Two different views on the Leica SL

[aDam007]

Things change for the better.

I don't have the A7r II but have the RX1R II (similar tech) and it is pretty good. The AF (PDAF) is so good that I do not use manual focus (for the first time) at all!

The SL will mature in years to come, no doubt about that.

I glanced through another forum and one of the mods there is claiming that the 24mp resolves more than 42mp and is getting slammed by some of the participants there.

Can anyone here support that claim (24 Leica is sharper than 42 Sony)?

I'm not going to get into it, so let's just say it depends.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Steve Huff makes money through affiliate sales via Amazon and B&H. He probably stands to make a lot of money by getting an already trigger happy user base to buy such an expensive camera through his site. That whole first article where he trashes the SL but then comes round to it after using it was a scripted and planned affair. So Steve is going to try and do stupid things like show a soft image from the A7RII and a sharp image from the SL just to convince people with red-dot colored glasses that the SL has some special magic in it that Sony can't possibly achieve, which is really just classic 'luxury' marketing. With a couple exceptions (the 240, 242, monos and Q) most Leica's are just the Birkin for men, so that's what you have to do to convince people. Don't go to Steve Huff's site for anything other than sample images from a camera. Personally I can't believe that he still posts pictures of his kid, dog, girlfriend, tree in back yard, repeat, but whatever floats his boat...

 

[bradhusick]

Speedgraphic - If you knew Steve Huff at all you'd realize your post is completely wrong. He writes real-world articles and tells you exactly what he believes. He makes no more money if you buy a camera or not. He never fudges images to make one thing look better than another. I like the fact that he posts photos of familiar sights - you can go back years and see how gear had changed. He never posts photos in a review that he claims are "art". His site is ad supported but so are 90% of the rest of the sites on the Web. I'd rather that then pay a subscription fee to read it. He doesn't get rich doing this, he does it because he loves it. You can disagree with him in the comments on any article and he will likely explain why he came to some conclusion, but he will never personally attack you.

Now back to the Leica SL...

 

[fotografz]

Where is the "Unlike" button when you need it?

Seems like mean spirited conjecture IMO.

As a user of a Leica S system for paying and personal work, the statement, "Most Leicas (with listed exceptions) are just the Birkin for men." is pretty insulting.

Nothing wrong with not liking Mr. Huff's approach to gear review, but to infer some nefarious motives meant to mislead readers, and using disparaging innuendo to trash him and his interested readers, is disingenuous at best.

Steve seems like an upbeat sort of guy. Maybe that's the problem?

- Marc

 

[Amin]

He makes no more money if you buy a camera or not.

That is not true. Steve posts this under his reviews so that if you buy the camera, he can make money:

You can disagree with him in the comments on any article and he will likely explain why he came to some conclusion, but he will never personally attack you.

Also untrue. As I screenshotted earlier in this thread, I disagreed with Steve in the comments. He attacked me in response, calling me a troll and a Leica hater.

 

[KeithL]

Steve Huff makes money through affiliate sales via Amazon and B&H. He probably stands to make a lot of money by getting an already trigger happy user base to buy such an expensive camera through his site. That whole first article where he trashes the SL but then comes round to it after using it was a scripted and planned affair. So Steve is going to try and do stupid things like show a soft image from the A7RII and a sharp image from the SL just to convince people with red-dot colored glasses that the SL has some special magic in it that Sony can't possibly achieve, which is really just classic 'luxury' marketing. With a couple exceptions (the 240, 242, monos and Q) most Leica's are just the Birkin for men, so that's what you have to do to convince people. Don't go to Steve Huff's site for anything other than sample images from a camera. Personally I can't believe that he still posts pictures of his kid, dog, girlfriend, tree in back yard, repeat, but whatever floats his boat...

That is one of the most offensive posts I've seen here. You are essentially labelling Mr Huff as dishonest.

Perhaps, unsurprisingly, this kind of defamation of character invariably comes from those who post anonymously.

If I was Mr Huff I'd be looking into finding your identity...

 

[jlm]

i'm something of a grammar policeman, can't help it...no evil intended, regardless of how it might seem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
"The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend, or portmanteau word, of the standard English words irrespective and regardless. The blend creates a word with a meaning not predictable from the meanings of its constituent morphemes. Since the prefix ir- means "not" (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means "without", the word contains a double negative. The word irregardless could therefore be expected to have the meaning "in regard to", instead of being a synonym of regardless."

