[Leica] Fwd: Re: Selling for the SL

Mon May 8 11:56:50 PDT 2017

Brian Smith has had a discussion on the stars issue this week:  Scroll down
to the middle of the page:

http://briansmith.com/sony-releases-a7rii-firmware-update-3-30/

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

-- 
Regards,

Sonny
http://sonc.com/look/
Natchitoches, Louisiana
1714
Oldest Permanent Settlement in the Louisiana Purchase

USA