Confessions of a defector to Sony

[elambo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/4/2022 at 6:04 AM, MJB said:

I don't understand this relentless need to move forward with new gear.

I agree 100%, but humans tend to get complacent and bored, and *new* is exciting. That said, I can't even count the number of times I've "upgraded" into something miserably worse than the original thing. So I get the upgrading. But I hate it. I wish I didn't do it. Because I'm hyper I'll continue to do it.

What works against these types of people is the fact that electronics have a tendency to get cheaper and less reliable with each new release, as companies get successful and more profit-minded. Ask a repairperson of any kind (but especially home appliance) about trends in reliability.

New features and functional abilities... that's another story.

Edited August 5, 2022 by elambo

[MJB]

6 hours ago, elambo said:

I agree 100%, but humans tend to get complacent and bored, and *new* is exciting. That said, I can't even count the number of times I've "upgraded" into something miserably worse than the original thing. So I get the upgrading. But I hate it. I wish I didn't do it. Because I'm hyper I'll continue to do it.

What works against these types of people is the fact that electronics have a tendency to get cheaper and less reliable with each new release, as companies get successful and more profit-minded. Ask a repairperson of any kind (but especially home appliance) about trends in reliability.

New features and functional abilities... that's another story.

Believe me, I can GAS with the best of them, but I find it’s much more affordable to stay at least one or two generations behind the latest release, and try not to get caught up in spec sheet comparisons or marketing BS.

Its all relative. The CL may seem a bit long in the tooth but it’s absolute wizardry as compared to my first camera, a Nikon FG (which I wish I still had, lol!). 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MJB said:

compared to my first camera, a Nikon FG (which I wish I still had, lol!). 

Hey, that was my first camera as well! Christmas 1986.

[MJB]

7 minutes ago, Studienkamera said:

Hey, that was my first camera as well! Christmas 1986.

Small world! Mine was a hand me down from my dad for my first high school photography class in 1992. 

[Archiver]

On 7/31/2022 at 11:42 AM, MJB said:

Where Sony really loses me, and I know this is shallow, is in their uninspired industrial design and user interface, not to mention their lack of any real legacy in the camera world.  I know this is dumb, and they are still very capable cameras, but for me cameras are at least partially an emotional purchase and the Sonys just don't scratch that itch for me.  I wish  when they had acquired Minolta they would've just produced cameras under that brand, especially since they're intent on re-using the "alpha 7" trademark.  If these cameras were styled like a Minolta X-E or Maxxum they would be so much more appealing.  Or, even better, given Sony's close relationship to Zeiss they could've licensed the Contax name and resurrected that marque (again, biased here, as the Porsche-designed Contax cameras are my personal high watermark of camera industrial design). But alas, they decided to slap "Sony" on the front of their cameras along with a million fiddly buttons and labels and I can't help but think of a TV, VCR, or a Walkman.  I mean, granted, Sony is a top tier electronics company and generally make products at the top of their segment, but I really think they missed an opportunity in terms of branding here.  Of course at this point they've more than made a name for themselves as a camera maker, but I don't think they've fully shaken their "appliance-like" reputation, in terms of design and user interface.

Anyway, I'm not attempting to argue with anyone or criticize their choices.  I think the Sonys generally make a lot of sense, and I will be the first to admit that the reasons they don't make sense for me are generally vague, irrational, and illogical - but the heart wants what the heart wants, lol!

Voigtlander as it is today is a licensed use of a name to produce lenses and previously film bodies by a Japanese manufacturer, so I get where you're coming from. On my Panasonic S5 right now is a Minolta W Rokkor 24mm f2.8, beside a 50/1.4, 35/2.8, 135/2.8 and newly acquired 35-70 Macro. More will come. The first SLR I ever handled as a wee bairn was Dad's Minolta SRT Super. When Sony acquired Minolta, they continued with their lens mount and basic camera structure for some time as they developed, so Minolta DNA is woven into Sony's DSLR's and SLT cameras. And interestingly, digital camera technology has developed so much over the past 20+ years that one can look back at the first Kodak DSLR's, the first Sony Mavica disc cameras, and see history in itself. Sony's acquisition of Minolta gave them much needed expertise in camera and lens design, and now they make full blown cinema cameras used in Hollywood blockbusters.

[pgk]

23 hours ago, jaapv said:

Apples and oranges. The M8 was an APS camera, the 1Ds a full-frame one. 
The 1DS series compares better to the Leica S  the 
M8 to the 10D

The M8 was an expensive rangefinder - with R&D costs. Specifications of cameras change over time and the latest dSLRs have followed a different trajectory from Leica Rangefinders. The Leica rangefinder progression is to me a very weird one which bears little relationship to its usage and smms to try to justify silly pricing. The M8 even though it was an APS rangefinder was much cheaper than top dSLRs and I wonder just how much the M11 has advanced other than in terms of sensor and electronis - which are a cost shared by other digital cameras and unlikely to be orders of magnitude different. In my mind there is no doubt that the M11 is an over-specified and over-priced model. And the CL and its demise are illustrative of Leica's desire to move up into a different market. Doing so may be profitable but will also separate Leica from its heritage of being cameras used to take genuinely great photographs. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is silly pricing? My definition is a price at which a product does not sell. It appears to me that the Leica M sells quite well. Sensors are not “shared” as the sensor or the M is always a special design in terms of micro lenses and filters, Thus a small and über-expensive production run, electronics are not shared as they have to fit inside an antiquated body. Eg. the motherboard of the M10/11 had to be moved and split from being soldered behind the sensor That took a year of development. Obviously as many generic parts will be used as possible but you can’t simply transplant the innards of a DSLR. . 

