Huss
Mentor
Kinda funny I couldn't tell the difference between your phone and the SL.
:angel:
(but that's on me)
Larry Cloetta
Mentor
The problem with this thread hasn't been classism, the problem has been classlessness.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
naren
Established
Good discussion guys, let's keep it classy or easy going. I've read this fairly closely, not "word for word"... and I would offer a couple points I think not mentioned in favor of the SL. When first announced I was salivating over the Leitz 24-90mm zoom because it offers at least an extra 10mm focal length... really 20mm more than most systems 24-70mm "go to" lens. This comes down to "how you shoot", "what you shoot" and handling the lens may turn me off because of size/balance but for me and some other photographers I think this is a significant benefit. Shooting portraits or fashion I see it as a potential improvement in flow... not having to switch lenses as much. The other thing, if you are a working pro cannot be discounted in the Sony A7x vs. Leica SL comparisons is the twin cards. If it happens once in five years, I would spend thousands of extra dollars not to lose a whole cards worth of shots lost to a corrupted card. That may not apply to most shooters in this thread but it is an important point. These are pro-grade cameras. I guess this Fuji has twin cards, but it's not even out yet and that makes it a little unfair to compare with the SL. The value of medium format and the extra pixels if you are a pro shooter still depends quite specifically who your clients are. I haven't picked up an SL but I was looking at the S and the Hassleblad X-1D or whatever it is called recently. I think it has a nice price point. It won't do as many FPS as the S, but it's light, has EVF and I think synchs flash at all speeds. This camera's price pt. is closer to the SL than the S if I recall correctly. So again we're comparing a newer camera to a litter bit older one- a point for renting vs. buying if you are pro shooter. The other cameras that offer twin cards I guess are the top Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Personally, I've been a digital Nikon shooter and recently switched to Sony, RF M-mount buff among other 35s, and I'm not sure where I come down on my next digital camera investment. The last thing I have to add to this discussion is regarding a comment (I forget who made it) about Sony BSI sensor (behind Canon in pixels) as the "best". I've been led to believe the Nikon D5 is in a class of it's own for low light sensitivity. So be careful using "best". I think the take away here is that for some the SL is worthwhile, but for most it is not. And undoubtedly it is a great camera.
squirrel$$$bandit
Mentor
That's really the whole point, eh?
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Now this photo is rather more interesting from a technical perspective...
Godfrey, do you believe the reds are "blown' here?
For a lot of us here, exactly the point. However, to some, cameras are only tools and anything will work. Nothing wrong with either approach.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I wish the Leica R lenses were still cheap. They are really good but now all the video people are buying them up
Brennan,
I was on a shoot and this videographer had a tricked out A7 with follow focus and a full kit of all "R" glass. A very cool kit.
This videographer spoke very highly of how the "R" glass worked on the A7.
Anyways it surely was a hot rig.
Cal
Huss
Mentor
I still want an SL.
I'd like a Q... secretly.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Yeah, there's a few companies out there rehousing them and they sell for a *ton* of money. A guy came in the store with a Pelican case full of them one day before I quit working in the store.
I'd like a Q... secretly.
Now THAT is a great camera. I love borrowing those when I get the chance.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Brennan,
No lie: the rig was so hot it made me want to buy an A7, even though I'm not a videographer.
Mucho compact.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I'd like a Q... secretly.
John,
No secrete that I would love a "Q," but who will lend me the money? LOL.
We all have to suffer, constrain ourselves, and deal with GAS.
For my wannabee "Q" I have a F5 with the Nikkon 28/1.4 AF-D. Yes it is about as close to a "Q" as I can get, but in a film camera.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Huss,
What is the workaround for the electronic VF'er induced headaches?
For an optical VF'er there is still the M10, but the M240 you already have is still a great camera.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
They aren't ... there's detail right down into them and they're expressed with more fidelity on paper or on-screen at 1:1 when looking at the 16-bit file. The down-sized 8-bit JPEG does mush them up a bit.
G
Huss
Mentor
I dunno, give myself a headache by reading the comments section on dpreview, so I won't notice the one I get from the SL?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I got contacted by my dealer and it seems I'm next on the list for a 50 Lux-SL. I had to pre-order this lens and use to be number 7 on a list. Shortly after Leica ships to my dealer I'll get forwarded the delivery.
This lens is certainly big and is only about a half inch shorter that the gigantic 24-90 zoom when it is collapsed. Also by spec sheet it is only 2.6 ounces lighter. So it is what it is, but I think I will name this lens "Porky." The criticism that this lens is big is no lie.
I got to play with John the Leica Specialist's 50 Lux. The AF was noticably slower, even with the most recent updated firmware. I expect further improvement with future updates.
As far as lens sizes go people should know that a 35 Lux-R has a E67 filter size and if side-by-side with an 80 Lux know that both lenses are the same size meaning big. My 35 Lux- R is not lightweight either.
