AI is helping me decide whether to buy a Leica M10!

[ellisson]

The AI overview dId not break down the costs of the various Summilux 50mm 1.4 version II lenses, and it also does not include the 2025 CLASSIC Summilux 50 1.4 introduced as the latest in Leica’s Classic line.
The black Summilux 50 1.4 E34 version 2 lenses are plentiful in the used market and in general cost less than the fancier (to some) chrome versions. Finding each in good condition is the challenge, CLA likely needed at some point.
The new CLASSIC line 2025 version is in chrome, is engineered with “similar” optics to the older, pre-asph version II in an effort to make it render with the sought after “dreamy look and glow” and pleasant bokeh wide open like older lenses. Min focus distance improved to .7m in the newer lens. Coatings are different, some glass elements couldn’t be found/not available so others used, lens is an E46 now. Stopped down its sharper. Costs $4100 USD.
There are a few reviews on youtube, but I have not seen a comparison of the newer Summilux 50 CLASSIC with the older version II Summilux 50 1.4s

I don’t own any of them, but was looking recently at these and some Voigtlander 50mm s too.

 

[agentlossing]

If, for "doubt inducing," I substitute "thought provoking;” for "Instant answers, " "ideas to consider," then we are in agreement.

Hmm. So I can go around making a lot of assertions that just plain aren't true, and be a very "thought-provoking" individual, eh? I might try that; it could work for me better than whatever this current personality is that I'm working with. 🙄

 

[Rob-F]

Hmm. So I can go around making a lot of assertions that just plain aren't true, and be a very "thought-provoking" individual, eh? I might try that; it could work for me better than whatever this current personality is that I'm working with. 🙄

No, I don't think that quite reflects what's being said. I think you could make some large number of assertions, well intentioned and mostly accurate; some number of them that were questionable; and some that were flat-out wrong; AI would do its best to filter them for relevance and accuracy against available data before presenting a response--along with its usual reminder that AI makes mistakes. Or, you might write such a variety of assertions yourself. Then it's up to us, your readers, to use our judgement as to which to act on, and which to disregard--just as we do after reading a human writer. One problem of course is that we can't talk back to AI! (Yet)

 

[Beemermark]

Did you ask AI "Can I really afford and M10"? On question like the OP asks all AI does is search the internet and summarizes that information. You get a mix of the bad, the good, and the completely stupid.

 

[boojum]

Without championing or damning AI I would like to point pout that it is not a finished product. Nor may it ever be a "finished product" as it will always be learning. Much the same as a scholar or an inquiring mind. It is now a child.

 

[Coldkennels]

GenAI is not human, nor is it alive. It cannot learn, and it is neither a scholar nor an inquiring mind. It is not a child, and it can never grow.

It is glorified auto-correct, a machine that predicts what the next word should be.

Don't believe the hype and definitely don't humanise the thing.

 

[Jerry Attrik]

1. Since this is decision between two options, it might be easier to flip a coin.
2. A.I. (ARTIFICIAL inteligence) can be no-more inteligent than the person or people who wrote the software.
3. Your own, personal, inteligence has the ability to ping-off at a wierd tangent or short circuit a long rambling arguement and get a better answer.
D.Lox

 

[Shadams]

That AI is hallucinating. As usual. It cannot tell the difference between “true” and “mentioned repeatedly on the internet”. It’s the worst sort of advice - the “here is what everyone says” advice.

Sigh. You are absolutely right. AIs seem to be hallucinating or displaying qualities that would, in a human, provoke a diagnosis of spectrum disorder. Or both. Fascinating thing about some corners of AI: it cannot discern between thinking and reading/writing. Or more accurately, it unable to discern the thinking process of the millions of contributors to the LLMs used. LLMs appear to carry all the biases and filters (cough) of the authors (considered as a whole) and do not inherently possess the self-awareness necessary for understanding that, "How we talk about something affects how we think about the thing which affects how we talk about the thing. And then, typically, the subsequent writing about the thing comes up short." as someone smarter than I put it. Asking AI to discern the thinking process of the innumerable contributors to LLMs, is like asking a fish to dissect the mood of the author's ex-partner on a given day in the future. Hyperbole and simplification, but the concept should be clear.

When I went digital in miniature formats, it took me a while to figure out the function of the two kits (Leica M & Nikon F) I used. I don't think about this stuff too much; usage simply evolved over a 50-year career. But I finally understood that I used the SLR stuff for auto focus in situations where there was a lot of movement and/or separation from the subject or where I wanted to flatten something three-dimentional into a two-D rendering. Think action, some 400mm-plus portraiture, and certain "graphics-centric" subjects. So I sold the Nikon F bodies and bought a pair of full-frame D bodies and a few newer lenses.

However...

It took me a while to get through, philosophically, the Leica stuff. Eventually (like I said, I don't think about this stuff too much) I figured out that the Leica kit was all about up-close-and personal and used where I was more interested in other aspects of the subject matter. I sold all the Leica/Leitz kit and bought a pair of Fuji X100s and put a wide angle converter on one. Over the years that morphed into one X100F and a Sony RX100 M7. (Cue purist laughter.) Shot at base, or close to base ISO,in good light, and printed between 6x9 and 12x18, you won't be able to discern the RX100M7's output from most other DSLRs. Other than depth of field, you probably won't be able to tell without the exif data and at the longer subject-field relationships that it was shot on a one-inch sensor. It's a PITA to shoot with its squidgy little finder and typical Sony brutalist interface, but the AF is lightning fast and, if set properly, will always find the eye of the subject if it's in the frame. With that I've got a great two camera set-up for where bringing assistants and Pelican cases of gear is not indicated.

YMMV

Much love,

S