brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Those lenses are massive. They might as well be a "slew" if you factor the weight. The SL might as well be a paper weight compared to the options that are entering the market in the same category that will be used for the same things.
But Cal, many a medium format or large format photo has been printed at smaller sizes and still have a totally different look than small formats. Magazines and Ads used medium format and large format photos and they were never big images.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
You don't really need a "slew" of Leica lenses.
G
Godfrey,
To me there is a big bonus owning a slew of lenses. Although not required, owning lots of glass is fun, fun, fun.
The SL with the 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM is a tiny pancake of a lens. Oh what fun. I still own M's for film and a SL2-MOT for the "R" glass. More fun.
My F3P, F3HP and F5 are useful for film, but glass like the 28/1.4 AF-D and Noct-Nikkor do well on the SL also.
The SL really makes my entire small format kit better and is a great compliment.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
What you say is true, but if one wants to emulate larger formats with small format ...
Also today one can pursue printing digital negatives from turnkey systems that are rather advanced for contact printing. This is a big step towards large format while using small format.
There is a lot of flexibility here that many are not considering. It has come to a point that one should question how much resolution one really needs. Clearly some people are discounting skill, experience and creative talent. Jumping to a larger format kinda is the easy way to higher IQ.
Cal
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Cal,
Being from Texas originally I must point out that the expression is actually "all hat and no cattle".
Other than that, you seem to have everything pretty much accurately argued, though am fairly sure that won't derail the narrative of this thread, which began with the stated conception that DPR reviews are "famous" rather than, as others have felt for some time, infamous.
Someone had rather pointedly asked earlier "You don't think that the guy who reviewed the camera used it?" I am sure he used it after a fashion, but, after looking at the sample photos attached to the review, the question arises, as it does with almost every DPR hardware review, why doesn't he know how to use it?
There are now 127 pages in the "SL photos"thread over at the LUF, and am somewhat ashamed to admit I have looked at every single page over the last year plus. Comparing the results that DPR gets from the SL with these raises some questions about the value of the review, or at least it should. If I had written the review, and based it upon those results (and charts and graphs!) I would have likely come to the same lukewarm summary the reviewer did.
The pages of user photos over at LUF--there is the accurate review. Comparing those to the results the DPR reviewer managed would either indicate he didn't know how to use the camera, or he didn't know how to process the files.
At least it seems that way to me.
But, then, charts and graphs. Alice's Restaurant.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Larry,
Thanks for the correction.
I got the expression "Big hat: no cattle," from a financial newsletter, and my guess it it a spin on "All hat: no cattle."
Anyways a great expression.
Cal
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
There's a lot of holes here. The reason the SL is being compared to the X1D and GFX is because of the price range, physical size, intended use by *most* end users and the format of the camera itself (mirrorless). The M10 is a different camera for a different set of users. Different metering methods are nothing new and neither are dual card slots or tethering. Leica was smart to put them into the system but they are hardly innovations. Sony was stupid to not include dual card slots.
You don't have to print big to justify a larger format. People have printed magazines and ads for a really long time on small pages from large and medium formats. That's a really bad argument for reasons not to buy a larger format system. There's no need to talk about what you have as reasons someone else shouldn't buy something. Some people don't have the space, the money or care to even own a standing printer. People can use resolution for everything from retouching to cropping.
Also, to get photo jobs now you need a web presence with some of your work available online. Otherwise, you're not only limited to word of mouth but word of mouth by the few people who have seen your work in person because that's the only way you'll show it. People who rely on photography as their income can't just make prints and tell people how awesome they are. People who want to pay for your services don't care about what printer you're using, they care about the content of your image and/or how it can fit in with their brand. All that other crap is external stuff that only an extrememly small amount of people actually care about. Even still, I'm willing to bet that if you print a mediocre image from a "$10k print setup" and stick it in a frame behind some glass and print an amazing image off a cheap PIXMA Pro-100 and stick it in a frame and behind some glass people aren't going to say anything except one image looks better than the other as they pass by and move onto the next frame on the wall.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hmm. All manual focus in that set, eh?
That's a personal choice, and is why I also own an M-D with, hah!, 28, 35, 50, and 75mm lenses.
Four lenses is hardly a "slew". You're not going to support me? I own the SL and have 15 R lenses, the SL24-90, and a dozen M lenses for it. Now that's a slew of lenses ... I'm crushed, both ways.
They're not much different from the competing Nikon or Canon lenses of similar focal length and speed. Did you put on your magnifying glasses when you looked at the Leica specifications? Hmm? :angel:
Reality experiment: Fit the SL body, WATE, SL24-90, Elmar-R 180/4, Telyt-R 250/4 (the Elmar plus Telyt weigh the same or more than the SL90-280, mine hasn't arrived yet), iPadPro 12.3, batteries and cards into my Tenba Cooper 13DSLR. Put the bag on the scale and I have a 14lb (6.3 kg) package to carry. I did the same with my Nikon D750 (not the competitive body, which would be the D810 if I had one) with 18, 24, 50, 85, 105, 180, and 500mm mirror lenses (still fit in the Cooper, but tightly) with the other stuff and the weight was identical. It's not uncommon for landscape photographers to carry that plus a sturdy tripod into the field.
Regards the difference to medium format: Show me a medium format digital kit with a similar 35mm equivalent FoV range from 16mm to 280mm loaded into a bag and tell me how big the bag is and how much it weighs. I can only do an experiment with my Hasselblad V system kit, approximately 21mm wide angle equivalent to 100mm equivalent, but I need a Pelican rollaway case to drag it around: it is over the weight limit on my package scale; I measured it on the bathroom scale at around 23lbs (11kg).
Yes, I own all this equipment and these weights and sizes are quite real.
This sub-thread is really quite funny.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You are singing to the choir, Cal. Although I'm downsizing ... the other three systems in the closet are going because I've run out of space. :angel:
G
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
After eight months of studying and considering the Hasselblad X1D vs the SL and M-D, what I've come to realize is that the X1D, while competitive with the SL in size and weight if you consider it with a two-lens kit (45/90 vs SL24-90), from a feature and use perspective is more competitive with the M10 with a typical 28/50 or 35/75 kit on photo capability. It doesn't have the responsiveness and speed, or versatility, to compete against the SL. If I were to buy an X1D to expand my camera kit, it would replace the M but not the SL, and I'd just have to suffer the additional weight and size.
G
G
SaveKodak
Well-known
If "walking the walk" is working as a professional photographer for the last 10+ years, then yes that is a walk that I do walk. You're not the only one with experience Cal, and I've been on, in, and around photo productions since we were alternating between the old 1Ds Mark II and Phase P45 backs to the current state of the art. I was a darkroom printer for John Dolan's clients, which shared studio space with Holger Thoss who ran a high end fine-art printing and scanning business. I've been on set and on location for Target, Sea Doo Bombardier, Best Buy, Fujitisu, Cargill, and many other corporate clients. Here in NYC I've shot Super 8 for the daughters of billionaires and photographed many weddings where the budget is about the cost of a house in most Midwest cities. In addition to that I used to work with Brennan (got him hired), but I just quit to continue as a full time shooter. So, I know how many items move, and how often. You could call my career in photography thus far, diverse to say the least. So yes, I "walk the walk." It helps that I started with a BA in Photography too. My overall point being, don't think you're the only photographer in NYC who knows what they're doing.
Back on topic, as JSRocket mentioned, medium format is an advantage regardless of print size often. I frequently look fondly on my 8x8 prints from my Hasselblad that I made in the darkroom. Their tonality could be described as lush, you basically want to swim in the blacks. I rarely shoot a format or a MP count for resolution or print size. I pick a format based on what that format brings to the shoot. I would shoot a GFX differently from how I shoot my D750. The GFX would have more limitations, but that would be made up for by my willingness to more carefully compose. Same as when I switch from my F6 or M4 to my Rolleiflex or Pentax 6x7. Plus, as Brennan said, the GFX is going to take 35mm lenses, some even with AF. Many of the longer designs will even cover. So...hello 85/1.4 on 44x33. Keep in mind Fuji is doing this with the current state of the art in 44x33 sensors, not some version of a sensor that was good 6 years ago and still has banding (which I haven't had to deal with since the 5D mark II.)