When one stacks adapters also realize that "R" glass the adapters adds considerably to the size of the package.
Also at a NYC Meet-Up Joe and I compared my 50 Lux-R "E60" against Joe's 50 Lux-R V1 (E55). Of course this was down and dirty comparing shots taken in a bar wide open and just chimping, but I was very surprised. I was expecting the E60 to crush the V1, but the V1 came really close to matching sharpness. Where the V1 looked to top the "E60" was in that the colors were more saturated and in tonality it seemed like the V1 had more detail. No clear winner here, but of course this was a down and dirty test and involved test shots that involved close focusing. The rendering certainly was different, both smooth, but perhaps the "E60" had a more modern rendering. The V1 really held its own.
For people looking for "R" glass that 50 Lux V1 is still a bargain, and I would look into it if you really want that SLR feel on a SL. If you really like SLR's the R glass is a good choice.
Also my Nikon SLR glass does well on the SL. The Noct-Nikkor is easy to nail the focus, and via a Novaflex F-M adapter I'm able to use the "M" profile menu and use the Noctilux F1.2 profile which works like it was made for it. For the 45/2.8P I use the 50 Elmar Profile since both are Tessars. Overall the 45/2.8P added with the adapters sizes up to be about the size of a 28/2.8 AIS.
If I didn't own a 28 Cron I would get a Nikon 28/2.8 AIS.
Cal
This lens is certainly big and is only about a half inch shorter that the gigantic 24-90 zoom when it is collapsed. Also by spec sheet it is only 2.6 ounces lighter. So it is what it is, but I think I will name this lens "Porky." The criticism that this lens is big is no lie.
I got to play with John the Leica Specialist's 50 Lux. The AF was noticably slower, even with the most recent updated firmware. I expect further improvement with future updates.
As far as lens sizes go people should know that a 35 Lux-R has a E67 filter size and if side-by-side with an 80 Lux know that both lenses are the same size meaning big. My 35 Lux- R is not lightweight either.
When one stacks adapters also realize that "R" glass the adapters adds considerably to the size of the package.
Also at a NYC Meet-Up Joe and I compared my 50 Lux-R "E60" against Joe's 50 Lux-R V1 (E55). Of course this was down and dirty comparing shots taken in a bar wide open and just chimping, but I was very surprised. I was expecting the E60 to crush the V1, but the V1 came really close to matching sharpness. Where the V1 looked to top the "E60" was in that the colors were more saturated and in tonality it seemed like the V1 had more detail. No clear winner here, but of course this was a down and dirty test and involved test shots that involved close focusing. The rendering certainly was different, both smooth, but perhaps the "E60" had a more modern rendering. The V1 really held its own.
For people looking for "R" glass that 50 Lux V1 is still a bargain, and I would look into it if you really want that SLR feel on a SL. If you really like SLR's the R glass is a good choice.
Also my Nikon SLR glass does well on the SL. The Noct-Nikkor is easy to nail the focus, and via a Novaflex F-M adapter I'm able to use the "M" profile menu and use the Noctilux F1.2 profile which works like it was made for it. For the 45/2.8P I use the 50 Elmar Profile since both are Tessars. Overall the 45/2.8P added with the adapters sizes up to be about the size of a 28/2.8 AIS.
If I didn't own a 28 Cron I would get a Nikon 28/2.8 AIS.
Cal
If I thought I'd use it a lot, I'd buy it (28mm not being something I use always). If a 50mm version comes out, I will have to.
Huss
Mentor
Everyone's favourite blogger Steve Huff agrees with me. He unloaded his M10 and went back to the SL. The SL gives him a far higher hit rate of in focus pics than the M10 does.
" My eyes are not what they used to be, and the M10 had me missing many shots for focus. I missed the SL, so went back to it even though I loved the M10 for its size and color. But the SL, for me, is a wonderful camera."
This is why I do not see any reason to move from the M240 to the M10, but I do to the SL. With the SL my photos would get technically better.
With the M10 I wouldn't notice any difference, apart from the impact to my wallet.
Darn it, I'm talking myself into the SL again. Sorta.
(yeah yeah yeah who cares about the opinion of a guy who only photographs his dog, his wife and a fire hydrant but when he agrees w me then everyone should listen! )
" My eyes are not what they used to be, and the M10 had me missing many shots for focus. I missed the SL, so went back to it even though I loved the M10 for its size and color. But the SL, for me, is a wonderful camera."
This is why I do not see any reason to move from the M240 to the M10, but I do to the SL. With the SL my photos would get technically better.
With the M10 I wouldn't notice any difference, apart from the impact to my wallet.
Darn it, I'm talking myself into the SL again. Sorta.
(yeah yeah yeah who cares about the opinion of a guy who only photographs his dog, his wife and a fire hydrant but when he agrees w me then everyone should listen!
)Emile de Leon
Well-known
Tuna..wisdom...