Leica TL lenses vs. Voigtlander M-mount lenses ...
SlowDriver wrote:
My local camera store still carries the SL but it no longer carries the CL (or the TL2) because they feel Leica is not committed to the format...
I think that ^ sounds like fluff talk.
Rather than saying it isn't selling well in our store, so we have decided to not carry inventory that doesn't move well for us.
My local camera store doesn't carry ANY Leica (but, can order it) ... so, I wouldn't equate a business decision to NOT carry inventory in stock as somehow inferring Leica's lack of commitment to the format. By that logic, my store's decision to NOT carry FF Leica would infer that Leica isn't committed to FF either ... kinda non-sequitur, imo.
I mean, Leica has retained commitment to everything they've produced thus far ... why would Leica suddenly be inclined to not retain their commitment to their products?
Unless you are defining commitment as developing more lenses for the APS-C format ... no, I don't expect they would put a large amount of effort into future development of APS-C glass. Imo, the APS-C format is "fit to a purpose", and one that should NOT be expected to be developed anywhere near to what the FF format is. Where other companies have sought to make APS-C "emulate" full frame with it's APS-C glass lineup (similar for 4/3), I don't see Leica going down that path to try and create an APS-C lineup that is expected to "emulate" FF. Just take a look at the aperture rings on Leica's APS-C dedicated lenses ... imo, they are clearly designed to fit to a different purpose than the legacy of "commitment" that has been given to the FF format. If you think that Leica's ever gonna make a bunch of Lux lenses for APS-C ... dream on, imo.
Simply put, if you want FF, get FF ... not APS-C trying to be FF.
But, I still don't equate that to Leica as having a lack of commitment to their APS-C (albeit limited) lineup. They've continued to advance the APS-C ... T, TL, TL2, CL. It wouldn't surprise me to see a CL2 come out with IS (thinking for the 55-135).
Some camera store salesman (or business owner) saying that Leica isn't committed ... I'm not buying into that one. I think there may be other reasons for him suggesting such, but I don't think it is really a lack of commitment from Leica regarding the APS-C lineup, even if it pales in comparison to their expansive FF format. Rather, it might be more fitting to say that the majority of Leica consumers aren't committed to the APS-C format ... or conversely, the majority of Leica consumers ARE committed to the FF format. This, rather than call Leica's commitment into question.
My .02 ... even as a pre-neophyte into Leica.
Short answer: I ain't scared of Leica's "lack of commitment" to the APS-C format. Consumer demand or fresale value of APS-C gear might be different, but I don't buy camera's to sell them. I buy 'em for shoot 'em value, not resale value.
Leica TL lenses vs. Voigtlander M-mount lenses ...
SlowDriver wrote:
My local camera store still carries the SL but it no longer carries the CL (or the TL2) because they feel Leica is not committed to the format...
I think that ^ sounds like fluff talk.
Rather than saying it isn't selling well in our store, so we have decided to not carry inventory that doesn't move well for us.
My local camera store doesn't carry ANY Leica (but, can order it) ... so, I wouldn't equate a business decision to NOT carry inventory in stock as somehow inferring Leica's lack of commitment to the format. By that logic, my store's decision to NOT carry FF Leica would infer that Leica isn't committed to FF either ... kinda non-sequitur, imo.
I mean, Leica has retained commitment to everything they've produced thus far ... why would Leica suddenly be inclined to not retain their commitment to their products?
Unless you are defining commitment as developing more lenses for the APS-C format ... no, I don't expect they would put a large amount of effort into future development of APS-C glass. Imo, the APS-C format is "fit to a purpose", and one that should NOT be expected to be developed anywhere near to what the FF format is. Where other companies have sought to make APS-C "emulate" full frame with it's APS-C glass lineup (similar for 4/3), I don't see Leica going down that path to try and create an APS-C lineup that is expected to "emulate" FF. Just take a look at the aperture rings on Leica's APS-C dedicated lenses ... imo, they are clearly designed to fit to a different purpose than the legacy of "commitment" that has been given to the FF format. If you think that Leica's ever gonna make a bunch of Lux lenses for APS-C ... dream on, imo.
Simply put, if you want FF, get FF ... not APS-C trying to be FF.
But, I still don't equate that to Leica as having a lack of commitment to their APS-C (albeit limited) lineup. They've continued to advance the APS-C ... T, TL, TL2, CL. It wouldn't surprise me to see a CL2 come out with IS (thinking for the 55-135).
Some camera store salesman (or business owner) saying that Leica isn't committed ... I'm not buying into that one. I think there may be other reasons for him suggesting such, but I don't think it is really a lack of commitment from Leica regarding the APS-C lineup, even if it pales in comparison to their expansive FF format. Rather, it might be more fitting to say that the majority of Leica consumers aren't committed to the APS-C format ... or conversely, the majority of Leica consumers ARE committed to the FF format. This, rather than call Leica's commitment into question.
My .02 ... even as a pre-neophyte into Leica.
Short answer: I ain't scared of Leica's "lack of commitment" to the APS-C format. Resale value of APS-C gear might be different, but I don't buy camera's to sell them. I buy 'em to shoot 'em.
