New article: how to choose the best camera for you

[vieri]

Ladies and gentlemen, my new article about how to choose the best system for landscape photography is out, I hope you'll find it interesting:

https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/04/choosing-the-best-camera-system-for-landscape-photography.html

Thanks for reading, best regards

Vieri

 

[jdphoto]

The title should perhaps read, "Why I choose the Leica SL". As this reads more like a review or advertisement for the Leica SL. Your personal requirements for print size are warranted, but certainly not necessary for professional output. Smaller scale prints are very effective in conveying atmosphere or pervading tone and character of a scene. Shooting with a Leica CL, I've been able to effectively print up to 30" panoramas and Fuji's X cameras and lenses are astonishing in quality and weather sealing at a fraction of the price. By not including other options or formats, you've only concluded what works best for you. I prefer film for its tonality and character, but certainly appreciate your beautiful photography. Thank you.

 

[Vivek]

He is a Leica ambassador. He will push what needs to be pushed at the moment.

JD, thanks for the post. Saved a click.

 

[vieri]

The title should perhaps read, "Why I choose the Leica SL". As this reads more like a review or advertisement for the Leica SL. Your personal requirements for print size are warranted, but certainly not necessary for professional output. Smaller scale prints are very effective in conveying atmosphere or pervading tone and character of a scene. Shooting with a Leica CL, I've been able to effectively print up to 30" panoramas and Fuji's X cameras and lenses are astonishing in quality and weather sealing at a fraction of the price. By not including other options or formats, you've only concluded what works best for you. I prefer film for its tonality and character, but certainly appreciate your beautiful photography. Thank you.

jd, in the article I offer a system to guide people in their choice of camera, according to their purpose. My system is to invite you to sketch a series of questions which are fundamental for you, and answer them - according to the answer, you'll then choose your camera. Of course, to give you an example of the process - rather than keeping it abstract - I used my own questions, stating what I need and what works for me as a professional Fine Art photographer, and my answers to these questions. This not only serves as a guideline for you to prepare your series of questions and answers, but in my opinion could work for most landscape photographers (give or take this or that requirement). Of course I concluded what's best for me, nobody could conclude anything for any other person but themselves - unless their are in bad faith and, in that case you'd be right, just working to sell something. We are too different and so are our requirements to be able to say anything universal, and I always laugh when I read things such as "this is the best camera for everyone whatever they do": my solution is to give you a system to apply to YOUR requirements and arrive to your own conclusions. More, I repeatedly stated that the list was personal for me, and that your answers and choices could (and very likely would) be different.

Finally, your statement "By not including other options or formats" is just plain wrong. I included and analysed Medium Format in detail, I mentioned APS-c and micro 4/3, and I explained why I didn't include Fuji's X and Olympus cameras in my detailed analysis, stating that they are very good but not for me and my requirements.

He is a Leica ambassador. He will push what needs to be pushed at the moment.

JD, thanks for the post. Saved a click.

Vivek, I am sorry to see that this is your idea of a brand ambassador. Reading my articles you'd discover that I am definitely NOT your typical "brand religious zealot", on the contrary. Perhaps rather than trusting someone else's views you might dedicate a few minutes to read the article and make up your own mind.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[jdphoto]

Good points Vieri, I will be more objective, and apply my requirements which include aps-c. Usually my film photos only need to print big, so for now 6x7 will do. Thanks.

 

[vieri]

Good points Vieri, I will be more objective, and apply my requirements which include aps-c. Usually my film photos only need to print big, so for now 6x7 will do. Thanks.

