This is really a great job! You have managed to include various things in a single video - short historical insight, your experience, technical details, personal review and so on.
Great video Thorsten and your information is always interesting. Whilst watching this video it struck to me that your channel is the only one where I never ever fast forward a video. Now that would probably mean nothing to the general public but for me it is an important measurement for quality, what information is brought, the pace of the video, the simplicity for people to understand, the coherence of the subjects discussed, and much more. You put people who jibber jabber all day long bout pixels and what not, back on their feet that the fun of shooting is the most important of all. Thanks for sharing again !
Having owned both, I would say the Leica M system is the ultimate EDC. It is designed for zone focusing and snap shots. Not in a derogatory sense, but in the original British meaning derived from hunting. When I looked for a digital Leica for my M-glass, I was not willing to pay the M tax. A used SL (601) was my solution and is still to this day, an excellent camera. It was not love at first use. It is a far more technical camera. At introduction, the SL was $7450 USD, far more than M cameras of the day. This made sense since it was a much more sophisticated platform. Leicaphiles don't want to hear it, but the SL glass is also far superior to current M glass. If you insist on shooting every lens wide-open, the SL is also the best choice. It never needs to be sent in for RF calibration and can take advantage of fast glass. Two completely different systems for different needs.
Not having to send in the SL camera for CLA is almost worth it alone to buy one over the M series. Especially with multi month turnaround, nobody wants to send their cameras into Leica
Photo life before digital: Back when I was shooting news on film for UPI and the AP, my record from walk in darkroom to transmittable print was 17 minutes; with the majority of that time waiting for the chemicals to work. Bearing in mind that for news purposes all parts of the profess were super powered: 1) i got really good at spooling the film FAST. 2) we had large tanks that we could develop 6-8 rolls at a time in 1/3 the normal time, 3) stop and fix was done in seconds. 4) water rinse was seconds 5) the reels of film were all shoved into what was a GIANT hair dryer (about 3x the size of a normal dryer) they blew higher and hotter than actual hair dryers. Total time for this part: 11-12 minutes. 6) time to print: we all got good at reading the negatives so we could tell overall exposure time plus what to dodge and burn and by how much BEFORE making our first print. I got to about an 85% hit rate on finished prints on the first try. 2-3 minutes. 7) type the image caption and stick it on the bottom of the print. 8) attach the image to the spinning drum for transmission. 2-3 minutes. 9) hit send. 10) grab a coffee.
Just to show progress, when I was in college, 1960/65, my friends family owned Rayner lithography in Chicago. One Saturday I went with him so he could do a school project. We got to the business and he had to make a half tone. The room we were in was a camera, lens outside, and two lamps ar 45 deg shining on the item to be copied. He got a 16x20 inch sheet of film and hung it so it was receiving light from the lens. He exposed and developed it inside the camera/darkroom. But my real start was 1957/8 when the boy across the street was developing film from a football game. It was in a steel tank and on a platform that shook the tank every so often. I saw the film come out and was hooked. Can you imagine doing a game with a screw mount Leica and 135 lens? I guess you make due with what you have, a lesson for us all. Those were my two extremes and I have used everything in between, but I settled on Leica M and Nikon Z6&7.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard cause of the Aramide ‘’leathering’’ the reporter feels more premium, never noticed that until I held the black one yesterday.
Without a doubt Leica makes exquisite things to hold in hand, feel and use - makes photography a pleasure not a chore - encourages one to make a photograph to see what something looks like as a photograph - -:) Pure fun.
Thanks for another excellent video. For now I can only aspire to Leica ownership but your discussion has inspired me to shoot today with my little X100V on this fine sunny spring day here in Quebec. Mange tak!
Greetings from Southern Ontario! It looks like spring is just around the corner. Landscape photography season. I'm a Fuji X shooter primarily, but I do own some film Leica gear. Looking forward to exercising it
Thanks for the comparison SL vs M - I bought an SL to use with my R lenses and found it's heavy to carry around. Best solution for me is to use adapter for R lenses on my M10 and voila! I'm done.
If you ask Peter Karbe which camera (M/SL) he would personally choose, I bet he would give you this answer, "Once you get used to write with a fountain pen, you wouldn't want to use a ballpoint pen anymore."