[lct]

52 minutes ago, pgk said:

And the CL and its demise are illustrative of Leica's desire to move up into a different market. Doing so may be profitable but will also separate Leica from its heritage of being cameras used to take genuinely great photographs. 

More or less what some of us used to say about the demise of the film CL 40+ years ago. Nothing new under the sun, except that Leica did not say why they terminated the CL then if memory serves me well. Each time the desire to move into a different market was not a desire to move up but to move down and each time it failed. 

Edited August 6, 2022 by lct

[rob_w]

2 hours ago, lct said:

More or less what some of us used to say about the demise of the film CL 40+ years ago.

The difference is, Leica abandoned an entire system this time.

[lct]

17 minutes ago, rob_w said:

The difference is, Leica abandoned an entire system this time.

They stopped making lenses for CL too (Elmar-C 90/4, Summicron-C 40/2). They abandoned the entire R system also in 2009 and it was not only a couple of lenses you can trust me.

[pgk]

31 minutes ago, lct said:

They stopped making lenses for CL too (Elmar-C 90/4, Summicron-C 40/2). They abandoned the entire R system also in 2009 and it was not only a couple of lenses you can trust me.

The CL lenses can still be used on M cameras. R lenses can still be used via adapter on many cameras. TL lenses can only be used on an abandoned system ...... or on L cameras where they can only deliver a cropped format. and where they are at a clear and obvious disadvantage.

[MJB]

33 minutes ago, pgk said:

The CL lenses can still be used on M cameras. R lenses can still be used via adapter on many cameras. TL lenses can only be used on an abandoned system ...... or on L cameras where they can only deliver a cropped format. and where they are at a clear and obvious disadvantage.

This is true, but I suspect that it won't be long until we see an SL3 or SL4 with crop modes that exceed the resolution of the CL/TL2.  At that point, TL lenses will have a better platform for use than they do now, and they will always be much lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the native SL lenses.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, MJB said:

This is true, but I suspect that it won't be long until we see an SL3 or SL4 with crop modes that exceed the resolution of the CL/TL2.  At that point, TL lenses will have a better platform for use than they do now, and they will always be much lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the native SL lenses.

Yes, they may just offer a cheap Leica lens for SL camera buyers but they will still be of limited appeal. I'm not suggesting that Leica repeals its CL decision but the demise of the CL and the rather strange specs and high cost of the M11 do signal an odd direction for Leica to move in and hardly one which is motivated by offering really useful photographic tools. I fear it indicates a desire to produce esoteric, expensive and profitable equipment at the expense of its real usability.

[insomnia]

From a rational standpoint the switch makes sense. For a professional I'd even say it's a must to go for "serious manufacturers" with top notch pro-service. 

But: as amateur I'm happy if I like to use my system. After I sold my M9-P to downsize I've tried the A7II with 28 and 55. I sold it within 3 months as it wasn't a joy to use. The results were alright (lenses were sub-par) and I'm sure the newer cameras are better with respect to EVF, autofocus and output. I didn't like the haptic feel of the body and the menu system was awful and I believe compared to Leica it still is. Colors out of camera are significantly more pleasant with the Leicas, but I must admit I heavily edit the files and it doesn't really matter. So it comes down to the "do I like to pick up the camera?". And Leica delivers in that regard.

[lct]

59 minutes ago, pgk said:

TL lenses can only be used on an abandoned system ...... or on L cameras where they can only deliver a cropped format. and where they are at a clear and obvious disadvantage.

Not sure how could they become full frame suddenly... Crop lenses they are, crop lenses they remain for ever. And it is a good thing if you are after compact lenses. I have only one TL lens to be honest, an excellent Sigma 18-50/2.8, but i keep it for the CL and after it for the SL3 in crop mode or a compact Sigma with or w/o Foveon sensor.

[MJB]

26 minutes ago, pgk said:

Yes, they may just offer a cheap Leica lens for SL camera buyers but they will still be of limited appeal. I'm not suggesting that Leica repeals its CL decision but the demise of the CL and the rather strange specs and high cost of the M11 do signal an odd direction for Leica to move in and hardly one which is motivated by offering really useful photographic tools. I fear it indicates a desire to produce esoteric, expensive and profitable equipment at the expense of its real usability.

I agree that Leica is moving in an odd direction but it's not really anything new, I suppose.  On one hand, they play up this image as a classic tool for reportage and gritty street photography, but then seem to have an inordinate focus on producing increasingly ridiculous special editions, and even their core, flagship product has become almost unattainably expensive.  I mean, we're talking nearly five figures (USD) for a camera body - that is pretty mind numbing.

I do think TL lenses may well appeal to relatively budget-conscious Leica shooters in the future, when some full-frame L-mount camera offers a crop mode at least as capable as the current APS-C cameras.  I mean, why wouldn't they? They are real Leica lenses through and through, of modern design and autofocus-capable - certainly not the MOST desirable Leica lenses ever, but for the price relative to the SL lenses, I'm sure there will always be takers.

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, lct said:

They stopped making lenses for CL too (Elmar-C 90/4, Summicron-C 40/2). They abandoned the entire R system also in 2009 and it was not only a couple of lenses you can trust me.

Actually they abandoned the R system slightly after the turn of the century and only confirmed it in 2009. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Actually they abandoned the R system slightly after the turn of the century and only confirmed it in 2009. 

I was too young i don't remember

[rob_w]

7 hours ago, lct said:

They abandoned the entire R system also in 2009 and it was not only a couple of lenses you can trust me.

At various times I owned 4 different R bodies and 7 different lenses, so I trust you.  But that abandonment was due to the rise of digital photography.  Every manufacturer had to make that transition.  As a system, I had 30 years use of R cameras and lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

Then you remember that the R10 was expected to be released in 2010 and that it was supposed to come with one autofocus lens then. Decisions had not been made to abandon the R system yet.