Leica SL compared to others of its kind

SaveKodak said:
The SL is unique in that it exhibits the kind of hubris of which only Leica is capable. It's similar to luxury watches in the sense that those proudly exhibiting one are asking to be mocked behind their backs. It's the kind of camera that the Emperor Has No Clothes was written for. The SL is basically a Nikon D600 wrapped in some nice metal with bazookas for lenses, which somehow manage to be both gigantic and variable aperture. But don't worry, they announced that a 35mm f2 will be announced at the NEXT Photokina. Have fun with your luxury D600. :bang:
Click to expand...

S-K,

My D3X has an anti alias filter; the SL does not. To me this is a big deal. At one point I was considering sending my D3X to a lab in New Jersey and having them strip out the anti alias filter.

While you may use the expression the "Emperor Has No Clothes" I say, "My 27 inch EIZO does not lie."

Focusing with a DSLR with manual focus lenses is no fun. Vague focus and being lucky at best, or shooting in continuous and bracketing the focus. Not really a good comparison comparing a D600 and the SL IMHO.

Yes I do wear a Rolex, but also know I eat nut butter sandwiches for lunch at work, on top of that I walk to work almost always to save a $2.75 Metrocard fare, and know I am a skinny guy. The point is that the money has to come from somewhere. I'm not as rich as you think. Know that I'm not trying to pretend that I am rich.

The stainless steel Submariner I wear is over 12 years old, has been running non-stop during that time, and never has been serviced. Today I can sell it for more money than I paid for it new in 2004. At this point because it is an earlier Rolex with a simpler dial it is actually collectable.

I will concede that availability of new glass is a bottleneck, but all my M-glass works rather nicely, the Noct-Nikkor is rather lovely and easy to use, and the "R" glass is wonderful in the meantime. Meanwhile I await the fast primes.

The AF 50 Lux looks to be the same filter size as the 24-90 and the barrel perhaps a half inch shorter. No doubt it is gigantic for a 50, but I would not discount the lens yet except that because it has fewer groups and elements it should be lighter. While not for everyone...

Cal
 
brennanphotoguy said:
Then you could use an A7RII and have a much better sensor and spend a lot less money.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not buying a SL. But I do understand why someone would. A Sony is not a suitable replacement IMO. It's an ergonomic disaster. I'm just not a fan... it feels like a remote control in my hand. Sure, it's the better economical purchase, and it will be better for some types of photos, but sensors aren't everything to many of us. All of these cameras are great for photography. It comes down to ergonomics and the little things... and Sony is the worst when it comes to ergonomics and the little subtle things that make a camera special.

The M lenses balance a ton better on the smaller A7 bodies anyways.
Click to expand...

but I said M and R.

The X1D and GFX are the same price or cheaper than an SL with any of the SL lenses and someone who is buying into a new system would have to have a couple screws loose to try and justify an SL over either of the two new digital medium format options which offer much better.....everything.
Click to expand...

Unless you want to use lenses designed for FF 35mm sized sensor.

Disclaimer: I'd buy the Hassleblad. ;)
 
SaveKodak said:
The Sony A7RII sensor is objectively a far better piece of technology for less than half the cost.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the VF'er is half as good.

When I think of technology it is not just the sensor.

When I look at a performance car do I buy a Hellcat because it has 700 horsepower, or a Ford GT 350 with a meager 500 HP that is basically a track car that is street legal? For me I like the GT 350, but the Hellcat is still a cool car.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
S-K,

My D3X has an anti alias filter; the SL does not. To me this is a big deal. At one point I was considering sending my D3X to a lab in New Jersey and having them strip out the anti alias filter.

While you may use the expression the "Emperor Has No Clothes" I say, "My 27 inch EIZO does not lie."

Focusing with a DSLR with manual focus lenses is no fun. Vague focus and being lucky at best, or shooting in continuous and bracketing the focus. Not really a good comparison comparing a D600 and the SL IMHO.

Yes I do wear a Rolex, but also know I eat nut butter sandwiches for lunch at work, on top of that I walk to work almost always to save a $2.75 Metrocard fare, and know I am a skinny guy. The point is that the money has to come from somewhere. I'm not as rich as you think. Know that I'm not trying to pretend that I am rich.

The stainless steel Submariner I wear is over 12 years old, has been running non-stop during that time, and never has been serviced. Today I can sell it for more money than I paid for it new in 2004. At this point because it is an earlier Rolex with a simpler dial it is actually collectable.

I will concede that availability of new glass is a bottleneck, but all my M-glass works rather nicely, the Noct-Nikkor is rather lovely and easy to use, and the "R" glass is wonderful in the meantime. Meanwhile I await the fast primes.

The AF 50 Lux looks to be the same filter size as the 24-90 and the barrel perhaps a half inch shorter. No doubt it is gigantic for a 50, but I would not discount the lens yet except that because it has fewer groups and elements it should be lighter. While not for everyone...

Cal
Click to expand...

Great, you could have gotten an A7RII and had it Kolari Mod'd and then you'd actually have the best sensor available commercially. But instead you paid over 7 grand for the joy that owning a Leica brings you. But arguing that you're getting anything beyond the enjoyment of owning an expensive thing is like arguing that a Birkin bag is better at carrying stuff.