That's exactly the spirit, jd. Only you can know what you need and what your requirements are - if APS-c is one of them, and so is weather sealing, probably the Fuji is your best bet, and it's a great camera producing very good files. "Astonishing"? Well, for APS-c I'd agree with you, but under a strict image quality point of view, in my opinion there simply is no comparison between the Fuji and the SL. However, in the same way I am very well aware that there is no comparison between the SL and an Alpa with 100Mp back with Rodenstock lenses (and I used one, with a 60 and a 80 Mp back), but I'd still choose the SL over it (and I did), so I completely understand why you'd choose the Fuji over the SL for your work. As you see, it's always a matter of compromises and choosing what features are most important for you and your work, even if this means having to give up to something else. My solution is the SL, yours is APS-c + 6x7 film, that's great and that's the beauty of it: as I wrote, we live in great times to be photographers, so much choice, and as you can see I am not out to convert anyone - in fact, I hate brand fanatics and zealots, pretty much in any field, not only camera brands.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[jdphoto]

That's exactly the spirit, jd. Only you can know what you need and what your requirements are - if APS-c is one of them, and so is weather sealing, probably the Fuji is your best bet, and it's a great camera producing very good files. "Astonishing"? Well, for APS-c I'd agree with you, but under a strict image quality point of view, in my opinion there simply is no comparison between the Fuji and the SL. However, in the same way I am very well aware that there is no comparison between the SL and an Alpa with 100Mp back with Rodenstock lenses (and I used one, with a 60 and a 80 Mp back), but I'd still choose the SL over it (and I did), so I completely understand why you'd choose the Fuji over the SL for your work. As you see, it's always a matter of compromises and choosing what features are most important for you and your work, even if this means having to give up to something else. My solution is the SL, yours is APS-c + 6x7 film, that's great and that's the beauty of it: as I wrote, we live in great times to be photographers, so much choice, and as you can see I am not out to convert anyone - in fact, I hate brand fanatics and zealots, pretty much in any field, not only camera brands.

Best regards,

Vieri

Vieri,
You make good points and take beautiful photographs, but for your "Grand" sized images (15.7" x 23.6 ") an APS-C sensor camera, such as the Leica CL would yield similar results with the same M lenses with no discernible difference in IQ, imo. Printing on textured paper (Hahnemuhle) also reduces perceived resolution for a given size. The intrinsic quality of art in photography is very personal as is the quality of digital high ISO vs film grain. It's impossible to quantify one's skill and imagination as a one size fits all solution and I guess that's your point. Thanks for the article and the inspiration!

 

[vieri]

Vieri,
You make good points and take beautiful photographs, but for your "Grand" sized images (15.7" x 23.6 ") an APS-C sensor camera, such as the Leica CL would yield similar results with the same M lenses with no discernible difference in IQ, imo. Printing on textured paper (Hahnemuhle) also reduces perceived resolution for a given size. The intrinsic quality of art in photography is very personal as is the quality of digital high ISO vs film grain. It's impossible to quantify one's skill and imagination as a one size fits all solution and I guess that's your point. Thanks for the article and the inspiration!

For the "Grand" yes, but not for the rest. Hence my choice of camera

Thanks for your message, I am glad you enjoyed the article after all. Best regards,

Vieri

 

[ptomsu]

First and foremost Vieri,

Many thanks for this excellent article! I really do appreciate your knowledge of subject and different camera systems, especially the Leica SL system and I understand that this is (currently) the system of choice for you!

Having said that I think one needs to kind of go with time and see what younger systems/ideas can offer and bring to the party - even for professional use! I mean the advances with smaller than FF sensors - namely APSC and m43. I remember that even Dr. Karbe (the head of optical development at Leica) stated in an interview regarding the Leica T lenses that if Oscar Barnak would develop (invent) the Leica today it would most probably have APSC format, mainly because this allows for much smaller lenses if developed specifically for this format. And IMHO all the T lenses are stellar performers, only issue (for me) is that the range is not complete enough.

On the other side especially Fuji has succeeded in that respect - their X system is from the ground up developed based on an APSC sensor and thus all their lenses are optimised for the system and I at least would be really hard pressed telling the differences between a Leica lens and a Fuji lens (and this comes from a year long Leica user perspective - digital as well as analog, but also extensive use of the Fuji X-system, especially with the stellar X-T2 and the 100-400, a lens that is unfortunately missing in the complete Leica setup). The main differences to Leica - Fuji is much cheaper and has a much, Much, MUCH more complete lens lineup for the X- system. I was a year long Fuji shooter as well (in the moment and for now completely switched to Olympus with their Pro lenses - I know this is a system that you would not even by any means consider as a serious camera system just because of sensor size ), but the Fuji system that might come closer to your standards is nothing less than stellar - WRT to IQ, lens system, AF, video and several other reasons.