I think he would not tell ... then again, I suspect the one that works with his latest lenses is the one. I've seen some of his photos he took on holidays, testing new lenses not yet released.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard We all suffer from "newer things are more interesting" syndrome, don't we? But as a lens designer he could unleash his full potential with the larger L bayonet. BTW Thorsten if you happen to touch base with Peter Karbe please tell him that the recent quality control of M lenses is a bit less than perfect. Two new (factory sealed) APO Summicron M 35 we come across have aperture blades problems: one of them has one single defective blade, and the other has a completely detached aperture ring mechanism (nothing happens when you turn the aperture ring). Another lens----Summilux M 28 has a slight play at the gap between the focusing ring and the bayonet mount-----since 2019 a local Leica salesperson has encountered 4 new SLX28 lenses with the same problem. The salesperson had sent emails to Leica headquarters and received bureaucratic answers like: Leica lenses are sturdy and durable, if you encounter any problems please contact your regional Leica representative. Of course we can always send the lenses back to Leica for adjustment and repair, but it would be better if these problems are discovered before the lenses leave the factory. We Leica enthusiasts are obliged to protect the reputation of what we dearly adore. I am sure Peter should be very nervous about the final quality of what he designs and wouldn't want to see his masterpieces to be smeared by the slightest imperfection. He has the right to know about all these. Thank you, Thorsten!
I bought the M240 which some say is not a classic but I like it very much. I then bought an SL which I use a lot on a tripod and I like that very much too. I love them both. Sure the M has been around longer with a great heritage. It has been many iterations. The SL is the new boy and it will go through many iterations too.
The M is timeless and makes you want to take pictures. The SL is undoutedly a fine camera, but not something I rate higher than for instance the Nikon Z9 (quality and pricewise).
i love my M240, but its not the right tool for some live sports i shoot. been looking at an SL system as a possible solution due to higher ISO, image stabilization, and faster buffer.
I watched this right the way through to the last chapter headed, not surprisingly, "conclusion". As the information you gave up to that point was little more than a fairly detailed journey through the (well known by now) history of Leica camera development, I was hoping for some insight to justify your title for the video "Leica M or Leica SL? Which camera is better?". Sadly however, there was no "conclusion" at all. Simply a sign off with a request that we watch more of your feeds. Rather disappointing. What was the purpose of this discussion? Was there no conclusion because the question you pose is rather meaningless in any event? The answer depends on the sort of photographer you are and what sort of photography you want to use the camera for. Usually I enjoy your videos and I hope to do so again in the future.
I like the SL 601 for the image quality that is more raw and film like than Leica SL2 and Leica SL3. The ergonomics and menu of the SL2 and onward is better though.
The digital back for R6 bodies was $6k. After many R3, 4, 5 and 6s, and having more failures than any Nikon or canon ever, I was done. I even had a 19mm R lens that had broken aperture control.
I have newer Laica lenses for M10-R. and need your advice. The new ones have "perfect" digital-looking files which I dislike. what 35mm old lenses would you recommend that render film-like files? meaning no pixelated harsh edges in contrasty areas etc. more soft and creamy files with lesser details. thank you very much
I am curious, do you carry photo release forms around with you so that as you shoot you can get permission to use someone’s image for the photos you sell? Thanks
I answered your video by purchasing a M11 tonight, completing my 1994 Classic M6 & 2002 M6 TTL. This combo will allow me to shoot my 28 Asph, 35, 50 & 90mm Summicrons. Neither the Q2 nor the SL2 felt right.
I think it is genius and easy to "Always Wear A Camera". In real life, I love the M more and usually use that and only use the Q occasionally and when I "just want a photo" like others use their smartphone. www.overgaard.dk/Leica-Q-Hemingway-digital-rangefinder-.html
If you want SL2 features like autofocus, an EVF and IBIS but with the lifestyle convenience, size and build quality of an M then purchase a Q2. I suppose the fixed 28mm lens might deter some people but it ticks the boxes for me!
True. Leica Q camaers sort of have it all in a small excellent package. But then, if you want super wide angle, tele lenses, lenses with narrow depth of field ... then the SL. Same feel in many ways, but SL *is* the bigger system.