As to your Rolex reference. Well it's great that those have appreciated, however M240s are currently near 50% of their New price and only going down. Digital Leica's are not investments.
 
jsrockit said:
Ok, I'm not buying a SL. But I do understand why someone would. A Sony is not a suitable replacement IMO. It's an ergonomic disaster. I'm just not a fan... it feels like a remote control in my hand. Sure, it's the better economical purchase, and it will be better for some types of photos, but sensors aren't everything to many of us. All of these cameras are great for photography. It comes down to ergonomics and the little things... and Sony is the worst when it comes to ergonomics and the little subtle things that make a camera special.



but I said M and R.



Unless you want to use lenses designed for FF 35mm sized sensor.

Disclaimer: I'd buy the Hassleblad. ;)
Click to expand...

I'll definitely agree that the ergonomics of the A7 are far from the best and the menus suck at first but once you get it all laid out it's easy and you don't normally have to dive into the firey pit of hell which is the Sony menu system.

Most of the R lenses are similar-ish in size to their M counter parts until you get to the extreme ends of the spectrum and are just fine on the A7 as well.

I'm a GFX kind of guy because I'm down for adapting all the good old stuff as well ;) haha. The X1D looks awesome from a size standpoint and if I shot more landscapes and travelled more and needed a camera for that with that kind of resolution it would be my choice as well. And it looks dope, so there's that too lol.
 
SaveKodak said:
The SL is unique in that it exhibits the kind of hubris of which only Leica is capable. It's similar to luxury watches in the sense that those proudly exhibiting one are asking to be mocked behind their backs. It's the kind of camera that the Emperor Has No Clothes was written for. The SL is basically a Nikon […] :bang:
Click to expand...

Please: be so kind and always write «Leica SL» when you're talking about «Leica SL».

Otherwise, people like me — albeit I'm born after the introduction of the camera in question — could guess that you're trying to bash the «Leicaflex SL», and in that case I would be forced to tell you that you're talking Bravo Sierra. :D
 
Calzone said:
Perhaps the VF'er is half as good.

When I think of technology it is not just the sensor.

When I look at a performance car do I buy a Hellcat because it has 700 horsepower, or a Ford GT 350 with a meager 500 HP that is basically a track car that is street legal? For me I like the GT 350, but the Hellcat is still a cool car.

Cal
Click to expand...

The VF in the SL has weird contrast and color. Sure it has more pixels but that really only results in a smoother image. You STILL have to zoom in to focus accuratly with a manual lens, just like you do with a Sony VF. The Sony VF OTOH have accurate colors and great contrast. The Fuji's are the best of the bunch. And now you can get a Fuji medium format digital with 3 lenses available in year one that a photographer would actually want to use, for less than an SL with 1 lens.
 
brennanphotoguy said:
Then you could use an A7RII and have a much better sensor and spend a lot less money. The M lenses balance a ton better on the smaller A7 bodies anyways. The X1D and GFX are the same price or cheaper than an SL with any of the SL lenses and someone who is buying into a new system would have to have a couple screws loose to try and justify an SL over either of the two new digital medium format options which offer much better.....everything. Don't start on the "well the SL has higher FPS," thing because we know that people aren't using the SL like a flagship CaNikon body.
Click to expand...

Brennan,

I agree the M-lenses balance better on the smaller body, and M-lenses on the SL they seem too small. The twitchy focus of the M-glass bodes well on a M-body, but know that the long rotation of the thicker R lenses is no handicap. I'm an old SLR shooter so everything feels right to me.

Is it wrong to shoot film for medium format? Anyways I have mucho medium format film cameras.

In my case I was shooting a flagship Nikon, a D3X, I did some serious inquiry whether the camera could be tethered, and because all my small format glass could be used the utility of buying the SL to replace a D3X seems to be a good choice because I like the camera. If I wanted to use the SL as a full blown studio camera, I think it would work rather well.

The spin that it costs more or is expensive is a moot point.

Cal
 
brennanphotoguy said:
I'm a GFX kind of guy because I'm down for adapting all the good old stuff as well ;) haha. The X1D looks awesome from a size standpoint and if I shot more landscapes and travelled more and needed a camera for that with that kind of resolution it would be my choice as well. And it looks dope, so there's that too lol.
Click to expand...

You seemingly can't go wrong with either.
 
SaveKodak said:
The Fuji's are the best of the bunch. And now you can get a Fuji medium format digital with 3 lenses available in year one that a photographer would actually want to use, for less than an SL with 1 lens.
Click to expand...

S-K,

The MF Fuji is a very appealing camera for sure. My money is already spent.

For me it was not a mistake. Like you I first handled the SL at PhotoPlusExpo 2015. The SL impressed me back then. I also thought it was odd that Leica did not premier fast primes over zooms.

Know that my small format gear gets more use, but also know that I have mucho MF film gear. I have no regrets. The SL is a great camera for me.

I happen to own a Fuji GL690 and GM670 and mucho Fuji glass.

I also print.

Cal
 
brennanphotoguy said:
I'll definitely agree that the ergonomics of the A7 are far from the best and the menus suck at first but once you get it all laid out it's easy and you don't normally have to dive into the firey pit of hell which is the Sony menu system.

Most of the R lenses are similar-ish in size to their M counter parts until you get to the extreme ends of the spectrum and are just fine on the A7 as well.
Click to expand...

Brennan,

Call me an old man. At my age (I have had a hard life) I want and enjoy the comfort. If there is a luxury premium I decided to pay the price for the comfort.

How much am I willing to pay for a camera that offends my intelligence by being more complicated than I am. At my age I do not want to struggle unless it is fun. The A7 never interest me.

I'm not saying that the SL is inexpensive, or that it doesn't have a luxury premium, but for me struggling with the menu and ergonomics would discourage my enjoyment.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top