camera or subject. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 13, 2019 Share #44 Posted November 13, 2019 22 minutes ago, cirke said: a ERF then , Electronic Range Finder or EVF or whatever but it will come They will loose old men like me who are entangled with the M way of shooting and this has been happening already; I stopped at the M9 after a brief adventure with the M10 because, among other reasons, I see available light as available light in the original sense and ! because it’s such a good camera that it runs without problems after 10 years 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 13, 2019 Share #45 Posted November 13, 2019 Digital rangefinders are here to stay for half a century at least. Just checked it in my mirrorless crystal ball . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 13, 2019 Share #46 Posted November 13, 2019 The name is irrelevant, but a body with M10 (11) sensor and an EVF instead of RF would offer an optimal platform for M lenses at a, say, 1500 Euro lower price. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 13, 2019 Share #47 Posted November 13, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 26 minutes ago, jaapv said: The name is irrelevant, but a body with M10 (11) sensor and an EVF instead of RF would offer an optimal platform for M lenses at a, say, 1500 Euro lower price. Not expensive enough. It would kill rangefinders in a couple of months... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 13, 2019 Share #48 Posted November 13, 2019 I rather doubt that. M users are too conservative. It would expand the market, for M lenses too. Consider this: An EVF costs 250 Euro, a rangefinder 1250. Then you would lose the frame line selector mechanism, the rangefinder coupling in the mount, the exposure meter cells, have a simple top plate. That would account easily for a lower price. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 13, 2019 Share #49 Posted November 13, 2019 2 hours ago, otto.f said: They will loose old men like me who are entangled with the M way of shooting and this has been happening already; I stopped at the M9 after a brief adventure with the M10 because, among other reasons, I see available light as available light in the original sense and ! because it’s such a good camera that it runs without problems after 10 years you make me wish I never sold my M9, but through some trades it has evolved into the CL plus an M4, MA, and R6.2 .... I take the digital and then the R or M depending on whether I want to use M or R lenses (usually M)....BUT the M9 did make really beautiful pictures even if challenged in low light ... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 13, 2019 Share #50 Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, sblitz said: you make me wish I never sold my M9, but through some trades it has evolved into the CL plus an M4, MA, and R6.2 .... I take the digital and then the R or M depending on whether I want to use M or R lenses (usually M)....BUT the M9 did make really beautiful pictures even if challenged in low light ... A picture tells more then thousand words...: this is a photo from Tchaikovski's Nutcracker Suite in 2008 in Amsterdam, made with the M8 on ISO320, with the SAA 90mm at 1/180 and f2.4. I don't know if it already had the discrete mode at that time, I think it came later, but the lady before me was a little irritated about the noise of the shutter. This was the reason for me to step over the M8.2 as soon as it came out, because it had a 'considerable' more silent shutter 😁 (hear the M10 now...). But look how unbelievably sharp images this camera could produce. Do I see any essential difference with the SL2? 😳 Let alone that you'll be arrested at the door when you're trying to get that camera inside. I printed this on A2 without any problem. 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 November 13, 2019 by otto.f 17 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/303389-anyone-thinking-of-upgrade-from-cl-to-sl2/?do=findComment&comment=3854096'>More sharing options...
ECohen Posted November 13, 2019 Share #51 Posted November 13, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, jaapv said: The name is irrelevant, but a body with M10 (11) sensor and an EVF instead of RF would offer an optimal platform for M lenses at a, say, 1500 Euro lower price. You should be on Leica’s board. I like my M and especially the M lenses. I don’t care one way or the other if the rangefinder is mechanical or an EVF As long as I can easily focus the camera. Frankly an EVF would make the camera easier to use. Edited November 13, 2019 by ECohen 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted November 14, 2019 Share #52 Posted November 14, 2019 17 hours ago, ECohen said: an EVF would make the camera easier to use. or just usable, with 47mp and a Noctilux at 0.95 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted November 14, 2019 Share #53 Posted November 14, 2019 4 hours ago, cirke said: or just usable, with 47mp and a Noctilux at 0.95 I can only speak for myself but I have no need for 47 mp. When I was working professionally the more megapixels the better. But didn’t all Pros start off using the Nikon D1X which was 5 megapixels? As a hobbyist 24mp is more than enough. And frankly the apc sensor is more than enough. Im all about the weight, simple menus and fun to use. In all honesty if I were still shooting professionally I don’t think that I would be using the SL. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 14, 2019 Share #54 Posted November 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, ECohen said: no need for 47 mp. Except when it was affordable on a MF sensor. Not on what ironically is called full format today, and this is since the sensor with the size of the top of a pinky was introduced. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECohen Posted November 14, 2019 Share #55 Posted November 14, 2019 18 minutes ago, otto.f said: Except when it was affordable on a MF sensor. Not on what ironically is called full format today, and this is since the sensor with the size of the top of a pinky was introduced. Since the OP was on a CL site I do feel my observations are valid. Which they may not be we were talking about the SL I used to shoot professionally the more MP the better! But that was the early days of Digital photography I just shot some photos for a friend the other day. I used a Full Frame Nikon 24mp......just because it has the better zoom and I wanted 2.8 The RAW file made a 69.1M jpg. Why does a hobbyist need a 69.1M file? They are hard to handle you need to store them and who prints bigger than 11x17 except occasionally....and most photos just get posted to the web. You give photos to a friend we're talking Gigabytes of info. Sure I could reduce the files in LR but then I have to file the originals. I think we are in overkill territory with MP these days......if not shooting professionally For me 47 is way overkill no matter the price. But I guess it depends on the individual. Would I want a 47mp CL .....I don't think so. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted November 14, 2019 Share #56 Posted November 14, 2019 Right, horses for courses Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted November 15, 2019 Share #57 Posted November 15, 2019 Okay, so isn't 24MP ASPC sensor not good professionally ..... less was more than acceptable up until recently. So how professionally speaking is 47MP better? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 15, 2019 Share #58 Posted November 15, 2019 7 hours ago, sblitz said: Okay, so isn't 24MP ASPC sensor not good professionally ..... less was more than acceptable up until recently. So how professionally speaking is 47MP better? Getty knew exactly in 2010: Quote Our panel of in-house experts has reviewed the latest digital equipment to help provide guidelines on what we consider to be acceptable images for submission to Getty Images. You can click on the links below to find out how some of these cameras performed. “At present, the following cameras are recommended and approved for submissions to Getty Images. This list is updated regularly with results from our digital testing team. Canon EOS: 5D Mk 1/2; 30D; 40D; 1D Mk 1/2/3; 1D Mk2n; 1DS Mk 1/2/3Nikon: D2X; D2Xs; D3; D3X; D90; D200; D300; D700Leica: M8; M8.2; X1Olympus: E3Pentax: K20DSony: A900 https://petapixel.com/2010/08/06/leica-x1-becomes-the-only-compact-on-gettys-approved-cameras-list/ 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_w Posted November 15, 2019 Share #59 Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) I seem to be the only person on the forum troubled by EVF lag. With my CL, I often capture a photo just after the intended image, e.g. as the subject is starting to blink, or look away, or whatever. This never happened with the OVF of the M series and is a reason I, for one, would remain conservative in my choice of future M cameras. Edited November 15, 2019 by rob_w 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted November 15, 2019 Share #60 Posted November 15, 2019 vor 13 Stunden schrieb ECohen: I can only speak for myself but I have no need for 47 mp. As a hobbyist 24mp is more than enough. And frankly the apc sensor is more than enough. The APS-C sensor is half fullframe. That means one uses only half of the capacity of an M-lens. Your Super Elmar 21mm lens is a 30mm only. 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.