So IMHO this proves that a decent APSC based system like the Fuji X is close or even on par with a FF Leica SL system - at least for today. Will this change? I think so, just because FF has so many sensor size advantages that it will easily allow alway for better IQ compared to APSC - even in 10, 20 or 50 years from now. But the issue is what does one really need? Stating that a great system has to be FF shows me some sort of ignorance WRT where camera, sensor and lens technologies are evolving. My prediction is that in some years from now even m43 will have arrived at an overall level that is far above what every photographer and filmmaker ever needs (8k or more?).

So while you favour the FF Leica SL, I cannot help but say that the current Fuji APSC offerings (especially with the X-H1) are on par with that level or even exceed in some (many) areas. The biggest obstacles for the current Fuji X system are still the far too small batteries and some limitation of the AF system - but hey, the Leica SL AF system does not even come close and so does their video implementation not come close to Fuji (or even the mediocre Olympus EM1.2 or Panasonic GH5).

Having said that - enjoy shooting with whatever system you prefer and love, because this is the finally most important point - it makes you grab your camera and shoot!

 

[vieri]

First and foremost Vieri,

Many thanks for this excellent article! I really do appreciate your knowledge of subject and different camera systems, especially the Leica SL system and I understand that this is (currently) the system of choice for you!

Having said that I think one needs to kind of go with time and see what younger systems/ideas can offer and bring to the party - even for professional use! I mean the advances with smaller than FF sensors - namely APSC and m43. I remember that even Dr. Karbe (the head of optical development at Leica) stated in an interview regarding the Leica T lenses that if Oscar Barnak would develop (invent) the Leica today it would most probably have APSC format, mainly because this allows for much smaller lenses if developed specifically for this format. And IMHO all the T lenses are stellar performers, only issue (for me) is that the range is not complete enough.

On the other side especially Fuji has succeeded in that respect - their X system is from the ground up developed based on an APSC sensor and thus all their lenses are optimised for the system and I at least would be really hard pressed telling the differences between a Leica lens and a Fuji lens (and this comes from a year long Leica user perspective - digital as well as analog, but also extensive use of the Fuji X-system, especially with the stellar X-T2 and the 100-400, a lens that is unfortunately missing in the complete Leica setup). The main differences to Leica - Fuji is much cheaper and has a much, Much, MUCH more complete lens lineup for the X- system. I was a year long Fuji shooter as well (in the moment and for now completely switched to Olympus with their Pro lenses - I know this is a system that you would not even by any means consider as a serious camera system just because of sensor size ), but the Fuji system that might come closer to your standards is nothing less than stellar - WRT to IQ, lens system, AF, video and several other reasons.

So IMHO this proves that a decent APSC based system like the Fuji X is close or even on par with a FF Leica SL system - at least for today. Will this change? I think so, just because FF has so many sensor size advantages that it will easily allow alway for better IQ compared to APSC - even in 10, 20 or 50 years from now. But the issue is what does one really need? Stating that a great system has to be FF shows me some sort of ignorance WRT where camera, sensor and lens technologies are evolving. My prediction is that in some years from now even m43 will have arrived at an overall level that is far above what every photographer and filmmaker ever needs (8k or more?).

So while you favour the FF Leica SL, I cannot help but say that the current Fuji APSC offerings (especially with the X-H1) are on par with that level or even exceed in some (many) areas. The biggest obstacles for the current Fuji X system are still the far too small batteries and some limitation of the AF system - but hey, the Leica SL AF system does not even come close and so does their video implementation not come close to Fuji (or even the mediocre Olympus EM1.2 or Panasonic GH5).

Having said that - enjoy shooting with whatever system you prefer and love, because this is the finally most important point - it makes you grab your camera and shoot!

ptomsu,

thank you for reading and commenting, I am glad you enjoyed the article. I don't appreciate you calling me ignorant, though. You have no idea about what I know or I don't know, and the fact that we have different opinions on camera systems doesn't make me ignorant, and doesn't give you the right to call me as such.

