Huss
Veteran
Even tho EVFs dont work for me too well (headaches), the SL is the only one that makes me want to pick it up and use it.
I'd get much better pics with a camera that I am using that may not have the best sensor out there, than a camera with a better sensor that I would not use.
So I would be making the right choice with the SL.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have three problems with the Fuji cameras:
- poor ergonomically :: They're all small, fiddly things in my hands, full of buttons and dials that I tend to hit accidentally too much of the time.
- menu :: I really really don't like their menu structure. While not as bad as the utterly miserable Sony menus, the way they've organized them makes no sense to me. Difficult to learn, difficult to remember ... not useful.
- XTrans sensor :: Of all the cameras raw files I've worked with, the Fuji XTrans sensor raw files take the weirdest settings and respond in the most nonlinear and difficult to predict ways when making adjustments. What works well on four frames of a series will often not work well on the fifth, taken in almost identical circumstances. Color bleeding and definition losses are an issue if you don't get the settings just right. Overall, I find them just too inconsistent.
Others love these cameras but they're not for me, at all. I also don't see any particular advantage to the XTrans sensor worth all the annoyance of processing it, not in any of the sample files I've acquired or made myself with borrowed Fuji cameras. The lenses are nice but I've not found them to be any better or worse than any other top-line lenses.
I'd rather take my over-priced, horribly deficient on tests and specs Leica SL that produces superb results every single time, thank you.
G
BTW, I'd love a Hasselblad X1D for more specific uses. I'm just waiting to see if the lens I'd like for that format comes along in the next year or three... I'd like something around the 20 to 22 mm focal length.
I have three problems with the Fuji cameras:
- poor ergonomically :: They're all small, fiddly things in my hands, full of buttons and dials that I tend to hit accidentally too much of the time.
- menu :: I really really don't like their menu structure. While not as bad as the utterly miserable Sony menus, the way they've organized them makes no sense to me. Difficult to learn, difficult to remember ... not useful.
- XTrans sensor :: Of all the cameras raw files I've worked with, the Fuji XTrans sensor raw files take the weirdest settings and respond in the most nonlinear and difficult to predict ways when making adjustments. What works well on four frames of a series will often not work well on the fifth, taken in almost identical circumstances. Color bleeding and definition losses are an issue if you don't get the settings just right. Overall, I find them just too inconsistent.
Others love these cameras but they're not for me, at all. I also don't see any particular advantage to the XTrans sensor worth all the annoyance of processing it, not in any of the sample files I've acquired or made myself with borrowed Fuji cameras. The lenses are nice but I've not found them to be any better or worse than any other top-line lenses.
I'd rather take my over-priced, horribly deficient on tests and specs Leica SL that produces superb results every single time, thank you.
I'm get the feeling you think I said that the X-Pro2 is better than the SL? I just said that it's my favorite camera personally (even ergonomically and size wise) and that some people think it doesn't offer enough for the cash. I've actually stuck up for the SL.
Seems like a great camera when I got a few minutes with it.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
For the tremendous price difference in the Leica SL vs. a Sony A7+Kolari mod I think I would have no issue embracing the Sony with all of that spare change in my pocket.
The reviewer sums it up best:
"The SL...is trying to be something...difficult to be: a mirrorless full-frame all-rounder that's free of compromises and aimed at the professional or well-heeled enthusiast. Despite being a beautifully built camera capable of exceptional images, I just don't see it measuring up in a crowded market of objectively better, cheaper and more flexible options."
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
The entire history of Leica on digital market and all of their digital cameras shows two consistent things.
Thing one. Leica is always beautiful.
Thing two. Leica is always behind of many digital cameras manufactures. With older sensors, slower AF, lower ISO and so on.
I'll be very surprised if SL is different from those two digital Leica fundamentals.
But I can't say if it is bad, wrong, stupid or else. In 2016 I jumped on M-E and in 2017 instead of updating it, I added M8.
Also, I still can't find this pesky little Lumix with gorgeous (by rendering) fast Leica zoom in it. This camera is known to play S&H games with me for years. So, I'm looking for replacement and GR II is great, but I really like outdated X-E. Here is nothing I could do about, I want Leica in my hand.
I think Leica was well aware of folks like me. SL is almost copy of Sony A7 (boring design as always with Sony), but it is beautiful. Plus, Sony made lenses are next to boring, while even at 40$ P&S Leica lens is showing Leica character!
So, with Sony A7 it was all about camera, but SL comes with Leica lens. And while DP review is great for reviews on digital cameras, for lenses they are not even in Huff&Rockwell amateurs league.
I understand both sides. Some people have more spare change than others though. Personally, I don't like using crazy expensive cameras (though I guess I could afford to). These are personal decisions.
