Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 76 of 76

Thread: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    I honestly can't say what the rationale for any Leica gear is these days. The M is really the only thing that is offering something you can't get elsewhere, but not in any significantly meaningful way for most. The SL is weird and IMO, redundant. The S is relatively under performing and seemingly dead. The M is the only thing that looks alive and interesting, but crippled in it's usability.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by DB5 View Post
    I honestly can't say what the rationale for any Leica gear is these days. The M is really the only thing that is offering something you can't get elsewhere, but not in any significantly meaningful way for most. The SL is weird and IMO, redundant. The S is relatively under performing and seemingly dead. The M is the only thing that looks alive and interesting, but crippled in it's usability.
    I can only say why the SL makes sense for me:
    1) As someone who likes the Leica M I have he advantage to use the M glass on the SL in cases when I go out with just one camera. When I had Nikon and Leica M at the same time I had to own a Leica M 21mm and a Nikon (Zeiss) 21mm, today I can put the M 21mm on the SL when my 24-90 is not wide enough. I dont know any other digital body which delivers as good IQ with M lenses (except the M itself)
    2) The SL Zooms are not small but for my purpose they offer a very useful range combined with excellent IQ. I do prefer the flexibility of the 24-90 over the 24-70 lenses I had owned before for other systems
    3) I can use the SL as a backup for the S and as a backup for the M
    4) I have comparable user interface between S and SL
    5) I like the slimmed down user interface of most Leica cameras
    6) I like the colors and IQ I get from the Leica lenses (valid for M/SL and S)
    7) I like the viewfinder of the SL, and I like the top display of the SL, and enjoy the build quality of the SL at least over Sony A7 (I cant comment on A9)

    I tried/owned both Leica and Sony and FOR ME the Leica works better, I do admit though that there also some Sony features I would love to have in the SL - specially the AF of the A9 if it is as good as it is reported, also some native smaller lenses would be nice.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    The SL lenses were just too big for me. I like to carry light and the Sony's just fit that criteria. The Leica Q has amazed me as a travel camera though. It's has the fastest AF i've ever used and I achieve fast flash sync in a really nicely built, simplistic design. I added an Arte Dimano case to pimp it out too. Personally, I think Leica will expand on the Q concept as the M has kinda reached it's top design platform. Look for more AF Q's with different focal lengths and/or interchangeable lenses. I like Leica for it's film-like feel and basic concept. I've never pimped out my Sony and I think that says something.

  4. #54
    Senior Member 4season's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Colorado USA
    Posts
    514
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    "Leica magic" is a mental state of feeling incredibly fortunate just to have one. But this can work equally well with other brands, and other areas of life! And if that doesn't make your photos glow a bit more, I don't know what will

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    I enjoy reading personal justifications for one brand over another. I really do.

    The fact of the matter is anyone who needs to rely on their equipment should not even glance in Leica's direction. It's a fool's errand.

    Just a tip from a pro who was burned three too many times.

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,621
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    I enjoy even more reading how people spend time to justify why they do not use a certain brand.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by 4season View Post
    "Leica magic" is a mental state of feeling incredibly fortunate just to have one. But this can work equally well with other brands, and other areas of life! And if that doesn't make your photos glow a bit more, I don't know what will
    You can always add a piece of shiny aluminum foil behind the lens!

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by DB5 View Post
    I honestly can't say what the rationale for any Leica gear is these days. The M is really the only thing that is offering something you can't get elsewhere, but not in any significantly meaningful way for most. The SL is weird and IMO, redundant. The S is relatively under performing and seemingly dead. The M is the only thing that looks alive and interesting, but crippled in it's usability.
    "These Days" is the operative term here. "These days" is what the camera marketers count on to keep revolving demand for their expensive products up front and ever present. The tech oriented "Wants and Gimmes" is the siren song. That is all that is talked about and argued about non-stop.

    The M is a rangefinder. People saying it is "crippled in its usability" are the ones that wanted it turned it into a techno Swiss Army knife. IMO, Leica should have gone straight from the M9 to the recent M10 ... either they can sell a rangefinder and promote the rangefinder way of photography or they can't ... it should live or die on that merit. Build a different modern camera if they want to cover their bases ... oh, wait ... they did ... a whole bunch of them including the SL.

