[Leica] Fwd: Re: Selling for the SL

Mon May 8 11:03:16 PDT 2017

The terrible Sony QC of Sony lenses plus this have soured me to Sony:
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/04/star-eater-issue-no-longer-recommend-sony-cameras-astrophotography/
We shall see...

Bob Adler
www.robertadlerphotography.com

> On May 7, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote:
> 
> My axiom is always that if someone wants a Leica, regardless which model,
> and can afford it, then go get it. Because we know otherwise the itch will
> always be there :-)
> 
> I no longer have the itch, lack of $$ cures that, but obviously Bob knows
> and likes Leica, and if the SL entices, it would not make sense for him NOT
> to get it.
> 
>> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 Ma
>> n < > 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 pos
>> itive 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 > >>>>>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Some People Drive, We Are Driven"
> // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
> richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
> <https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information