[Leica] Selling for the SL

Mon May 8 17:14:44 PDT 2017

Is this something you have observed in images you have shot, Bob?

I read so much garbage on the interwebs these days by people who test and test and don’t make images.

I suspect that for you, since you often shoot from a tripod, that you WILL notice optical problems. But for the vast majority who shoot hand-held, I doubt it matters much.

Adam

> On 2017 May 8, at 11:03 AM, 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