As mentioned in the article, I do know Fuji and I have used it. It's not for me - not yet, perhaps, but not for me nevertheless. Believe me, I know very well what I need to do my job, and the Fuji APS-c is far from covering my needs, first of all on image quality.

Again, if you want to have a discussion, please refrain from calling me ignorant. That doesn't really help me to take your points seriously.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[thompsonkirk]

I posted this as a comment on Vieri's site, but perhaps should just have posted it here. My reaction was a bit like Vivek's, though milder – an excellent and experienced review of the SL, but not really fair on issues of choice:
__________

These are well-reasoned opinions – but having mentioned above that no one system is ‘really’ best, is it wise to zoom in so closely on one system (with danger of sounding like Leica promotion)? How about more balanced attention to pros and cons of two other viable systems:

One is Sony A7r2/3, which like SL also accommodates many classic lenses such as Leica R and Zeiss C/Y, for those who prefer a less modern (‘clinical’) rendering than the newer Karbe lens designs for Leica. Very good image quality at remarkably lower cost?

And the other is the GFX, whose 32-64 zoom is, as Puts once said about the Vario-Elmar 35-70 f4, every bit as good as comparable primes. The GFX, with larger sensor and pixel pitch, really does offer advantages of MF imaging, especially in subtle tonal transitions.

If you add price as a variable into the equation, IMO these three systems compare overall at par, and are differently advantageous mostly in terms of an individual’s economics, subject matter, and shooting style. For example, many landscape photographers prefer to work slowly, focusing manually, anticipating stitching and focus stacking. High ISOs or quick AF don’t matter much in this way of working, and the features of the other systems might be optimal for them.

Just another two cents,

Kirk

(And PS, I can't help adding here that speed and reliability of repair service is another relevant variable. I remain loyal to my Leica lenses, but two four month repair experiences have altered my loyalty to Leica as a system choice.)

 

[ptomsu]

ptomsu,

thank you for reading and commenting, I am glad you enjoyed the article. I don't appreciate you calling me ignorant, though. You have no idea about what I know or I don't know, and the fact that we have different opinions on camera systems doesn't make me ignorant, and doesn't give you the right to call me as such.

As mentioned in the article, I do know Fuji and I have used it. It's not for me - not yet, perhaps, but not for me nevertheless. Believe me, I know very well what I need to do my job, and the Fuji APS-c is far from covering my needs, first of all on image quality.

Again, if you want to have a discussion, please refrain from calling me ignorant. That doesn't really help me to take your points seriously.

Best regards,

Vieri

Vieri,

I definitely did not intend to offend you, if this was the case I apologise. Maybe I used the word "ignorant" in a wrong way - wanted to say you don't seriously care about other systems than Leica - which for me is like ignoring these systems- hence my wording ignorant.

From what I have so far read and seen from you so far my understanding is that you are heavily concentrated on Leica and almost everything else is much worse at least for your standards - might not be that this was your intention but this is how you come across - at least for me. Nothing wrong with that but allow also others to have their own opinion about things.

Also you are obviously a Leica Ambassador - at least you call yourself as such in your signature. Again nothing wrong wit that but it definitely can invoke certain thoughts - right. So when reading such an article it easily translates in the background into you being Leica biased or not?

Again I actually wanted to thank you for that article as I enjoyed it mostly, only in some points my opinion and experience differs from yours and you should be able to accept different opinions - at least I had hoped for.

All the best

Peter

 

[vieri]

I posted this as a comment on Vieri's site, but perhaps should just have posted it here. My reaction was a bit like Vivek's, though milder – an excellent and experienced review of the SL, but not really fair on issues of choice:
__________

These are well-reasoned opinions – but having mentioned above that no one system is ‘really’ best, is it wise to zoom in so closely on one system (with danger of sounding like Leica promotion)? How about more balanced attention to pros and cons of two other viable systems:

One is Sony A7r2/3, which like SL also accommodates many classic lenses such as Leica R and Zeiss C/Y, for those who prefer a less modern (‘clinical’) rendering than the newer Karbe lens designs for Leica. Very good image quality at remarkably lower cost?