 

[Vivek]

i'm something of a grammar policeman, can't help it...no evil intended, regardless of how it might seem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
"The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend, or portmanteau word, of the standard English words irrespective and regardless. The blend creates a word with a meaning not predictable from the meanings of its constituent morphemes. Since the prefix ir- means "not" (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means "without", the word contains a double negative. The word irregardless could therefore be expected to have the meaning "in regard to", instead of being a synonym of regardless."

I agree. That word should not be used as it makes no sense!

 

[bradhusick]

That is not true. Steve posts this under his reviews so that if you buy the camera, he can make money:

Also untrue. As I screenshotted earlier in this thread, I disagreed with Steve in the comments. He attacked me in response, calling me a troll and a Leica hater.

How much more money do you think he makes if you buy? My guess is not a lot.

Perhaps your comment was troll-ish and deserved push back. The fact remains we are not here to attack others.

Now back to the Leica SL...

 

[Amin]

How much more money do you think he makes if you buy? My guess is not a lot.

B&H pays him at least 3% and likely more than that since Steve does high volume. That means at least $225 for every Leica SL sale that occurs after an affiliate link click. Amazon pays more than that, sometimes more than twice as much.

A few more words here about affiliate revenue here. Let me start off by saying that I am not accusing Steve Huff of anything here. I am speaking generally.

There is no doubt that affiliate revenue is a potential source of bias for reviewers. I can state this from personal experience. When I review a lens and include affiliate links, I do so with full awareness that a glowing review is likely to convert 3 or 4 sales immediately with affiliate percentages running from 2-5% typically (sometimes higher), whereas a review that ends with "I decided not to buy this one" will usually convert no sales at all. For a review of a $800 lens, that is the difference between me making about $100 and making nothing.

Do I feel that conflict of interest? Am I tempted to be extra positive? The answers are yes and yes. I do my best to write honestly despite that temptation, and I believe I am successful at that, but the conflict of interest is present. And that is despite the fact that I make 99.9% of my salary by working as a medical doctor and have relatively low traffic websites. How much greater a conflict of interest must there be for someone who makes their living from blogging and has a high traffic site? I can't answer that, but I think it has to be significant.

Perhaps your comment was troll-ish and deserved push back.

I screenshotted my comment here in its entirety, so no one needs to guess at that.

The fact remains we are not here to attack others.

On that we agree. However, while I think it is inappropriate to suggest that Steve intentionally misleads people, I do find the blurry A7RII crops he posted in the SL comparison to be inexplicable.

 

[Lucille]

I likie Steve Huff...

I also likie Amin...


I bet they would enjoy each others company in person.....

 

[Amin]

I likie you too, Lucille. And I hold no grudge against Steve Huff.

Sorry to take this thread so far off topic, all.

 

[D&A]

Time for a Group Hug?

Dave (D&A)

 

[Vivek]

I likie Steve Huff...

I also likie Amin...

I think I will likie them both as well but hate this blog/linky business.

Absolutely nothing to do with photography or even the products they are trying to push! :facesmack:

B&H pays him at least 3% and likely more than that since Steve does high volume. That means at least $225 for every Leica SL sale that occurs after an affiliate link click. Amazon pays more than that, sometimes more than twice as much.

A few more words here about affiliate revenue here. Let me start off by saying that I am not accusing Steve Huff of anything here. I am speaking generally.

There is no doubt that affiliate revenue is a potential source of bias for reviewers. I can state this from personal experience. When I review a lens and include affiliate links, I do so with full awareness that a glowing review is likely to convert 3 or 4 sales immediately with affiliate percentages running from 2-5% typically (sometimes higher), whereas a review that ends with "I decided not to buy this one" will usually convert no sales at all. For a review of a $800 lens, that is the difference between me making about $100 and making nothing.

Do I feel that conflict of interest? Am I tempted to be extra positive? The answers are yes and yes. I do my best to write honestly, but the temptations are there. And that is despite the fact that I make 99.9% of my salary by working as a medical doctor and have relatively low traffic websites. How much greater a conflict of interest must there be for someone who makes their living from blogging and has a high traffic site? I can't answer that, but I think it has to be significant.




I screenshotted my comment here in its entirety, so no one needs to guess at that.




On that we agree. However, while I think it is inappropriate to suggest that Steve intentionally misleads people, I do find the blurry A7RII crops he posted in the SL comparison to be inexplicable.

Thanks for the insight. I feel for those who use the blogs to buy a product, diaper or a Leica camera.

 

[jonoslack]

There is no doubt that affiliate revenue is a potential source of bias for reviewers. I can state this from personal experience. When I review a lens and include affiliate links, I do so with full awareness that a glowing review is likely to convert 3 or 4 sales immediately with affiliate percentages running from 2-5% typically (sometimes higher), whereas a review that ends with "I decided not to buy this one" will usually convert no sales at all. For a review of a $800 lens, that is the difference between me making about $100 and making nothing.

Do I feel that conflict of interest? Am I tempted to be extra positive? The answers are yes and yes. I do my best to write honestly, but the temptations are there. And that is despite the fact that I make 99.9% of my salary by working as a medical doctor and have relatively low traffic websites. How much greater a conflict of interest must there be for someone who makes their living from blogging and has a high traffic site? I can't answer that, but I think it has to be significant.

Phew - I didn't know this stuff - Amin, thank you for enlightening me. . and if you really do make 99.9% of your salary as a doctor, I recommend you retreat to my position . . . no clicks, no adverts (no $100) (no heart searching). I've heard lots of other stuff in this region too, Steve Huff (and our Ken) have to make their livings in this melee - but I don't, and perhaps you don't either.

 

[Amin]

Phew - I didn't know this stuff - Amin, thank you for enlightening me. . and if you really do make 99.9% of your salary as a doctor, I recommend you retreat to my position . . . no clicks, no adverts (no $100) (no heart searching). I've heard lots of other stuff in this region too, Steve Huff (and our Ken) have to make their livings in this melee - but I don't, and perhaps you don't either.

Hi Jono,

Although the affiliate sales must bias me, I believe in my heart that I am successful in preventing that bias from affecting the substance of my reviews, etc. And while I don't need adverts, clicks, or reviews to provide salary, those side revenues allow me pay for my websites without reaching into my family pot (from my job salary), and that keeps my wife happy and understanding. I do sometimes think about just finding someone else to run the sites, but I still enjoy it all on balance, so I haven't made that move just yet. Strange to be called a blogger in this thread, though, and to hear people say that I am someone's "competition". I never think of any of this in those terms.

Even though you honorably disclose your relationship and allegiance to Leica, I think you must get a bit of tugging as you write. After all, you want to be as helpful as possible to your peers, but your responsibility is to Leica. There is inherent conflict there. It's just a different type of conflict.

 

[Speedgraphic]

That is one of the most offensive posts I've seen here. You are essentially labelling Mr Huff as dishonest.

Perhaps, unsurprisingly, this kind of defamation of character invariably comes from those who post anonymously.

If I was Mr Huff I'd be looking into finding your identity...

Relax bucko. I wouldn't actually say he's dishonest, but I would say he's a salesman that does everything he can to paint the products he's pushing in a positive light. Readers just need to understand that when they go to his site for 'reviews'. Would you REALLY trust a reviewer who makes money on people who buy the product he just reviewed? If you really think that a person should be sued for criticizing a camera review site then you clearly have other problems...

 

[JorisV]

Steve Huff's site is pretty predictable IMO. He uses exactly the same tactics as Ken Rockwell, praising some things through the roof (Sony, Olympus, Leica) while bashing others (Fuji, Panasonic).

Plus adding once in a while some controversy which leads new people to his site. This thread is probably quite good for him

And if you don't agree with him he will block you as Amin says, even if you are not being insulting, I have exactly the same experience...

And I will keep my personal opinion about his other website to myself. Feel free to judge for yourself...:

I was attacked by an Evil Spirit or Entity. See the video. | Huff Paranormal

 

[jaree]

Not sure why folks are attacking Mr Huff on this forum, esp given the fact that you can buy THE IMPOSSIBLE BOX created by him for only $49.95 and "It goes from good to UNREAL AMAZING depending on time of day, location and activity" (just like the latest cameras he reviews). Sounds like an honest guy to me.
THE IMPOSSIBLE BOX | Huff Paranormal

 

[bradhusick]

As the OP of this thread I will now ask everyone to return to the topic of the Leica SL camera and lens.

Enough already about other sites and reviewers. Think for yourself and share YOUR thoughts about this camera system.

Thank you.