    The S relatively under-performing is a relative comment. Now that they have fixed the AF issue, it does what it needs to do for the range of work it was designed for. Works for me, because I bought it for what it was designed for. I left a MFD system with more this and more that ... didn't need it anymore. Still don't.

    My use of Leica rangefinders and the S doesn't preclude using something else like the Sony A7R-II for certain work. Amazing piece of gear that does fit the techno Swiss Army knife definition ... and that is exactly how I use it. If I suddenly had to narrow all my gear to one tight kit and STILL had to do commercial work and paying jobs I'd either ... 1) stop doing commercial work and just shoot with a M like I did before getting in so deep ... or 2) dump all Leica stuff knowing that there is nothing commercial that I could not do with the Sony A7R-II and my Zeiss, M and A lenses, or rented lenses for speciality assignments ... including pro strobe work since Profoto just released the Sony AIR TTL/HSS transmitter.

    Glad I do not have to make that decision yet ... hope I never will.

    No justification needed for any of this, no disparagement of other people's choices, or odd snide comments necessary. All this is a product of corporate need to sell more and more and more and more and more stuff ... while no one's seems to question if their work has gotten any better because of it ... and if it has, when does it stop?

    - Marc
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #59
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    817

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    I am looking at this from a perspective that asks not A9 vs SL but A7RII vs SL, primarily as a platform for using my R lenses. It is really hard for me to rationalize spending $7500 for a new SL when I can now buy a new A7RII for $2700.

    I would love to have an SL, but the price difference is really hard for me to rationalize.

    Gary
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    I am looking at this from a perspective that asks not A9 vs SL but A7RII vs SL, primarily as a platform for using my R lenses. It is really hard for me to rationalize spending $7500 for a new SL when I can now buy a new A7RII for $2700.

    I would love to have an SL, but the price difference is really hard for me to rationalize.

    Gary
    $5k buys a few premium lenses or a trip or two to enjoy your current gear on.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Well, the only real rationale would be to absolutely want the SL lenses. Outside that, there are no technical matters or features that could be used to rationalize the cost difference against competing platforms.

    That being said, a new model of some brand doesn't make other brands older gear a bad choice or poor camera. So in a way it boils down to buying with your heart, same way one would be pick Audi over a BMW etc.. So I reckon most SL sales will be done based on feeling rather than reason.

    For example, if I were to buy a camera of this type, I'd probably spring for the SL. And I'd do that purely because I like Leica and I like the more simple approach of the SL camera. And I wouldn't care one bit if someone rubbed the Sonys or Fujis or anything else to my face saying I made a poor choice..

    SL is the Leica afficionados choice, which can't be rationalized. One buys it with heart, reason excluded.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #62
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    817

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    $5k buys a few premium lenses or a trip or two to enjoy your current gear on.
    If cost was not a factor, I would absolutely choose the SL for use with my R lenses. But with some practice and patience, I've gotten used to shooting the R lenses on my A7, so I'm confident now I could do the same with the A7rII. But I would still prefer the relative simplicity of the SL. On the other hand, I don't like the large size of the SL lenses and am happy to have a wider choice of premium AF prime lenses with the Sony, if I want them.

    Gary

  13. #63
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,786
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    For my M lenses I will buy most probably the M10 anyway and for some of them I might get the SL as well. I would prefer to stay in the closed Leica system anyway before mounting what else glass on what else camera.

    Having said that I guess for me it will be rather the M10 than the SL as I own so many M lenses.

  14. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    84
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    "These Days" is the operative term here. "These days" is what the camera marketers count on to keep revolving demand for their expensive products up front and ever present. The tech oriented "Wants and Gimmes" is the siren song. That is all that is talked about and argued about non-stop.

    The M is a rangefinder. People saying it is "crippled in its usability" are the ones that wanted it turned it into a techno Swiss Army knife. IMO, Leica should have gone straight from the M9 to the recent M10 ... either they can sell a rangefinder and promote the rangefinder way of photography or they can't ... it should live or die on that merit. Build a different modern camera if they want to cover their bases ... oh, wait ... they did ... a whole bunch of them including the SL.

    The S relatively under-performing is a relative comment. Now that they have fixed the AF issue, it does what it needs to do for the range of work it was designed for. Works for me, because I bought it for what it was designed for. I left a MFD system with more this and more that ... didn't need it anymore. Still don't.