Back on topic, as JSRocket mentioned, medium format is an advantage regardless of print size often. I frequently look fondly on my 8x8 prints from my Hasselblad that I made in the darkroom. Their tonality could be described as lush, you basically want to swim in the blacks. I rarely shoot a format or a MP count for resolution or print size. I pick a format based on what that format brings to the shoot. I would shoot a GFX differently from how I shoot my D750. The GFX would have more limitations, but that would be made up for by my willingness to more carefully compose. Same as when I switch from my F6 or M4 to my Rolleiflex or Pentax 6x7. Plus, as Brennan said, the GFX is going to take 35mm lenses, some even with AF. Many of the longer designs will even cover. So...hello 85/1.4 on 44x33. Keep in mind Fuji is doing this with the current state of the art in 44x33 sensors, not some version of a sensor that was good 6 years ago and still has banding (which I haven't had to deal with since the 5D mark II.)
And conversely, you need more skill to mask mistakes in larger formats. I think more than a few that buy the medium format digital cameras will realize that less depth of filed may not be a great thing for their style.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
They're not much different from the competing Nikon or Canon lenses of similar focal length and speed. Did you put on your magnifying glasses when you looked at the Leica specifications? Hmm? :angel:
Reality experiment: Fit the SL body, WATE, SL24-90, Elmar-R 180/4, Telyt-R 250/4 (the Elmar plus Telyt weigh the same or more than the SL90-280, mine hasn't arrived yet), iPadPro 12.3, batteries and cards into my Tenba Cooper 13DSLR. Put the bag on the scale and I have a 14lb (6.3 kg) package to carry. I did the same with my Nikon D750 (not the competitive body, which would be the D810 if I had one) with 18, 24, 50, 85, 105, 180, and 500mm mirror lenses (still fit in the Cooper, but tightly) with the other stuff and the weight was identical. It's not uncommon for landscape photographers to carry that plus a sturdy tripod into the field.
Regards the difference to medium format: Show me a medium format digital kit with a similar 35mm equivalent FoV range from 16mm to 280mm loaded into a bag and tell me how big the bag is and how much it weighs. I can only do an experiment with my Hasselblad V system kit, approximately 21mm wide angle equivalent to 100mm equivalent, but I need a Pelican rollaway case to drag it around: it is over the weight limit on my package scale; I measured it on the bathroom scale at around 23lbs (11kg).
Yes, I own all this equipment and these weights and sizes are quite real.
This sub-thread is really quite funny.
G
Leica SL + 24-90 + 90-280 + 50/1.4 = 12.9lbs
Nikon D750 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 300/4 PF + 50/1.4 = 11.39lbs
That's a pound and a half of weight savings with a whole extra lens in there. With the only lens being slower than f/2.8 being the 300/4. So I guess I'm still correct. Leica doesn't even have enough primes to compare to seperate systems based on a prime to prime setup.
Canon 5D IV + 24-70 + 70-200 + 300/4 IS + 50/1.4 = 10.66
Hmm. All manual focus in that set, eh?
That's a personal choice, and is why I also own an M-D with, hah!, 28, 35, 50, and 75mm lenses.
Yeah, which is why I don't own it... I prefer AF. But it is sexy (the M10).
You're not going to support me? I own the SL and have 15 R lenses, the SL24-90, and a dozen M lenses for it. Now that's a slew of lenses ... I'm crushed, both ways.
Ok, I support you. I just don't know you personally and haven't seen your equipment.
I've seen Cal's and a few others here.Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Brennan,
You took things out of context. The features I mentioned, I did not mention because they were novel or inventions. I mentioned those specific features because they were on my Nikon DSLR that the SL replaced. My response was in support of Godfrey's comment of how the SL was intended to be used in lew of a SLR. I thought this was clear.
If you really want to exploit IQ printing big is an asset. Not so obvious in smaller prints, but as things scale up everything kinda changes. Some files, not all, really respond well to printing huge. The detail of such resolution available today opens up in larger prints and remains hidden otherwise. The same for tone.