And the other is the GFX, whose 32-64 zoom is, as Puts once said about the Vario-Elmar 35-70 f4, every bit as good as comparable primes. The GFX, with larger sensor and pixel pitch, really does offer advantages of MF imaging, especially in subtle tonal transitions.

If you add price as a variable into the equation, IMO these three systems compare overall at par, and are differently advantageous mostly in terms of an individual’s economics, subject matter, and shooting style. For example, many landscape photographers prefer to work slowly, focusing manually, anticipating stitching and focus stacking. High ISOs or quick AF don’t matter much in this way of working, and the features of the other systems might be optimal for them.

Just another two cents,

Kirk

(And PS, I can't help adding here that speed and reliability of repair service is another relevant variable. I remain loyal to my Leica lenses, but two four month repair experiences have altered my loyalty to Leica as a system choice.)

Kirk,

the article is called "Choosing the best camera system for landscape photography", not "Comparison between X and Y system". As such, I provide a method to choose your own camera system. Then, I apply the method to my own user case. I use Leica SL, so of course I mention it. Comparing camera systems was never the purpose of the article. Hope this helps

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[ptomsu]

I posted this as a comment on Vieri's site, but perhaps should just have posted it here. My reaction was a bit like Vivek's, though milder – an excellent and experienced review of the SL, but not really fair on issues of choice:
__________

These are well-reasoned opinions – but having mentioned above that no one system is ‘really’ best, is it wise to zoom in so closely on one system (with danger of sounding like Leica promotion)? How about more balanced attention to pros and cons of two other viable systems:

One is Sony A7r2/3, which like SL also accommodates many classic lenses such as Leica R and Zeiss C/Y, for those who prefer a less modern (‘clinical’) rendering than the newer Karbe lens designs for Leica. Very good image quality at remarkably lower cost?

And the other is the GFX, whose 32-64 zoom is, as Puts once said about the Vario-Elmar 35-70 f4, every bit as good as comparable primes. The GFX, with larger sensor and pixel pitch, really does offer advantages of MF imaging, especially in subtle tonal transitions.

If you add price as a variable into the equation, IMO these three systems compare overall at par, and are differently advantageous mostly in terms of an individual’s economics, subject matter, and shooting style. For example, many landscape photographers prefer to work slowly, focusing manually, anticipating stitching and focus stacking. High ISOs or quick AF don’t matter much in this way of working, and the features of the other systems might be optimal for them.

Just another two cents,

Kirk

(And PS, I can't help adding here that speed and reliability of repair service is another relevant variable. I remain loyal to my Leica lenses, but two four month repair experiences have altered my loyalty to Leica as a system choice.)

Could not agree more! I have repeatedly tried to come back and stay with Leica, but I was always put off by their service, reliability and finally in the last years by their pricing as well as their Leica Store concept - some may love it, I actually meanwhile don't know if it brings more good than bad ....

WRT Leica lenses - these are without any doubt marvellous, older ones as well as Karbe designs and they also perform best on Leica cameras - no doubt ever. Having said that most can be used with decent IQ on latest Sony bodies and if one is invested in a Sony ecosystem this is definitely a way to reuse existing Leica glass.

WRT Fuji - more than perfect in their own ecosystem(s) and GFX for me is way over the Leica S system - but having said that my time of medium format is over since I sold all my Hasselblad gear years ago and never looked back. But if I were a landscape photographer I would for sure use one of the modern MFD offerings, either from Fuji or from Hasselblad, but almost not from Leica (too expensive and too far behind).

Coming back to the SL - well looking for a general system approach the SL klicked many boxes 3 years ago when introduced, but especially the camera is any longer far from being a technically adequate solution and considering it's price this becomes a no go for me. At this price point I simply demand the latest and best technology and do not want to get all excuses why certain things cannot be done or are not necessary for pure photography (thinking of AF, AF point number, sensor resolution, sensor technology like stacked etc.).