Leica TL lenses vs. Voigtlander M-mount lenses ...
SlowDriver wrote:
My local camera store still carries the SL but it no longer carries the CL (or the TL2) because they feel Leica is not committed to the format...
I think that ^ sounds like fluff talk.
Rather than saying it isn't selling well in our store, so we have decided to not carry inventory that doesn't move well for us.
My local camera store doesn't carry ANY Leica (but, can order it) ... so, I wouldn't equate a business decision to NOT carry inventory in stock as somehow inferring Leica's lack of commitment to the format. By that logic, my store's decision to NOT carry FF Leica would infer that Leica isn't committed to FF either ... kinda non-sequitur, imo.
I mean, Leica has retained commitment to everything they've produced thus far ... why would Leica suddenly be inclined to not retain their commitment to their products?
Unless you are defining commitment as developing more lenses for the APS-C format ... no, I don't expect they would put a large amount of effort into future development of APS-C glass. Imo, the APS-C format is "fit to a purpose", and one that should NOT be expected to be developed anywhere near to what the FF format is. Where other companies have sought to make APS-C "emulate" full frame with it's APS-C glass lineup (similar for 4/3), I don't see Leica going down that path to try and create an APS-C lineup that is expected to "emulate" FF. Just take a look at the aperture rings on Leica's APS-C dedicated lenses ... imo, they are clearly designed to fit to a different purpose than the legacy of "commitment" that has been given to the FF format. If you think that Leica's ever gonna make a bunch of Lux lenses for APS-C ... dream on, imo.
Simply put, if you want FF, get FF ... not APS-C trying to be FF.
But, I still don't equate that to Leica as having a lack of commitment to their APS-C (albeit limited) lineup. They've continued to advance the APS-C ... T, TL, TL2, CL. It wouldn't surprise me to see a CL2 come out with IS (thinking for the 55-135).
Some camera store salesman (or business owner) saying that Leica isn't committed ... I'm not buying into that one. I think there may be other reasons for him suggesting such, but I don't think it is really a lack of commitment from Leica regarding the APS-C lineup, even if it pales in comparison to their expansive FF format. Rather, it might be more fitting to say that the majority of Leica consumers aren't committed to the APS-C format ... or conversely, the majority of Leica consumers ARE committed to the FF format. This, rather than call Leica's commitment into question.
My .02 ... even as a pre-neophyte into Leica.
Short answer: I ain't scared of Leica's "lack of commitment" to the APS-C format. Resale value of APS-C gear might be different, but I don't buy camera's to sell them. I buy 'em to shoot 'em.
Leica TL lenses vs. Voigtlander M-mount lenses ...
SlowDriver wrote:
My local camera store still carries the SL but it no longer carries the CL (or the TL2) because they feel Leica is not committed to the format...
I think that ^ sounds like fluff talk.
Rather than saying it isn't selling well in our store, so we have decided to not carry inventory that doesn't move well for us.
My local camera store doesn't carry ANY Leica (but, can order it) ... so, I wouldn't equate a business decision to NOT carry inventory in stock as somehow inferring Leica's lack of commitment to the format. By that logic, my store's decision to NOT carry FF Leica would infer that Leica isn't committed to FF either ... kinda non-sequitur, imo.
I mean, Leica has retained commitment to everything they've produced thus far ... why would Leica suddenly be inclined to not retain their commitment to their products?
Unless you are defining commitment as developing more lenses for the APS-C format ... no, I don't expect they would put a large amount of effort into future development of APS-C glass. Imo, the APS-C format is "fit to a purpose", and one that should NOT be expected to be developed anywhere near to what the FF format is. Where other companies have sought to make APS-C "emulate" full frame with it's APS-C glass lineup (similar for 4/3), I don't see Leica going down that path to try and create an APS-C lineup that is expected to "emulate" FF. Just take a look at the aperture rings on Leica's APS-C dedicated lenses ... imo, they are clearly designed to fit to a different purpose than the legacy of "commitment" that has been given to the FF format.
Simply put, if you want FF, get FF ... not APS-C trying to be FF.
But, I still don't equate that to Leica as having a lack of commitment to their APS-C (albeit limited) lineup. They've continued to advance the APS-C ... T, TL, TL2, CL. It wouldn't surprise me to see a CL2 come out with IS (thinking for the 55-135).
Some camera store salesman (or business owner) saying that Leica isn't committed ... I'm not buying into that one. I think there may be other reasons for him suggesting such, but I don't think it is really a lack of commitment from Leica regarding the APS-C lineup, even if it pales in comparison to their expansive FF format. Rather, it might be more fitting to say that the majority of Leica consumers aren't committed to the APS-C format ... or conversely, the majority of Leica consumers ARE committed to the FF format. This, rather than call Leica's commitment into question.
My .02 ... even as a pre-neophyte into Leica.
Short answer: I ain't scared of Leica's "lack of commitment" to the APS-C format. Resale value of APS-C gear might be different, but I don't buy camera's to sell them. I buy 'em to shoot 'em.
Jul 09, 2020 at 09:40 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #15277123 « Leica TL lenses vs. Voigtlander M-mount lenses ... »
