Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Official: Leica APO-Summicron-SL 28mm F2 ASPH lens ($5,195) | |
zhangyue wrote:
SL2 is about 900g, similar spec R5, Z7II and a74 are around 650~740g. So we are talking about 200~300g difference. and they build better with high density so the size difference is even less. If you do landscape and care size, you have option to get M glass cover from 16mm to 90mm.
But I have that option on Sony cameras too (albeit with certain sacrifices in capability). I actually use my Leica lenses on Sony cameras and have enjoyed some success.
The total weight will be less than most if not all. Then there is awesome Panasonic and Sigma prime and zoom if you want AF.
Here again, the number of third-party lens options isn't really a Leica advantage - its competitors do just as well if not better in the third party lens department - a wide variety of Sigma options, and even some fast and light Tamron zooms that are quite excellent.
High resolution file give me better IQ than any FF camera out there. Treat it as 3 stop ND filter if you want with double Dynamic range in additional pixel count.
I'm hard pressed to see any meaningful difference between 60MP images shot on GM glass and the 24MP or 47MP DNG files I shot on SL and SL2's that I rented/borrowed for weekend shoots, but I recognize that can be pretty subjective.
I don't do multi-day hiking but I do hike regularly in 5~15mile during national park visit. SL2 doesn't bother me more than Z7 or A7Rx. (SL2 might give advantage in total weight if I use M glasses given other don't play M glass as well) If that become an issue in the future, I will pick a different camera but it is not yet.
Most of my issues with the SL system are directed at the lenses, which are equal parts ponderous, dim, and expensive. $5000 and 700g for an f/2 wide angle prime is, quite frankly, silly. I was more than happy to drop $4000 on a <300g 35mm f/1.4 Summilux - a lens I still have and love. I'll be damned if I do the same for a 35mm 'cron that weighs twice as much and has shitty AF performance on it's dedicated camera body. And the zooms are even more absurd. $5500 or $7000 for variable aperture zoom lenses that weigh as much as four bricks? No way.
But on this point, I think we are agreed.
If I shoot bird or sports, I am sure I will get a R5 or A1 and a long glass or two. I can afford them since I buy Leica  Then I still want use SL2 at daily base. I won't persuade you or others that SL2 can do manual focus fine with either peaking or eyeball with M glasses, I constantly see people complain about manual focus, not my writing or success results matter to you or any others in this regard. I am happy, that is all it matters.
I don't see much point in getting an SL for manual focus on M lenses. You can use an M camera for that and have more fun doing it. Or you could use focus-peaking on any of the new Sony, Canon, or Nikon MILCs.
If Leica do toe to toe with Sony, Canon or Nikon, they will be gone by now, many did. When you use traditional on paper spec judge camera, you should not be a Leica customer, especially their MILC. Obviously you are not SL customer
No I'll never be an SL customer, though I will own an M camera again someday. That's a format I miss, and I'm actually keeping all my lenses for when that day happens.
None of above happened, so I didn't buy them. A backpack from Walmart has more pockets then a boutique brand one if pockets count is the only reference point but there is still demand for those luxury ones. There is market for this. No matter how we look at, Leica is a luxury brand and will always be.
But a luxury brand needs to understand its strengths, and high-end MILC technology isn't Leica's. For comparison, consider a well-known luxury watchmaker like Patek Philippe, or even Rolex. They make mechanical watches with varying degrees of premium finishing. But none of their highly sought-after watches are anywhere near as accurate as a basic quartz wristwatch costing thousands or tens of thousands of dollars less. Rolex's mechanical anachronisms don't count your steps, monitor your heart rate or send you text messages like a $300 Apple Watch does. So should Rolex release an electronic smartwatch with capabilities inferior to an Apple Watch, and then charge Rolex prices for it (e.g., $5000 at minimum)? How would their customers respond? We don't need to look too far to see the likely answer - Tag Heuer is selling branded electronic smartwatches at prices north of $2500. They've generated little interest in a customer base that is obsessed with mechanical traditions, and will happily pay stupid amounts of money for obsolete contraptions that adhere to those traditions (I consider myself to be among those obsessed people). Tag Heuer apparently expected this - its CEO acknowledged that despite having spent a year and much treasure developing their "Connected" line of smartwatches, they were really only seeking "additional business," and that the core business was still mechanical timepieces.
It seems to me that Leica's user base is similarly idiosyncratic - Not necessarily anti-technology, but anti-complexity. They want working technology with a modest set of reliable features and favor a certain ergonomic approach. And Leica is known for an ergonomic approach compatible with that user group, along with top-notch optics. That's why their smaller M and Q cameras do so well despite their high cost. That's why their obligate black-and-white Monochrom cameras are still waitlisted!
For me personally, Leica is interesting because of the cutting-edge optics in small packages, ergonomics, and manageable size. The SL ticks none of those boxes - it's a big camera missing some basic ergonomic aids like a tilting or articulating LCD. The base technology is so-so, and the lenses are expensive, slow, perfect in a perfectly ordinary sense, and (like many lens designs that place optical correction über alles), much too large for their capabilities. Yet it's advertised not as a return-to-basics photographic tool, but a multi-function MILC that can take on anything you throw at it.
|