 

[vieri]

Vieri,

I definitely did not intend to offend you, if this was the case I apologise. Maybe I used the word "ignorant" in a wrong way - wanted to say you don't seriously care about other systems than Leica - which for me is like ignoring these systems- hence my wording ignorant.

From what I have so far read and seen from you so far my understanding is that you are heavily concentrated on Leica and almost everything else is much worse at least for your standards - might not be that this was your intention but this is how you come across - at least for me. Nothing wrong with that but allow also others to have their own opinion about things.

Also you are obviously a Leica Ambassador - at least you call yourself as such in your signature. Again nothing wrong wit that but it definitely can invoke certain thoughts - right. So when reading such an article it easily translates in the background into you being Leica biased or not?

Again I actually wanted to thank you for that article as I enjoyed it mostly, only in some points my opinion and experience differs from yours and you should be able to accept different opinions - at least I had hoped for.

All the best

Peter

Peter,

if you call someone ignorant, it is difficult that that person sold not get offended

If you read my article carefully, you'd know that I used pretty much every system out there, from PhaseOne and Leaf digital backs on a tech camera to Nikon, Fuji, Sony, even Sigma. I am definitely NOT your classic brand zealot. In fact, I find it funny that when I write articles such as this

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html

where I conclude that the Voigtlander his better for me than the WATE, I get flack. In this article, once more, I provide a method to choose your own camera system. Then, I apply the method to my own user case. I use Leica SL, so of course I mention it. Comparing camera systems was never the purpose of the article, and I never say anywhere that my findings should work for you - on the contrary, I encourage you to apply the method to your own case and get to your own conclusions. Still, I get flack

So, it seems to me that comments have nothing to do with being a brand Ambassador or anything. They have everything to do with my result not matching someone else's preference. Well, I can live with that as long as people don't insult me or question my integrity and intellectual honesty. That, I cannot accept, sorry

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Robert Campbell]

... I remember that even Dr. Karbe (the head of optical development at Leica) stated in an interview regarding the Leica T lenses that if Oscar Barnak would develop (invent) the Leica today it would most probably have APSC format, mainly because this allows for much smaller lenses if developed specifically for this format...

That's an interesting point. IIRC, the Ur-Leica was developed to test the speed of cine film. It wasn't originally designed as a small portable 'miniature' camera, that was a 'side effect' or an unexpected bonus.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter,

if you call someone ignorant, it is difficult that that person sold not get offended

If you read my article carefully, you'd know that I used pretty much every system out there, from PhaseOne and Leaf digital backs on a tech camera to Nikon, Fuji, Sony, even Sigma. I am definitely NOT your classic brand zealot. In fact, I find it funny that when I write articles such as this

https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07...mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html

where I conclude that the Voigtlander his better for me than the WATE, I get flack. In this article, once more, I provide a method to choose your own camera system. Then, I apply the method to my own user case. I use Leica SL, so of course I mention it. Comparing camera systems was never the purpose of the article, and I never say anywhere that my findings should work for you - on the contrary, I encourage you to apply the method to your own case and get to your own conclusions. Still, I get flack

So, it seems to me that comments have nothing to do with being a brand Ambassador or anything. They have everything to do with my result not matching someone else's preference. Well, I can live with that as long as people don't insult me or question my integrity and intellectual honesty. That, I cannot accept, sorry

Best regards,

Vieri

Vieri,

thanks and I think we understand each other

I myself was considering the SL several times, but then I happened to get into the Fuji X system with the wonderful XT2 and some lovely glass, Since then I wonder if I want to carry again a FF system, especially with big and heavy Leica SL lenses although it will give a premium IQ over Fuji, but how much? I myself could not prove that differences being visible for me but Fuji providing so much easier color grading with the wonderful film simulations that also can be applied to RAWs in LR.

Now I had hoped that Fuji would address one major issue I have with their X-system with the introduction of the X-H1 and this is the far too small batteries. Unfortunately they decided to use the same batteries also for this body and hence I am out of Fuji for now waiting and hoping for the XT3 and XH2 to introduce larger batteries. Would actually be wonderful if they just would use the GFX batteries as then one could use the X-system (for lighter and dynamic shooting) and the GFX-system when highest IQ and resolution is required with one and the same battery - but there is hope.

