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."