Lee Saxon wrote:
Not always though. I'd say the Q is quite competitive with the RX1r II.
I don't think anyone expected Leica to build a mass market product, but building the SL as a luxury product for the 17 people who buy the M240 when there definitely seemed to be real interest (actual sales) to be had in an interchangeable-mount Q, is just shooting themselves in the foot.
This is ridiculous. The M240 is Leica's bread and butter camera. It is absurd to suggest that it is a non selling product.
Luvwine wrote:
How are any of your points relevant to the post I made? I was simply providing a counterpoint to the resale value argument. I did not bash the SL..
Chill. I didn't attack you.
mawz wrote:
To be correct, Sony has fixed the lossy RAW compression issue on the A7RII, the 2.0 firmware with the fix came out Monday.
They haven't fixed it for my a7II and as far as I know the loss of bit depth in multi-shot mode persists.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Or maybe is the A7 too tiny? Is it a miniaturization contest?
for some people (me and at least 2 other guys) it is a miniaturization contest. the a7 is too damn big already.
the size of the SL is fine for what it is (an R solution/continuation), but it's lame for people like me who were hoping for an evf based m lens platform.
mawz wrote:
That's sourced from Ming originally from what I've read, his shooting style tends to much better life than CIPA standard. Little chimping, no flash. $250 is ridiculous though, 1st party batteries are already wildly marked up at 1/3 that cost.
No flip screen is a deal-ender for me. Absolute design fail in a mirrorless body, and moderate fail in a DSLR. Articulated screens are simply such a massive improvement for tripod and non-eyelevel handheld work that I wouldn't buy a body without one today. For those who don't like them, high-end ones are thin and tuck away readily (like on my E-M1)
Sony does not cover themselves in glory with the battery for the A7. They should have used the A99 battery rather than the low-capacity battery from the smaller NEX series. The issue here isn't so much power management as it is a tiny battery with inadequate capacity for the camera's needs.
Yeah but what you all fail to realised is that Leica believes that everyone owns a smart phone. So if they make an app that works well, why do you need a flip up screen?
The battery IS unreasonable, but not the only brand to do it. If you consider 1 series batteries from the 1Ds3 days. But It's Leica, they're gonna gouge you as much as they can.
adamdewilde wrote:
Yeah but what you all fail to realised is that Leica believes that everyone owns a smart phone. So if they make an app that works well, why do you need a flip up screen?
have you ever tried to shoot TLR style using your phone as the viewfinder? the flip screen is great for people who enjoy waist level shooting.
If you're going to sort it out that way, then Canon has EF, EF-S, M, GX, and PowerShot, Nikon has FX, DX, 1, A, and Coolpix, Sony has the original Alpha mount FF and APS-C, E FF and APS-C, 3 flavors of RX, whatever they call the cell-phone lensors, and the action cam.
So, no, Leica doesn't even come close to their total, and doesn't even beat just Sony.
sebboh wrote:
for some people (me and at least 2 other guys) it is a miniaturization contest. the a7 is too damn big already.
the size of the SL is fine for what it is (an R solution/continuation), but it's lame for people like me who were hoping for an evf based m lens platform.
No argument here. We all have different tastes. I found the A7 way too small to hold comfortably.
I find the SL slightly too tall but the other dimensions are fine with me.
Luvwine wrote:
Regarding adopting R glass to this body, I fail to see what advantage it will have over adapting the same lenses to a Sony. They will still need an adapter and there would appear to be no advantage sensor compatibility wise (unlike with M wides). On the other hand, using R glass on recent Sony bodies allows the use of IBIS, which nets a significant advantage to the Sony quite apart from arguably superior sensor options in resolution and high ISO performance. What am I missing?
A deep bias against Sony and some possible corner and edge performance improvements with some R lenses.
sebboh wrote:
have you ever tried to shoot TLR style using your phone as the viewfinder? the flip screen is great for people who enjoy waist level shooting.
Hahaha... I was being semi sarcastic. Since that's what a Leica rep would tell you to do (download the app).
I don't need/like flip out screens.. I never have.
But since you asked. Yes I have with the Q. Just for fun. And it wasn't bad, but it's not something I'd want to do without a tripod obviously. So waste level shooting is out.
But I shoot my M without a flip out screen. And waste level. And I use the DOF scales..
When I went to pick up my press badge today at Photo Plus, I took a quick peek at the vendors setting up their booths. I didn't want to bother those working hard to put everything together today, so I just stole a glance, but I saw the rear o the SL with the 24-90 on it. It's definitely big. They had it sitting next to the S007, and it's definitely smaller than that, but not majorly so. I'll have hands on tomorrow or Friday.
As a side note, the show floor for PhotoPlus is SO much smaller than for that of Photokina. My guess is that the Koelnmesse is about 5-6x larger than the Javits center. Maybe even more. The Samsung booth at Photokina was about 3-4x the size of the combined floor space at PhotoPlus for Nikon, Sony, Canon and Olympus. I hope the crowds are correspondingly smaller, or it's going to be a nightmare to see anything.
freaklikeme wrote:
A deep bias against Sony and some possible corner and edge performance improvements with some R lenses.
I get the deep bias against Sony, but is there any evidence of problems with edge and corner performance with R lenses? I am not arguing, just genuinely curious. I have only had a few R lenses. I had the 28 v. II, which worked well, but was a bit soft in the absolute corners until stopped down. However, it seemed to match the MTF, so I did not infer it was a problem with any compatibility. The other two I have used are R telephotos--180/2.8 apo and 280/4 apo both of which seem to work exceedingly well.
I know about issues with some M glass on Sony, but never read there was an issue with R glass on Sony.
adamdewilde wrote:
Yeah but what you all fail to realised is that Leica believes that everyone owns a smart phone. So if they make an app that works well, why do you need a flip up screen?
The battery IS unreasonable, but not the only brand to do it. If you consider 1 series batteries from the 1Ds3 days. But It's Leica, they're gonna gouge you as much as they can.
Really hard to shoot waist level with a smartphone in one hand and an SL in the other. Do that all the time with my E-M1 and my G3.
I've got Wifi on the E-M1 and a very good app for it (OI.Share), rarely use it even on a tripod, it's too awkward to use even when its easy (gotta setup, pull out the phone, fire up the app, use it, shoot, put it back in the pocket. Vs stick camera on tripod, flip out screen, shoot, take camera off tripod). The wifi apps only become useful in the studio or when taking multiple shots in the field on one setup (or when the camera position becomes really awkward).
rscheffler wrote:
Not sure about Leica, but I just saw a Sears photo catalog from ~1953 posted somewhere (maybe petapixel?). In it the Contax IIa with 50/2 Sonnar was listed for $444. The 85/2 was $292. In 2015 dollars, that's $3950 and $2600 respectively. I would expect Leica's offerings to have been similarly priced, which I wouldn't exactly consider within reach of many at that time. Just like now, there would be a dedicated few who would make sacrifices to buy that gear, or simply have the disposable income to do so...
Anyway, I don't think Leica has been a relevant force in the market for quite some time, long ago passed by the major Japanese brands. But interestingly, Leica's brand still evokes quite passionate reactions - good and bad....Show more →
A $444 camera + lens in 1953 was a longer-term play than a $12,500 digital camera today + lens today (e.g., SL + kit lens). A mechanical camera and lens would not be rendered obsolete in one or two subsequent years, become unserviceable in a decade or less, or be missing key features available in the competition. This longevity is not true of digital camera bodies, which explains why their resale value sinks like a rock. I suppose none of that matters if you are the type of shooter who is satisfied with what he/she has in hand (I mostly am, though I sometimes yearn for the latest and greatest). Digital cameras also obviate the ongoing costs of film/processing inhering in the old mechanical cameras of yore. But I think they are differences worth noting.
