G'Morning all:
Just got back, to read all the comments on the new SL.
My (random) thoughts ...
1) Too big... for Pete's sake, it's a mirrorless, yet larger than the original
Leica SL or my R8 or R9.
2) It needs in-body-IS, not in-lens-IS. On my Oly, my 1972 400/6.8 Telyt
becomes an image stabilized lens. Not so, on the new SL.
3) Too heavy. With it's battery, the SL body weighs 70% more than my Oly.
4) it's no beauty, but as Ted pointed out, it's results not looks, that count.
When the R8 first came out, it was said to be ugly, but I loved mine. Beauty is
in the eye of the beholder, and results, were amazing.
5) Far too expensive. ... at least for my budget. All modern cameras suffer
from "digital rot" ... the rapid decline in value created by the rapid
introduction of newer, better performing models. Not only is the $10k (w/lens)
price out of my reach, but I cannot afford something that drops in value faster
than a new car being driven off the lot.
With film Leica's, you could afford to stretch your budget and buy one, for
they retained most of their value, over a very long time. Not true with the M8
& later digital Leicas. (Or any other digital, for that matter.)
To my mind, the "ugly" appearance is the least of the new SL's problems.
David.
--
David Young - Photographer
Logan Lake,BC, CANADA
Webpage: www.furnfeather.net
Photography e-books: http://tinyurl.com/SS2SS-Books
The new SL:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/look-here-first-images-of-the-new-leica-sl-with-lenses/
If it takes M and R lenses I might consider it.
Akhil