    My use of Leica rangefinders and the S doesn't preclude using something else like the Sony A7R-II for certain work. Amazing piece of gear that does fit the techno Swiss Army knife definition ... and that is exactly how I use it. If I suddenly had to narrow all my gear to one tight kit and STILL had to do commercial work and paying jobs I'd either ... 1) stop doing commercial work and just shoot with a M like I did before getting in so deep ... or 2) dump all Leica stuff knowing that there is nothing commercial that I could not do with the Sony A7R-II and my Zeiss, M and A lenses, or rented lenses for speciality assignments ... including pro strobe work since Profoto just released the Sony AIR TTL/HSS transmitter.

    Glad I do not have to make that decision yet ... hope I never will.

    No justification needed for any of this, no disparagement of other people's choices, or odd snide comments necessary. All this is a product of corporate need to sell more and more and more and more and more stuff ... while no one's seems to question if their work has gotten any better because of it ... and if it has, when does it stop?

    - Marc
    Sure, I said "these days" for a reason. This is my opinion as a long time Leica user M, S.

  15. #65
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,080
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    This wasn't said about Leicas, but I'd say the sentiment was similar:

    "The quality remains long after the price has been forgotten."

    It was said a long time ago now, when both products were truly 'quality'.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,897
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    To further clarify my initial response to this thread:

    I don't need a rationale for the SL and believe the notion of a 'rationale' for a camera is ridiculous. If you have to rationalize something, you're just fooling yourself and playing semantics. I have reasons for why I bought the SL, not a rationale.

    The announcement of a new Sony does not influence my reasons for buying the SL at all, the Sony is completely irrelevant. If I had the lenses I had when I bought the SL now, I would do exactly the same thing. If I didn't have ANY equipment but I had the experience I have in photography, I'd evaluate both cameras on an equal footing—after the Sony is available for hands-on evaluation of course—and choose between them in an informed manner with solid reasons for the advantages of one over the other.

    Since posts have morphed this thread into a study of what people like and why they might or might not buy something, I figured I'd articulate my reasons for buying the SL. I won't bother with my reasons for selling the Sony A7 and not being interested in the later Sony models.

    My reasons for buying the SL include but are not limited to:

    • The Leica SL body suits what I wanted better than any of the competition with respect to viewfinder, size, weight, control design, and ergonomics. In my hands, it has the tactile qualities and ergonomic feel of a Leicaflex SL or Leica R8—two of my favorite cameras.
    • It works with all my existing R lenses better than any other digital camera I've used them on. It also works extremely well with my M lenses, certainly better than any other digital camera I've used them on except for the cameras they were designed for: the Leica M. It can do this because it was designed to do this by its manufacturer. No other camera on the market today was designed to optimize Leica R lens imaging per their original intent.
    • Its native SL lenses are outstanding in quality: They are optically excellent, robustly made, and should last a very long time in use. The size and weight of these lenses is a negative, but I accept the size and weight on balance for their quality and my intended use. There are plenty of other lens options at my disposal to make the SL handier for daily use, so these negative qualities are trivial.


    Yes, the Leica SL and its native lenses cost a lot of money. I don't care, I was able to afford it. Sorry if that offends you.

    In the end, buying the SL is saving me money because I harbor no desire for some further model's developments due to deficiencies in the current Leica SL model; I'll keep it a very long time. And it's saving me money because it's allowing me to sell off all the other cameras I bought trying to find the right camera. I've already recouped over 70% of the SL kit purchase price by selling off other cameras I no longer use, and the additional unused equipment I'm selling off will make it a net zero purchase in the near future.

    A side note: I have had no reliability problems with the SL or its lenses at all. I've had it from the first day of its release and use it regularly. For my uses, for the amount that I shoot, for what I do with it, it has operated flawlessly. There have been some bugs and minor annoyances, for sure. All were able to be worked around easily. Each firmware update has reduced the bugs and annoyances, and added useful features, at no additional cost to me.

    I'm happy with my gear. I'm not so happy with my current photography: I've lacked a goal and motivation to drive me towards the photographic ends I want. In this, the camera gear has been irrelevant. But this lassitude will pass; the past year and some has been very eventful in my personal life and that has extracted some penalty. All is well now and I'm on the way to where I want to be.

    Onwards!
    G

    "No matter where you go, there you are."
    Last edited by Godfrey; 28th April 2017 at 11:16.
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #67
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,409
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    817

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    My reasons for buying the SL include but are not limited to:
    • The Leica SL body suits what I wanted better than any of the competition with respect to viewfinder, size, weight, control design, and ergonomics. In my hands, it has the tactile qualities and ergonomic feel of a Leicaflex SL or Leica R8—two of my favorite cameras.
    • It works with all my existing R lenses better than any other digital camera I've used them on. It also works extremely well with my M lenses, certainly better than any other digital camera I've used them on except for the cameras they were designed for: the Leica M. It can do this because it was designed to do this by its manufacturer. No other camera on the market today was designed to optimize Leica R lens imaging per their original intent.

    Hi Godfrey,

    The size and ergonomics of the SL as a platform for my R lenses has always been the biggest attraction for me. Since it is unlikely I will have an opportunity to see or use an SL prior to purchase, what I don't know is how the SL works better for the R lenses than any other camera you've used. I've used R lenses on a Canon DSLR, the Sony A7 and m4/3 bodies. This weekend I will be renting a A7rII to try with my R lenses. If you could describe a few ways in which the SL improves on the Sony A7 series as a platform for your R lenses, I would really appreciate it. The one thing that appeals to me about the A7II/A7rII for my longer R lenses is the in body image stabilization. IBIS was a big plus when I tried my 250mm Telyt-R on my Panasonic GX8. I'm considering the purchase of a 350mm Telyt-R as well, so that would benefit even more by IBIS.

    Gary

  18. #68
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Hi Godfrey,

    The size and ergonomics of the SL as a platform for my R lenses has always been the biggest attraction for me. Since it is unlikely I will have an opportunity to see or use an SL prior to purchase, what I don't know is how the SL works better for the R lenses than any other camera you've used. I've used R lenses on a Canon DSLR, the Sony A7 and m4/3 bodies. This weekend I will be renting a A7rII to try with my R lenses. If you could describe a few ways in which the SL improves on the Sony A7 series as a platform for your R lenses, I would really appreciate it. The one thing that appeals to me about the A7II/A7rII for my longer R lenses is the in body image stabilization. IBIS was a big plus when I tried my 250mm Telyt-R on my Panasonic GX8. I'm considering the purchase of a 350mm Telyt-R as well, so that would benefit even more by IBIS.
    Gary, the Sony's IBIS is one of the most important reasons I'm using the a7II and a7rII instead of the SL. It's especially handy when using the magnification feature to fine-tune focussing, hand-held. The SL's button and switch placement is much more to my liking when wearing winter gloves, but here in California's central valley the gloves are needed only a few mornings each year. Another big reason I'm using the Sony is the default WYSIWYG exposure in the viewfinder. With the SL (and current firmware) WYSIWYG exposure has to be re-enabled after each exposure.

    IMHO whether R lenses shine more on the SL or the a7rII depends a lot on processing. SL+R+ACR can be spectacular. a7II+R+C1 with a little additional tweaking can just about equal the SL+R+ACR. Comparing the SL+R APO and a7rII+R APO with fine feather detail the a7rII+R APO combination will show far fewer artifacts and almost no aliasing.
    Doug Herr http://www.wildlightphoto.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,897
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    The size and ergonomics of the SL as a platform for my R lenses has always been the biggest attraction for me. Since it is unlikely I will have an opportunity to see or use an SL prior to purchase, what I don't know is how the SL works better for the R lenses than any other camera you've used. I've used R lenses on a Canon DSLR, the Sony A7 and m4/3 bodies. This weekend I will be renting a A7rII to try with my R lenses. If you could describe a few ways in which the SL improves on the Sony A7 series as a platform for your R lenses, I would really appreciate it. The one thing that appeals to me about the A7II/A7rII for my longer R lenses is the in body image stabilization. IBIS was a big plus when I tried my 250mm Telyt-R on my Panasonic GX8. I'm considering the purchase of a 350mm Telyt-R as well, so that would benefit even more by IBIS.
    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    Gary, the Sony's IBIS is one of the most important reasons I'm using the a7II and a7rII instead of the SL. It's especially handy when using the magnification feature to fine-tune focussing, hand-held. The SL's button and switch placement is much more to my liking when wearing winter gloves, but here in California's central valley the gloves are needed only a few mornings each year. Another big reason I'm using the Sony is the default WYSIWYG exposure in the viewfinder. With the SL (and current firmware) WYSIWYG exposure has to be re-enabled after each exposure.

    IMHO whether R lenses shine more on the SL or the a7rII depends a lot on processing. SL+R+ACR can be spectacular. a7II+R+C1 with a little additional tweaking can just about equal the SL+R+ACR. Comparing the SL+R APO and a7rII+R APO with fine feather detail the a7rII+R APO combination will show far fewer artifacts and almost no aliasing.
    Doug and I have often rather opposite needs. Doug (and you at least to some degree it sounds like) tend to work at the far end of the focal length ranges; I tend to work with portrait tele and down most of the time. Doug uses the Sony's full-time exposure preview in a way that I find rather counter to my use of the SL's preview on the half press. When I use lenses longer than 180mm, I tend to use a tripod; Doug's subject matter makes that near impossible a lot of the time. Et cetera. Nothing wrong with either way of working, and selecting a camera system has a lot to do with figuring what works best for your photography. I understand why he likes the A7II for the things he does; I hope he understands why I prefer the SL.

    I gave up on adapting R lenses to SLR cameras, either FourThirds or FF, because the viewfinder when working without auto diaphragm operation become too dark to focus accurately with consistency. I gave up on the smaller format because I missed the R lenses' rendering qualities when used on the format they were designed for ... I felt like I was crippling myself by using a quarter frame camera with them. The Nikon D750 was better at giving me the full frame rendering qualities, but then of course you have to stop down more to get enough DoF to suit the scenes and focusing gets tricky again, unless you dance the aperture from open to stopped down all the time. EVFs provide a much better view with adapted lenses since the viewfinder brightness auto compensates for the lower light levels to a great degree.

    With normal and longer R lenses, the Sony A7 did an okay job: FF and EVF yes; just barely enough control customization to do the job yes. It didn't have IBIS, just like the SL doesn't, but it was a bit more difficult to render the colors and monochrome tones I wanted from it. Overall, though, the Sony's viewfinder was a big step behind the Olympus E-M1 viewfinder and I found the camera's clattery shutter sound and weird feeling first curtain electronic shutter very off-putting. I also had to scrum up a good accessory tripod mount because the A7 body isn't strong enough where they put the tripod mounting screw to work with the heavy R lenses without warping the body.

    All these things together made the A7 something of an annoyance but a livable one. But then I started using my wider lenses on it. Even with the Summicron-R 35mm, I saw some corner/edge degradation; drop down to the Elmarit-R 24mm and it got much worse, and a bit mushy in spots. Drop down to the Elmarit-R 19mm and then the Super-Elmar-R 15mm and corners/edges both had hard vignetting and gave up the ghost badly in corners and edges to my eye. Unacceptably so. It was about then that I acquired the M-P and with these same lenses saw that the rendering qualities were far superior.

    The problem is the thickness of the sensor stack on the Sony A7 series sensors. It's too thick given the design of these lenses to give a good rendering without lens corrections, and of course the Sony has no lens corrections and was not designed to work with anything but Sony lenses. There are companies that swap out the sensor stack for a thinner one but I never get into stuff like that. (BTW: the thick sensor stack problem is also an issue with FourThirds cameras and adapted lenses; its effects can be seen with M lenses from about 28mm on down. It's less apparent with SLR lenses due to their retrofocus designs, but it does occasionally get in the way.)

    The Leica M-P and the Leica SL image with short R lenses to a far far better performance point. The lens corrections injected by the R lens profiles allows R lenses to match their rendering on the Leica R bodies and film with very good fidelity.

    My solution to the long lens problem of not having IBIS at the long end, where it is most useful, was to sell off my longest R telephotos and buy the SL90-280. That's a very long lens for me, and it outperforms my old R long tele lenses handily not even counting the image stabilization boon for hand holding. I basically never need or use anything longer, although I do have a 600mm somewhere around here...

    Good luck in your testing with the Sony this weekend!

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  20. #70
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,038
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Perhaps all this "brand angst" can be attributed to simple human responses based on personal preferences?

    - Marc
    That there should be a sticky on every post, not a sticky on a forum or a thread but on every blooming post.

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,496
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    To further clarify my initial response to this thread:

    ... "I don't need a rationale for the SL and believe the notion of a 'rationale' for a camera is ridiculous. If you have to rationalize something, you're just fooling yourself and playing semantics. I have reasons for why I bought the SL, not a rationale." ...

    G

    "No matter where you go, there you are."
    Not to be pedantic Godfrey, but the word "rationale" is a noun literally meaning "reasons why" ... ("i.e., the logical reasons employed in consciously arriving at a decision").

    Perhaps you are confusing rationale with justification? Justification carries some emotional taint of "defensiveness" ... (i.e., arguments offered in justification of their choice).

    We all have a rationale for gear we select, a set of reasons based on personal needs, experiences, and/or limitations. Yours are very specific and IMO reasonable <another related word meaning "having sound judgement", which you outline quite clearly ... but my opinion means nothing for or against ... your rationale needs no justification because they are YOUR reasons ... which in the aggregate are probably quite unique.

    - Marc
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #72
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,897
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Not to be pedantic Godfrey, but the word "rationale" is a noun literally meaning "reasons why" ... ("i.e., the logical reasons employed in consciously arriving at a decision").

    Perhaps you are confusing rationale with justification? Justification carries some emotional taint of "defensiveness" ... (i.e., arguments offered in justification of their choice).

    We all have a rationale for gear we select, a set of reasons based on personal needs, experiences, and/or limitations. Yours are very specific and IMO reasonable <another related word meaning "having sound judgement", which you outline quite clearly ... but my opinion means nothing for or against ... your rationale needs no justification because they are YOUR reasons ... which in the aggregate are probably quite unique.

    - Marc
    To be pedantic, from the dictionary:

    rationale |ˌraSHəˈnal|
    noun
    a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief: he explained the rationale behind the change.

    ORIGIN
    mid 17th century: modern Latin, neuter (used as a noun) of Latin rationalis ‘endowed with reason’ (see rational) .
    and Wiki Diff: What is the difference between rationale and reason? | WikiDiff

    The difference: "As nouns, the difference between rationale and reason is that rationale is an explanation of the basis or fundamental reasons for something while reason is a cause."

    So, I buy a camera for particular reasons, e.g.: "I choose this camera because it optimizes the performance of my lenses." I don't apply a rationale (which implies a set of beliefs and/or justifications for my reasons) that articulates why I might want one brand of camera over another, e.g.: "Leica should improve the SL because the Sony A9 allegedly competes with it on these features..." That describes a rationale, but it's a rationale for what Leica should do, not what I should do, and is thus not relevant to my choice or use of a camera, consequently uninteresting to me.

    But okay, if you want to develop a rationale (a basis or set of fundamental reasons) for choosing one camera over another, it would look something like:

    • The camera must work well with my lenses.
    • The camera must support the work I want to accomplish with it better than other cameras.
    • The camera must provide me the tactile satisfaction that pleases me.
    • The camera's controls must be ergonomically easy to use, learn and, remember.


    et cetera. That's a reasonable rationale for choosing a camera: it establishes the fundamental logic behind my reasons for the choice. It's agnostic with respect to the specific features of a particular camera or brand.

    Do you understand?

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  23. #73
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,260
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Who will post last on this thread? My vote is for Godfrey.

    (Sometimes you need to let the outrageously misinformed post go unanswered.)

  24. #74
    Workshop Member Woody Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,119
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    66

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    At least "rationale" appears to have been the correct word.
    woody
    Woody's twitter feed
    Woody's daily photo blog
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,323
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    Leaving the obvious troll issue aside...I would guess the real answer is the same rationale would apply as to why not a Nikon 810 or a Sony A7r-11 or a Canon 5D mark whatever it is up to these days...

    btw - teh Leica SL firmware update just released is pretty cool.

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Czech Republic and Austria
    Posts
    305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    51

    Re: What's the rationale for the SL after the Sony A9 announcement?

    So much preoccupation with one camera vs. another, so little discussion about images, aesthetics, lighting, composition, creative ideas. Why do so many people care to engage in these discussions? You can take fantastic pictures with an A9 or with an SL. I'd rather spend time going through interesting photo books and taking notes for my next project. End of rant, of course this forum is to debate cameras, apologies to everyone.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •