A plea for simplicity

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I traded my SL2 in for the SL2-S after 3 months, because I wanted the better low light performance and I didn’t want more pixels. 

Now I have had the Q2 a short while and seen what Leica is doing with the M11, I see that they are experimenting with ways to make more pixels make sense. I don’t think they have found a new paradigm yet but I think they are at least trying. I suspect other brands are trying the same: if you don’t need more than 24 pixels to make an image that will look good at typical print sizes, then is there a better way to exploit a sensor with 50+mp that actually helps you with taking photographs? Just as long as they don’t wreck what they have in the process. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[IkarusJohn]

I’ve always been of the view that I don’t mind about megapixels, so long as there isn’t a disadvantage to having them.  That said, my experience has also been that larger pixels give better images.  I still happily use my 18MP Monochrom, and I loved my X1D II (I just didn’t need another system, and decided to stay with the M & SL).

[PeterGA]

I don't mind more megapixels because the typical shot I like to make with SL2 is in the 3:1 aspect ratio so I get around 25 megapixels from that - I wish Leica would add the aspect ratio choices it provides in the SL2 to the M11 - 60 megapixels would give me a 30 ish MP pano - the only reason I still hang on to my GFX100 is because it delivers a 50 MP pano and plays better with studio flash.

 

I do appreciate the fact that Leica is 'standardising' the menu system across all its cameras - I guess this is a form of simplification for those of use who use multiple camera bodies.

Edited June 4, 2022 by PeterGA

[beewee]

7 hours ago, NERICSSON said:

And without video

I don’t understand this anti-video fetish. Just don’t use it.

On the SL, if you never swiped the screen left/right on the menu page and you never look at reviews or read the manual, you could shoot an entire life time without realizing there is video capability. I don’t know how much more low key you can get a camera. Video mode on the SL, from a user experience point of view, is effectively nonexistant unless you want it.

[NERICSSON]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I really don’t understand this at all.

The Q has a fixed lens, with leaf shutter, dedicated to its sensor and EVF.  Which bit do you like? The SL system already has all that, at the cost of size.

What I like with Q is the interface, once set its so easy to adjust shutter speed or aperture without even looking on the camera, its like an extension of my arm. That feeling and simplicity I would like on a camera where I could change lenses. Also its really nice to be able to set the camera without the need to switch it on. 

It would be possible with SL format to adopt the Q interface, dedicated knobs for the essentials, shutter and iso(iso missing on Q...), Aperture goes on the lens. 

[NERICSSON]

59 minutes ago, beewee said:

I don’t understand this anti-video fetish. Just don’t use it.

I might be influenced by the Q where you by misstake can activate video even if its disabled in menu 🙂

Also, I suspect that video drives camera size, better video requires better cooling and that drives size?

 

[jrichie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, adan said:

Well, to some extent, Leica users in particular (but not uniquely) suffer from "Princess and Pea" syndrome.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/princess.html

However:

SL body has a volume (height x depth x width) of 1300 cm^3 - Leica M11 body has a volume of 434 cm^3 - SL is 3 times the volume of the M11. One has to count the SL's protuding eyepiece and "faux-prism" hump.

SL body weighs 916 grams - Leica M11 weighs 530g (black) to 640g (silver) - the SL weighs 43-73% more than an M11.

And that, of course, does not include the weigh and size of their "native" lenses - 35 APO-Summicron-SL weighs 750 grams, 35mm APO-Summicron-M weighs 320 grams.

The SL with 35mm SL lens weighs 1.66 kg - the silver M11 and 35 APO M lens weighs less than 1 kg (960 grams) or in black, only 850g (less than the weight of an SL without any lens, and virtually half the weight (51%) of the SL with its equivalent lens.)

great summary on the sizing.

I will add my simple summary of one is an autofocus camera with huge lenses, and the other a manual focus camera with small lenses.

I have both.  SL2S for taking images of my work and the M11 for taking images as a hobby.  One needs to be done quickly, the other I take my time.

 

..... back on topic, I would give anything for a simple 24mp modern M with EVF.  

Edited June 4, 2022 by jrichie

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

The Q has a fixed lens, with leaf shutter

The thing I most noticed when I started using the Q2 was how quiet it was. I used it in the front row of a solo classical song recital without disturbing anyone. It's quieter than the M11, without that camera's disturbing extended shutter action. Any notion of giving the Q series an interchangeable lens would eliminate that.

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, NERICSSON said:

I might be influenced by the Q where you by misstake can activate video even if its disabled in menu 🙂

Also, I suspect that video drives camera size, better video requires better cooling and that drives size?

 

I'm not sure how you can mistakenly activate video! It's the same interface on the Q2 as on the SL series. The SL is the only one where I got confused with video, and that was on the first day of ownership when I was learning how to use it without looking at the manual.

But I'm curious: how do you disable video in the Q menu (tho' I have the Q2)?

Edited June 4, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[Chris W]

4 hours ago, beewee said:

I don’t understand this anti-video fetish. Just don’t use it.

 

Sure, I don't, but we're talking in praise of simplicity, and video brings a whole additional menu, plus often separate shutter buttons on the body.

I shoot video at 25fps and the two native ISO (100 and 1250 on the FP). Shutter speed set at 50.

On the FP there is a dedicated switch between stills and video, but until recently nothing else much changed. So a few times I was shooting stills and my images were all blurred and I realised the camera was still set at 50 (iso100). In a recent update they've synced the camera settings to the stills and cinema modes.

[Chris W]

I loved my Q. Great form factor and superb images. In the end I never loved the 28mm view and felt I had so much money tied up in a camera I found difficult to use.

If it was 35mm I would probably still have it now. The Q IS simple to set up and use.

The Fuji XT3 is the prime example of over complicated to me. Too many buttons, too deep a menu system.

If you go back to film you quickly realise where we've ended up (also in part due to video features). I recently bought an old Bronica SQ-B medium format.

There are four controls - mirror lock up, film speed, shutter speed and aperture. That's it. Three controls on an M6? 

[NERICSSON]

21 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm not sure how you can mistakenly activate video! It's the same interface on the Q2 as on the SL series. The SL is the only one where I got confused with video, and that was on the first day of ownership when I was learning how to use it without looking at the manual.

But I'm curious: how do you disable video in the Q menu (tho' I have the Q2)?

Its a little confusing to say the least, this discussion cover it:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263927-mode-lock-photovideo/

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, NERICSSON said:

Its a little confusing to say the least, this discussion cover it:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263927-mode-lock-photovideo/

Ah - I see the Q had a separate video button like the SL. The Q2 (nor SL2, SL2-S) does not, so the question of disabling it doesn't arise (or not in the same context).

[tom.w.bn]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb adan:

Well, to some extent, Leica users in particular (but not uniquely) suffer from "Princess and Pea" syndrome.

http://hca.gilead.org.il/princess.html

However:

SL body has a volume (height x depth x width) of 1300 cm^3 - Leica M11 body has a volume of 434 cm^3 - SL is 3 times the volume of the M11. One has to count the SL's protuding eyepiece and "faux-prism" hump.

SL body weighs 916 grams - Leica M11 weighs 530g (black) to 640g (silver) - the SL weighs 43-73% more than an M11.

And that, of course, does not include the weigh and size of their "native" lenses - 35 APO-Summicron-SL weighs 750 grams, 35mm APO-Summicron-M weighs 320 grams.

The SL with 35mm SL lens weighs 1.66 kg - the silver M11 and 35 APO M lens weighs less than 1 kg (960 grams) or in black, only 850g (less than the weight of an SL without any lens, and virtually half the weight (51%) of the SL with its equivalent lens.)

From the pure specs you are right if you compare it that way.

I don't care about weight too much. Size in my backpack is relevant. In my small mountainbike backback no SL/Panasonic fits in but no Leica M either, here it's the Ricoh GR III. In my hiking backpack the S1R+2 Pana-zooms takes roughly the same space as a Leica digital M+EVF+18+24+50+90. When I take the S1R+24-105 and LeicaM + 24+50+90, the size advantage is with the Panasonic combi.

For me the advantage of the Leica is, when you only take the camera with one lens and walk around with it. So the use case is really relevant when discussing size and weight and the possible advantage of it.

 

[LBJ2]

😉

Edited June 5, 2022 by LBJ2