Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/10/30

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] BIG new Leica
From: mark at (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:54:04 -0400

I'm glad you're not going to replace your M240 with a new camera system just
out that you've not laid your eyes nor hands on nor has anybody else, Bob!
I'd think a Leica M240 would deserve more than that! Bored with it?
I thought the frame lines light up?

On 10/30/15 3:26 PM, "Bob Adler" <rgacpa at> wrote:

> I deliberated and researched quite thoroughly on whether to pre-order the
> SL (body only) to replace my M240. Here's why I decided not to:
> 1. No in body stabilization. Sony has it, Fuji has it, Oly has it. Why
> didn't Leica do it?? Perhaps because as said by Leica they started this
> project 3 years ago before in body stabilization was available in most
> mirrorless cameras and then could not redesign the camera to do it. So all
> R and M lenses cannot be stabilized.
> 2. Nothing definitive is available from Leica as to evidence that corner
> problems with wide angles on other mirrorless, full frame cameras have been
> solved. All they are saying is that wide angles will be able to be mounted
> on the camera, even when asked specifically about corner problems with some
> of the best Leica WA's. So for me this would be a step backwards if my
> wides did not work as well as on the M240.
> 3. High (and I mean 12,500 and above) ISO performance has not been
> evidenced.
> 4. There is no ability to stop the camera from taking a noise reducing
> image after long exposure shots. I really need this (and Sony and Nikon
> allow this: perhaps others do too).
> So I will be waiting for other's results. I really don't want to pay $7,500
> for a better EVF with the possibility of reduced WA performance. I will be
> watching with interest as others tell us about their purchase.
> Best,
> Bob
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at>
> wrote:
>> That is a somewhat frustrating first look review from them for me. I used
>> to follow their reviews on many brands where they provided good features
>> description, handling and impressions even in first looks, I think. 
>> Perhaps
>> they will add more later.
>> Their comment on the default DNG profile (and default JPEG rendering)
>> reflects that it was not yet optimised when they tested. Adobe will
>> doubtless address that (as they have just done in the newest raw 
>> processing
>> for S (Typ 007) DNG's).
>> Re the banding comments, when I read this is a problem at base ISO if you
>> push the file by five or six EV, I feel like this has got  into the realm
>> of theoretical analysis absent practical use of the camera. How many of us
>> would expect no loss of quality in that circumstance?
>> It doesn't matter about the equipment brand, surely this is hardly 
>> relevant
>> in practical use? Personally I have sometimes been surprised at just how
>> much information is in the shadows from  the M (Typ 240) and S2 for
>> example. But if I needed to fix an underexposure by that much it would 
>> need
>> to be a Pulitzer Prize candidate image for me to admit that I got the
>> exposure that wrong in the first place.
>> I don't think that direct camera to camera performance comparisons are
>> necessarily sensible either when they are not even being compared with the
>> same optics for example. The 'real world samples' they provide were
>> evidently with a Summilux 35 (unknown model). Must be an M lens with
>> adapter I guess.
>> Maybe if the review is updated to talk about the actual camera features 
>> and
>> their experience in using it with the first to be released lens It might 
>> be
>> more interesting/relevant for me in any case.
>> No-one even has a serial camera yet as far as I know yet there is no
>> shortage of criticism it seems. Maybe the 'it's too big, Leica 
>> should.....'
>>  theme is lessening at least ;-) DPreview bear some responsibility for
>> influencing that with a misleading image too, as I recall.
>> --------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Paul Roark <roark.paul at>
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at>
>> Cc:
>> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:39:35 -0700
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] BIG new Leica
>> See
>> eview/3
>>  "[The Leica SL's] shadow performance can be significantly undermined by
>> the hard-to-correct-for banding."
>> Paul
>> <>
>> Cheers
>> Geoff
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See for more information

Mark William Rabiner

Replies: Reply from john at (John McMaster) ([Leica] BIG new Leica)
Reply from rgacpa at (Robert Adler) ([Leica] BIG new Leica)
In reply to: Message from rgacpa at (Robert Adler) ([Leica] BIG new Leica)