SaveKodak
Well-known
In 2017, if you need to spend 10ish grand on a mirrorless digital camera, and it's not sporting a 44x33 sensor, wut r u doing??? :bang:
The GFX and 1DX are the real SL killers. One has all the luxury and style and the other has all the performance and tech. That's how you make a ground breaking mirrorless camera. You don't over-engineer the design, and under-deliver on the tech. Like maybe I'm old fashioned but the value for the $ has to be there IMO. Like, $5300 dollar 50mm lens that's bigger than a Fosters or a $1500 dollar 63/2.8 for my mirrorless medium format... HMMM which do I pick?????
nasmformyzombie
Registered
If I had more disposable income only two digital Leicas would tempt me: The Monochrom (as there is no real alternative and I do shoot mostly black and white) and the new M10, as it's the most refined digital M yet, as well as its form factor is close to an M film camera.
SaveKodak
Well-known
I would love an M10. Maybe I'll pick one up in 3 or 4 years for $3 grand or so, that's the most I would pay for a digital Leica. I already have a monochrome, as my M4 take silver gelatin film. Come to think of it...so does my F6, Pentax 6x7, Rolleiflex, and Super 8 cameras. So many monochromes! Tho none of them came with a free copy of SilverFX
Godfrey
somewhat colored
No, not at all. Your comment just motivated me to write down why I generally am not impressed with/interested in the Fujis. Although I quoted your comment, you were not the target of my thoughts. I wish I could like the Fujis ... They should be pretty nice cameras and they seem to work for many fine photographers. But every time I've tried one, I've ended up returning it in a short time. They just don't settle with me.
I also appreciate that you've stood up for the SL, but I don't know that it's really to any purpose other than to foster more debate with folks like SaveKodak who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about it, or misunderstand it, or something. The Leica SL stands up for itself quite well, as most Leica products do, not by winning the "feature/spec list" race but by being a producer of excellent photographs. Time after time I see highly touted cameras that are predicted to 'take Leica down a notch' with all their specs and test results and lower prices ... and they simply don't when it comes down to producing photographs. So I read all that prattle now just for the amusement value.
The X1D is young and things move slowly in Medium Format Digital world. I handled it and tested with it in June last year as an early demo and immediately got the feeling that they had the form factor and ergonomics just right, they have a very good sensor in there, and the lenses are the usual Hasselblad superlatives. The rest is details, and the devil is in the details. I have good faith Hasselblad will get it quite right in a short time; it's almost there already. It's certainly good enough to put a smile on my face. :angel:
G
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Finally, some sense.
BlackXList
Well-known
It won't go in, don't worry about it.
If you get commission on the sales, I hope you sell many SLs haha
jszokoli
Well-known
This logic makes sense if you buying a whole system. But what can you do with your existing full frame lenses with the GFX, or 1DX? When you mentioned lens preorders as a measure of how attractive the systems are, are you not ignoring the fact that the SL can use a whole universe of existing lenses? For that matter I would think that the availability of lenses would somewhat temper the need for Leica to push native lenses out the door.
By the way I really hate when people say, I know the numbers, but I can't tell you what they are; if you can't state facts...
Joe
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The X1D is a lovely camera, the GFX probably is too. Neither will hold a candle to the SL with regards to responsiveness and lens adaptability. Ever.
I'd love an X1D ... it is a natural competitor to a Leica M in a whole different range of capabilities due to its much larger sensor.
The SL competes with 35mm format SLR cameras, not medium format digital or rangefinder digital cameras. It's speed and capabilities are well beyond other 35mm format mirrorless cameras at the present time, despite what the spec sheets say.
G
I'd love an X1D ... it is a natural competitor to a Leica M in a whole different range of capabilities due to its much larger sensor.
The SL competes with 35mm format SLR cameras, not medium format digital or rangefinder digital cameras. It's speed and capabilities are well beyond other 35mm format mirrorless cameras at the present time, despite what the spec sheets say.
G
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
The GFX will be able to take more lenses than the SL lol. There are already adapters for P67, P645, Leica M, Hasselblad H, Nikon, Canon, OM, C/Y and Mamiya 645. Not to mention the native lenses (which there are already more of than native SL lenses) that are available on relase with quite a few more on the road map to be released before the end of the year.
I can tell you there have been 200+ preorders for the GFX and 100+ preorders for the 63/2.8 alone at my retailer. There are 8 preorders for the 50/1.4 for the SL.
I can tell you there have been 200+ preorders for the GFX and 100+ preorders for the 63/2.8 alone at my retailer. There are 8 preorders for the 50/1.4 for the SL.
Well, I feel the same way, but there are certain genres in which medium format would not be the best move.