The M cameras were NOT invented by Oskar Barnack as you seem to Imply; It did not emerge from the forehead of the Ur Leica or even the Leica I (A)! Nearly 30 years elapsed between the I(A ) in 1925 and the Leica M3 in 1954 with many developments along the way, most importantly interchangeable standardized lenses (1930) the rangefinder (1932), and Barnack was long dead when the M3 was introduced in 1954. Credit him for the LTM cameras, but not the M,
I understand what you are saying. M is for Messsucher (range finder), which was implemented before the 1930's as an add-on on top of the camera and integrated in the camera in the 1930's. Also interchangeable screw mount lenses was introduced late 1920's. In 1954 the camera model name was updated to M, the "M bayonet" was added instead of screw mount, and the rangefinder window was integrated with the viewfinder. The 35mm concept was introduced in 1925 as designed by Oskar Barnack, as a compact light-weight camera. Many have a hard rality they are unwilling to change that a Leica M has to have a "Messsucher" and if removed (as in a future Leica M with EVF and thus no range finder), it cease to be an M. M is a model name, not a certain unchangeable concept. Leica R stood for Reflex (mirror), Leica Q is a reference to Q in 007, SL is Single Lens (no mirror, Leica CL is Compact Leica, Leica C is Compact, Minilux is Mini, and so on. Leica S for no reason, Leica T for no reason. It's model names. M model is essentially a light weight portable camera that in it's design is two rolls with metal plates connecting them (and keeping the film in dark while holding a lens between the two rolls).
I've worked with one (rental for a job, I don't actually own one) and is one of the best cameras I've had the opportunity to use, absolute workhouse pro masterpiece. That said, I feel Leica priced it too high, even for its usual pricing standards. And realistically against industry established names like Phase One and the unbeatable price/performance GFX line from Fujifilm, only a few true devotees would even consider the S line as a viable and in any way cost effective proposition. But they are very affordable now in the used camera market and for the money, among the very best cameras you can ever buy. Stunning machines and lenses ❤️📷
Larger glass simply is more resolution and precision. You can make very small lenses of very high quality, but the assembling and precision required is tremendous. Give the lens designer more space and they will make perfect lenses in terms of performance. That's what the SL system (and the S system) allow for.
That is the 7artisans 85mm T2.0 cine lens for L mount. It's a $450.00 lens: 7artisans.store/products/85mm-t2-0-full-frame-cine-lens-for-sony-e-nikon-z-panasonic-l/?ref=odW5Y4he
@@JHurrenPhotography Rumor has it that they developed in whisky, vodka or whatever and sent the negatives still wet via the telephone scanner. Maybe the truth is they drank a lot and developed film in their hotel rooms and sent the scans while still wet :-)
The title sounds like, which tool is better? An open-ended wrench or pliers? You can open a screw nut with both. But one is better for this, whereas the other one can be used more flexible.
Great summary. I always think we should capitalise what we are good at: so Leica should take advantage of great German mechanics and leave the electronics to Japanese. The return of M6 is a great move and I wish to see more film cameras from them in future especially medium format. Their move towards SL is confusing when it’s expensive, heavy and slow compared to oriental brands.
SL2, SL2s, and Q2s are the best cameras that Leica makes. M cameras are super slow, like a constipated turtle 🐢, and the focus system is slow as molasses, and the focus peaking is hideous, like a pig taking a dump in your backyard. 😅😂
It's strange to me that there is no mention of the Sony A7 which was a year before the Leica SL. Suggesting that the Leica SL was the first modern full frame mirrorless system is disingenuous.
Full-frame mirrorless is not the point, they were out and about before the SL. The *new* is he SL concept with 51.6mm diameter of the bayonet; the idea of a camera system with a large enough bayonet that any future lens design can be made for it without limitations. That meant huge cameras and huge lenses (again), and that is the idea Canon, Nikon, etc copied as it started a new wave of *system cameras* where you buy a body, then a lens, more lenses and build a collection of lenses. Any new product where you marry the user with an entire new series of products is a gold mine. Apple made their own eco system where you buy one Apple product (iPhone for example) then a watch, then a computer, then iCloud, etc. It's a system. The SL is just that, and it happened as everybody was sure "real" cameras was dying and phones would take over.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard what you're describing is the essence of the e-mount (Sony) ecosystem which was launched in 2013 and currently has 14mm-600mm native autofocus lenses and that single mount supports APSC, full frame and cinema cameras. It's built on the promise of future-proofing. It just seems like a strange omission as Leica cameras also use Sony sensors.
Too bad you don't have a film Leica in your hands but what seems to be an M10 R to talk about the Leica M and 35 mm film in all the first part of the video !
The idea that SL has a Panasonic heritage is seared into my mind. If I want to get the sharpness of a Japanese-styled camera I would simply go for a Nikon Z9 which has much better electronics. An M camera has a German heritage. It is not about sharpness, but the atmosphere and 3D-pop that matter.