If one argues that size matters as far as sensor size why would you not support print size that supports the larger medium and exploits the medium to its full potential. Pretty much by printing small you are hiding both detail and tonality, and I thought the idea of shooting larger formats was to reveal more. Surely one can see it in small prints if you look for it, but in larger prints it kinda speaks to the viewer. Also know that printing bigger follows square law so things get difficult in a compounding manner.
Mark Cuban said, "Go big or don't go." So your logic is don't run with the ball.
I am not a pro. I have a day job. Not really trying to impress anyone other than myself. Any income from photography that comes my way is kinda accidental. I have no presence online other than RFF.
Cal
SaveKodak
Well-known
And wise old photographers told me "if you can't do it good, do it big, if you can't do it big, do it in color." A tongue and cheek phrase related to art photography but the point is bigger is not better. While very large Alec Soth prints are breathtakingly beautiful to behold, so too are his contact prints. Only technical photographers choose a larger format solely due to resolution. Frankly the giant print is a little passé these days. I like substantive and intimate over big and bold.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You complain about a pound and a half on one hand, then say I shouldn't go to the SL in favor of medium format digital on the other, which will weigh in at double the above. How consistent of you!
BTW: you don't need the big, heavy 50/1.4 if you have the 24-90. Neither of the kits I articulated included more than one lens with a given focal length, and I gave you actual weight taken on a package scale (this morning!) of the whole kit, lenses/body/accessories + bag, not weights derived from adding up numbers from a specification sheet.
G
But Cal, how much of your audience (or the viewer) really notices this stuff (especially non-photographers)?
Also, without compelling framing (composition) and content, things like detail, tonality, and large prints aren't going to mean much.
I second SaveKodak's point about Alec Soth. His stuff is beautiful no matter how it is viewed. His little box set of miniature books and small prints is beautiful.
http://mackbooks.co.uk/books/1094-Gathered-Leaves.html
However, I also like small prints and books, so I regress. I have many files that can be printed large but I don't see the point if no one is giving me a show.
SaveKodak
Well-known
Even if they weigh the same why would you get the SL? It's inferior in every technical way to basic prosumer Nikon kits? Change it up to a D810 or 5DSR and you're cooking with gas even with the "rudimentary" Nikkor, ART, Otus, Milvus, or Canon lenses....oh wait all those lenses are actually world class.
Be honest, you're interested in the SL or X1D because they look great on the seat of a Mercedes in a way that cameras that deliver on their promises don't...then again, looking good is the Leica promise 2/3rds of the time.
Be honest, you're interested in the SL or X1D because they look great on the seat of a Mercedes in a way that cameras that deliver on their promises don't...then again, looking good is the Leica promise 2/3rds of the time.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
I like small prints also. I happen to like the intimacy of holding a print or book in the hand. It is a very different experience than viewing an exhibition on a wall.
I get that the pro's use medium format so they can savagely crop and not really loose IQ because they have resolution to give, and I am in the same opinion as you: In the same manner that you express why print big, I ask why does one need so much resolution? I also understand that the huge files stand up better to heavy-heavy post processing better than smaller files.
This thread is amusing in so much of the arguing. In the same manner that printing big makes a point to so few, and so many in reality will not take notice of the technical difficulty and expense, also the physics and practicality of medium format also gets discounted.
Like I mentioned in another post in this thread why not compare or argue one of the medium format digital offerings from Hasselblad or Fuji to a M10? Seems like some people want to argue. Seems like others create fake news. Seems like some just want to hate the SL. LOL.
Anyways printing big to display the medium format resolution is a justification of dealing with the physics and need for more light. I just don't see why I might need a medium format digital, unless I want or need to print bigger than I already am, or I'm doing lots of studio work. Am I being a jerk by reminding people that what is deemed a better expenditure of a lot of money, might not be practical, may be overkill, might not make economic sense, might have limited use, and might not be the best tool for the job?
BTW I take no exception to Godfrey's remark about the 50 Lux-SL. It truely is big and heavy. LOL.
Cal