For now I am a happy camper in Olympus m43 PRO territory and miss almost nothing for most of the time shooting

Peter

 

[Robert Campbell]

Ladies and gentlemen, my new article about how to choose the best system for landscape photography is out, I hope you'll find it interesting:

https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/04/choosing-the-best-camera-system-for-landscape-photography.html

Thanks for reading, best regards

Vieri

I was happy with what you said until I came to:

My bag with two Leica SL bodies, 2-3 lenses, filters, batteries, memory cards etc. is light enough to hike pretty much anywhere.

I could do this with a couple of R4s a few decades ago, but no longer. The SL and the 24-90 are really heavy, I don't enjoy trudging around with them. They're more keep them in the boot (trunk) and go somewhere. And then probably use a tripod.

 

[rayyan]

Thanks Vieri for your article. And you do make beautiful images.

I shall take a contrary view than most as expressed in this thread.

Writing an article, any article, and post it for public viewing takes a bit of courage. Coz, ridicule comes easy. Does not take much effort. Writing a thought out article does.
Thinking through, and putting one's thoughts, as objectively, as one might want to, takes effort. But subconscious bias is always there. Irrespective of the writer of any article.

Yes Vieri does use Leica. So does Jono Slack and Ming Thein and that guy who sells alligator skin bags for US$ 40,000/=, and our friend Ashwin Rao..
I have not read anyone on this forum criticizing any of the above writers for their efforts; but I have read unbridled praise. Even though I would consider some of the images accompanying their articles to be meh.
Oh my, let's not forget Mr. Erwin Puts. has he ever made an image. And posted it for general viewing?

No, I have never seen a SL let alone used one, or can ever afford one.

But I do believe Vieri's article is reasonable and faithfully puts in writing what he thinks one should be looking at in choosing a camera; and why, for him, the SL was the correct choice.

I do not believe the article was written there to compare a Leica SL with MFT, or Canikons or whatever. I could be wrong. I cannot read people's motives for writing an article. Not yet anyway.
If you want ' objective ' writing, I recommend Ken, Huff and others.

Buy whatever rocks your boat. And please post some of your writings. I might benefit from your objective takes. As I have from Vieri's article.

Disclaimer: I have met Vieri in Istanbul long time ago.

 

[vieri]

Vieri,

thanks and I think we understand each other

I myself was considering the SL several times, but then I happened to get into the Fuji X system with the wonderful XT2 and some lovely glass, Since then I wonder if I want to carry again a FF system, especially with big and heavy Leica SL lenses although it will give a premium IQ over Fuji, but how much? I myself could not prove that differences being visible for me but Fuji providing so much easier color grading with the wonderful film simulations that also can be applied to RAWs in LR.

Now I had hoped that Fuji would address one major issue I have with their X-system with the introduction of the X-H1 and this is the far too small batteries. Unfortunately they decided to use the same batteries also for this body and hence I am out of Fuji for now waiting and hoping for the XT3 and XH2 to introduce larger batteries. Would actually be wonderful if they just would use the GFX batteries as then one could use the X-system (for lighter and dynamic shooting) and the GFX-system when highest IQ and resolution is required with one and the same battery - but there is hope.

For now I am a happy camper in Olympus m43 PRO territory and miss almost nothing for most of the time shooting

Peter

Peter,

for instance, I would never ever use any of the colour modes / film simulations / etc that the Fuji offers. I want to be in control of my colours. So, I don't need any of these - again, different requirements for different people. More, the smaller sensor size you go, the more you loose in IQ (and the larger you go, the more you gain), I am sure we all agree on that. It might be incremental and small to see, but it's there. For me, since medium format fails on so many of my requirements, FF is the next best thing: going one step down (APS-c), would mean loosing some IQ. Going two steps down (micro 4/3), would mean loosing even more IQ. Probably you would hardly see from one step to the other, but when you put all the steps together the difference is pretty evident. Hence my choice of FF, as the best compromise for my work, and hence the choice of Leica SL as the best solution in FF for my requirements.

Best regards,

Vieri