Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMGS: SL with 35/2.0 Summicron M Lens

Subject: Re: [OM] IMGS: SL with 35/2.0 Summicron M Lens
From: Bob Whitmire <fujixbob@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 16:47:31 -0500
I just want to make it abundantly clear that my comment is not directed at
Tina, and the "you" is plural, not singular. The comment arose from one of
AG's fumble-fingered posts about something or other blah-blah the SL might
be good enough, or something like that. I don't have the original, or I do,
but it's in the trash by now and I'm not going looking for it.

Each of us is free to make our own equipment choices, as we all have done;
I once owned a Leica, took a lot of pics with it, and loved the results.
But that was a long time ago. Tina is a dedicated Leica shooter, knows how
to make 'em work, and I have absolutely no criticism of her or her choices.

My snarky comment was directed squarely at AG and his, well, numpty-ish
comment suggesting said camera might be good enough for him. And delivered
in jest. Or at least it was supposed to be.

Pfui! I've been out shooting with my iPhone and I like it just fine. <g>


--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal


On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 11/28/2015 6:47 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
>
>> Gee, I don't want to sound like a smart ass here, but for what that stuff
>> costs, it damn well better be better than good enough. A freaking choir of
>> angels should break into song every time you press the shutter.
>>
>
> "The SL is not a cheap camera – EUR6,000+ for the body and a further
> EUR4,000+ for each lens makes this the preserve of the very wealthy, though
> in reality I suspect most of Leica’s existing audience will see this one as
> a no-brainer. M lenses are now virtually native, as are R lenses; they’re
> easy to focus and image quality is better than from the M cameras. It would
> have been nice to see more resolution, but I suspect this might have eaten
> uncomfortably into S system sales. I actually suspect this camera is the
> beginning of the end of the M resurgence – a typical complaint from M users
> I know is one of deteriorating eyesight and difficulty in achieving focus.
> We no longer have that problem. And for those used to paying $7,000+ for a
> body, the SL isn’t a stretch at all.
>
> I admit I find myself somewhat conflicted with the SL: with a few firmware
> tweaks (fast exposure compensation mainly) and a chunkier handgrip, this
> camera would be pure joy to shoot. Even so, it still shows the way to the
> competition in many areas; the tricky question is one of relative value. I
> think it boils down to how much the shooting experience is worth to you,
> and whether the SL specifically works for you. Even though we had some
> clues as to what was coming, the SL takes it a step further, and feels like
> a next generation product – the Japanese brands are going to have to start
> playing catch up. After some expensive but niche (and occasionally flaky)
> product, Leica seem to have found their mojo again first with a Q, and now
> the SL – and are offering something that’s not just different, but
> genuinely better. Just like with the Q, my suspicion is they’re going to
> have problems making enough of them for the foreseeable future." Ming Thein
>
> The game is also different for a professional who brings in enough profit
> $ to depreciate the camera. The IRS helps with the cost through reduced
> taxes.
>
> Tina has made clear her answer to "I think it boils down to how much the
> shooting experience is worth to you, and whether the SL specifically works
> for you." She can afford it, she'll shoot the daylights out of it, and she
> likes it. Seems like more than enough justification to me. Who and I to
> judge, and how would I judge, others' choices?
>
> It's also interesting that at least this one reviewer, whose other reviews
> show he isn't a "yes' man and who is an employee of an Asian camera maker
> in his spare time, thinks Leica has leapfrogged the others in some
> performance aspects. What's that worth?
>
> Personally, it's a non starter. Where can I get the one with no insides
> for a couple of bucks? It will do just as much good for me as a camera and
> lens so big and heavy that they just look good as they occupy a shelf, but
> take no pics. ;-)
>
> Having now played a little with the Lytro Illum, another too big
> camera/lens, and an exercise in mixed amazement and frustration, I can say
> that a mature version of that tech with a FF sensor might be worth a size
> and weight like the SL.
>
> Moose D'Opinion
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz