On 11/28/2015 6:47 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
Gee, I don't want to sound like a smart ass here, but for what that stuff
costs, it damn well better be better than good enough. A freaking choir of
angels should break into song every time you press the shutter.
"The SL is not a cheap camera – EUR6,000+ for the body and a further EUR4,000+ for each lens makes this the preserve of
the very wealthy, though in reality I suspect most of Leica’s existing audience will see this one as a no-brainer. M
lenses are now virtually native, as are R lenses; they’re easy to focus and image quality is better than from the M
cameras. It would have been nice to see more resolution, but I suspect this might have eaten uncomfortably into S system
sales. I actually suspect this camera is the beginning of the end of the M resurgence – a typical complaint from M users
I know is one of deteriorating eyesight and difficulty in achieving focus. We no longer have that problem. And for those
used to paying $7,000+ for a body, the SL isn’t a stretch at all.
I admit I find myself somewhat conflicted with the SL: with a few firmware tweaks (fast exposure compensation mainly)
and a chunkier handgrip, this camera would be pure joy to shoot. Even so, it still shows the way to the competition in
many areas; the tricky question is one of relative value. I think it boils down to how much the shooting experience is
worth to you, and whether the SL specifically works for you. Even though we had some clues as to what was coming, the SL
takes it a step further, and feels like a next generation product – the Japanese brands are going to have to start
playing catch up. After some expensive but niche (and occasionally flaky) product, Leica seem to have found their mojo
again first with a Q, and now the SL – and are offering something that’s not just different, but genuinely better. Just
like with the Q, my suspicion is they’re going to have problems making enough of them for the foreseeable future." Ming
Thein
The game is also different for a professional who brings in enough profit $ to depreciate the camera. The IRS helps with
the cost through reduced taxes.
Tina has made clear her answer to "I think it boils down to how much the shooting experience is worth to you, and
whether the SL specifically works for you." She can afford it, she'll shoot the daylights out of it, and she likes it.
Seems like more than enough justification to me. Who and I to judge, and how would I judge, others' choices?
It's also interesting that at least this one reviewer, whose other reviews show he isn't a "yes' man and who is an
employee of an Asian camera maker in his spare time, thinks Leica has leapfrogged the others in some performance
aspects. What's that worth?
Personally, it's a non starter. Where can I get the one with no insides for a couple of bucks? It will do just as much
good for me as a camera and lens so big and heavy that they just look good as they occupy a shelf, but take no pics. ;-)
Having now played a little with the Lytro Illum, another too big camera/lens, and an exercise in mixed amazement and
frustration, I can say that a mature version of that tech with a FF sensor might be worth a size and weight like the SL.
Moose D'Opinion
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|