Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/05/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Some comments... Compared to the Sony A7rII at 42mp, the SL is not that intriguing. The advantage to higher mp cameras is that for the same pixel image size, you can use a shorter lens...ie, one less lens to carry. Ditto the M10. At our ages, travel is more fun with lighter camera bags. The SL is not that great with WA M lenses. Neither is the Sony. Bob has the thin glass cover plate modification, giving better performance than the stock Sony. Is it better or worse than the SL? Call it a wash. The M10 wins this round, hands down. If you change lenses less frequently, you will have less dust to clean from your sensor. Zooms are good. M loses out. The Sony offers better noise performance at higher ISO than either Leica. If you need it, it is there. IBIS allows for M lenses to be stabilized. SL has lens based IS. No IS for M lenses. I can put adapters on the Sony or the SL to use different brands of lenses. With the exception of S lenses on the SL ( I may have not remembered Hassy H lenses or maybe some other MF lenses), all lenses require the user to open up for focusing, then close down to working aperture for shooting. The Sony allows for Nikon and Canon lneses for auto aperture. ( basically making N and C lenses native mount. Obviously there is a price advantage to the Sony....$5k or more ain't chicken feed. I like the output from Tina from her SL images from Iran and Russia. Superb is a better word for the technical output. But can I afford a 2 lens system( no use for telephoto zooms). For $15k? Nope. Amateurs that do not sell their work can not use future revenue streams as justification. For me, the Sony body is the best current solution for travel. The question of any / all / some M lenses is the issue. I am leaning on a hybrid approach. Some native lenses, some M lenses some Nikon lenses. Why not? You CAN have the best of all worlds. And yes, I do love my original A7. IBIS would be nice... as I hand held at 1/15 all day yesterday. Churches are DARK, Frank Filippone Red735i at verizon.net On Sunday, May 7, 2017, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote: Bob, if you want AF and zoom, even if for nothing else but for a (good) change, then SL does look appealing. It's Leica, it handles M lens well enough, it has AF zoom, it's just a bit bigger. What else do you want? Unless you must have > 24MP. Otherwise, I don't see a downside. On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. Read that. > But I was hoping for some much better changes. A high price to pay either > choice! > > Bob Adler > www.robertadlerphotography.com > > > On May 6, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Leo Wesson <leowesson at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I didn't buy one but I liked the 10 much more that the 240. Starts > faster, wakes up from sleep quicker, better high ISO results and the > buffer doesn't clog up. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Leo Wesson > > Leowesson.com > > 817-733-9157 > > > >> On May 6, 2017, at 14:16, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Leo, > >> No, I'm not. I do not see much benefit over the 240. And the zoom on > the SL makes it a great travel kit for me, as well as the autofocus and IS. > >> TO ME the M10 isn't much of a change from the 240. > >> Best, > >> Bob > >> > >> Bob Adler > >> www.robertadlerphotography.com > >> > >>> On May 6, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Leo Wesson <leowesson at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Bob, > >>> > >>> Are you not considering the M10? > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Leo Wesson > >>> Leowesson.com > >>> 817-733-9157 > >>> > >>>> On May 6, 2017, at 11:29, Tina Manley <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> If you Google M240 sensor compared to SL sensor, you will get lots of > >>>> comparisons. Ditto with M lenses on both. > >>>> > >>>> Good luck! > >>>> > >>>> Tina > >>>> > >>>>> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Desire the zooms for travel... > >>>>> > >>>>> Bob Adler > >>>>> www.robertadlerphotography.com > >>>>> > >>>>>> On May 5, 2017, at 9:15 PM, Richard Man < > richard at richardmanphoto.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't have the SL, nor even the M240, but is "image quality, vs > the > >>>>> M240, > >>>>>> significantly improved with M lenses" to be your primary objective? > If > >>>>> so, > >>>>>> I can't imagine how the SL would be significantly better than the > M240 > >>>>> with > >>>>>> M lens. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm contemplating selling some gear (M240, M21mm/1,4 ASPH, Sony > A7r II > >>>>>>> modified by Kolarivision for Leica WA lenses) plus some cash for > an SL > >>>>> and > >>>>>>> the 24-90. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Two questions: > >>>>>>> 1. Given a large collection of recent generation M lenses, are > there any > >>>>>>> known issues? MINOR degradation at the corners of images made with > WA > >>>>>>> lenses used wide open are not a big deal to me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Is there a noticeable positive difference in raw files? What > >>>>>>> differences (positive or negative). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bottom line, is the image quality, vs the M240, significantly > improved > >>>>>>> with M lenses to warrant this move? Not really talking about the > >>>>>>> differences in how one works with the two systems. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks in advance for your input, > >>>>>>> Bob > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bob Adler > >>>>>> >