I agree, but I don't have a slew of Leica lenses.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Minor correction: Since the GFX isn't even shipping yet, there are exactly zero GFX lenses available right now, and zero GFXes as well. There were more pre-orders for the X1D upon its announcement, and have been far more sales of the SL to this date, than there are GFX pre-orders.
BTW: All those same lenses can be fitted to the SL with adapters.
But this is a nonsensical debate. Neither the GFX nor the X1D are or will be able compete with the SL at all on speed or responsiveness. They're a different type and class of camera.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You don't really need a "slew" of Leica lenses. If you buy the SL and then buy the SL24-90 and SL90-280, you have more focal length options than there will ever be in dedicated prime lenses for either the X1D or GFX. Add to that the SL16-35 or any of the R-mount or M-mount ultrawide lenses, and you've gone past again at the widest end of the spectrum.
Anyone can carry an SL with Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm, SL24-90, and SL90-280 on a field walk today with a light backpack and tripod. Three is not a 'slew'.
G
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Godfrey,
Spot on. I replaced a Nikon Pro DSLR with the SL.
I can use all my small format glass on the SL, and the only lens that does not work well on the SL is my Pentax-L 43/1.9 in LTM, but I have to test further because the odd color shifting might be likely due to shooting through my apartment window and might be about white balance.
Might I say the SL is fun and easy to use and is a remarkably fast shooter. Some of the features like selectible metering (matrix, center weighted, and spot), dual card slots, and tethering that are borrowed from the DSLR make the SL different than say the M10.
I wonder why people are not comparing the M10 against the great medium format offerings by Fuji and Hasselblad? Perhaps they remember the physics and limitations of a larger sensor. If I were a studio shooter certainly the bigger Fuji or the Hasselblad would likely be a better choice where I would control lighting. Am I stating the obvious?
Also it is one thing to talk the walk and another to walk the talk. I hope these guys that mention the medium format digitals already have calibrated monitors and large format printers to exploit the resolution of the medium format digitals.
I already own a floor standing 24 inch printer, and I find it too small at times for the files from my Monochrom which is only an 18MP camera. Big prints don't lie and a rather serious printer that is rather large is kinda required to fully exploit all the resolution of even my Monochrom, let alone a medium format digital. IMHO printing say 13x19 with medium format is not large enough to display the detail, and the tonality will be boxed in and won't be open. To exploit medium format digital a 44 inch printer has to be seriously considered.
Then there is the expense: I spent over $10K in paper and ink alone supporting two printers last year alone. Like I said: there is a difference between "talking the walk and walking the walk." Do these guys really understand what would be required to exploit medium format resolution?
Certainly at the expensive price point of a SL many cameras should be considered, but to unthoughfully buy a camera for high performance and not fully utilize it is a big/huge waste of money, and without printing rather big I don't really see how the resolution of a medium format digital could be harnessed, utilized or exploited. Certainly not on the Internet or any display. Understand that I can print more than I can see on my calibrated EIZO in a blacked out room with the display turned down to 50-80 LUX, meaning I can print what I can't see even on a calibrated monitor under optimized conditions.
In NYC I see crazy super cars like Ferrari, Lamborgini, Audi R8's stuck in traffic in Madhattan where there is a 25 MPH speed limit. What a waste. I hate to think that the owners of these cars will never drive their car on a track or go to a performance driving school to learn the physics required to really drive those cars as they were intended. Pretty much those cars for most are just penis extensions.
In Texas they have an expression: "Big hat, no cattle" for people who wear a cowboy hat, buy large ranches, but own no cattle.
Interesting to note is that in my younger days I raced bicycles (mountain bike and road), but the idea in racing is to go to the limits and hang there. Years ago when I only did film a friend who is a serious large format photographer was looking at some of my 6x9 negatives on a light table with an 8x loupe, and he said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."
Now years later I have a need for a 44 inch printer, not because I shoot a medium format digital, but because I shoot a Monochrom with only 18 MP, and because of skill, experience and talent I get medium format IQ and tonality, and at times large format results that point to needing a 44 inch printer.
Another example of what can be done with small format is what Salgado did for the show "Genesis" shooting a Canon DSLR. Do you really need the MP count or medium format to get large format results?
So remember two expessions: there is a difference to talk the walk, and another to walk the talk; and Big hat: no cattle. LOL.
Cal
I personally would not want to use the SL and zooms or manual focus lenses. Give me a M10 and a 28, 35, 50, and 75mm and I'm cool.
The point of my response was supporting someone like Cal (or any of the other Leica fans from RFF that I know personally) who have a lot of lenses so the SL makes sense over the Fuji MF for him (though I know he's eyeing these MF cameras too).