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: john at (John McMaster)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:54:56 +0100
References: <> <>

Experience again Mark?


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Rabiner

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
>>  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
>> camera-r
>> eview/3
>>  "[The Leica SL's] shadow performance can be significantly undermined 
>> by the hard-to-correct-for banding."
>> Paul
>> <>
>> Cheers
>> Geoff

In reply to: Message from rgacpa at (Robert Adler) ([Leica] BIG new Leica)
Message from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] BIG new Leica)