The SL was made by Leica just as much as Panasonic. Back when Leica made cameras together with Minolta, the Minolta versions also came out long before the Leica versions, even the same base. Don't know why that is. The L-mount for sure is Leica's invention, Panasonic agreed it was a great idea and started developing bodies for it. And seem to make more bodies than Leica, with a turn to video capabilities as well. If you use the Panasonic SR1 and Leica SL2 side-by side you will find their sensor performance much the same, and also speed of operation (buffer etc), but the Leica SL2 is *so* much simpler in use it is a wonder (to me) why Panasonic make it so complicated.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaardI love my S1R but you are absolutely correct. It is immensely complicated for no reason. I have a love hate relationship with it. But it’s all warm and fuzzy 🥰 with my SL2.
I owned both M11 and SL2S as well as Nikon Z9. To me M11 is great and SL2S kind of sucks. If one is going for modern features and video you might as well go straight for Sony, Nikon, Lumix or other contemporary cameras. M series is unique and is classically beautiful with modetn technology for still images, GREAT. This is just my 2 cent opinion. If you disagree with me that's ok, keep your opinion to yourself.
Leica M all the way! The SL line will age, the M won't, ever. Now the Leica SL is already "old news" against the SL2/SL2S and by the time there is an SL3 and SL4 and then an SL AI or whatever BS will come next, no one will look at the older SLs while the M will always be an M, classic by its own right and, if you know what you are doing and you know the meaning and feel of the art of true and pure photography, that's it📷
PS - All Leicas are great cameras (well, almost all of them haha) and I actually do enjoy the SL line though in fact I still prefer the original SL because it has by far better light capabilities than the SL2 and since I have steady hands the the added benefits of the SL2S for almost double the cost now never appealed to me as a logical or necessary upgrade. I personally concentrate on trying to upgrade my skills rather than upgrading my gear.
I disagree completely. Digital M will also age and no one will look at it. Aside from M9 famous for the CCD sensor, M8 / M10 are forgotten and fading. Film M holds value but not digital M. As the owner of both systems: there are shots that M couldn’t take but SL can. AF makes a big difference to the workflow. The tele lenses of SL eg 400mm blow M away. So it really depends on the need of the photographer and not the value of the camera. If you want to buy something that retains value: go get a gold nugget or a house. 😂
No digital camera is 'forever'. No camera with electronics is forever. Batteries become obsolete. Wiring and circuit boards corrode and break down, even Leica M.
This is true. I have a Leica TL2 and as much as I love it, there’s some difficulty already in finding accessories, etc for it. And look at M240 prices, commonly can be found for $2500 USD or so, the M cameras will drop as time goes on. I agree, the film ones will hold value but there’s this belief that digital somehow gets worse over time and obsolete. It’s a flawed mass belief because the camera isn’t going to change over time. If an m10 took a great photo 6 years ago, it’s going to look exactly the same today.
This is really a great job!
You have managed to include various things in a single video - short historical insight, your experience, technical details, personal review and so on.
Great video Thorsten and your information is always interesting.
Whilst watching this video it struck to me that your channel is the only one where I never ever fast forward a video.
Now that would probably mean nothing to the general public but for me it is an important measurement for quality, what information is brought, the pace of the video, the simplicity for people to understand, the coherence of the subjects discussed, and much more.
You put people who jibber jabber all day long bout pixels and what not, back on their feet that the fun of shooting is the most important of all.
Thanks for sharing again !
Having owned both, I would say the Leica M system is the ultimate EDC. It is designed for zone focusing and snap shots. Not in a derogatory sense, but in the original British meaning derived from hunting. When I looked for a digital Leica for my M-glass, I was not willing to pay the M tax. A used SL (601) was my solution and is still to this day, an excellent camera. It was not love at first use. It is a far more technical camera. At introduction, the SL was $7450 USD, far more than M cameras of the day. This made sense since it was a much more sophisticated platform. Leicaphiles don't want to hear it, but the SL glass is also far superior to current M glass. If you insist on shooting every lens wide-open, the SL is also the best choice. It never needs to be sent in for RF calibration and can take advantage of fast glass. Two completely different systems for different needs.
Not having to send in the SL camera for CLA is almost worth it alone to buy one over the M series. Especially with multi month turnaround, nobody wants to send their cameras into Leica
Great insight and video & thank you for the ebooks! Appreciate you.
Great, informative and entertaining video, Thorsten! Thank you very much.
I have just discovered your channel. Very interesting history and descriptions.
Thank you 🙂
Photo life before digital: Back when I was shooting news on film for UPI and the AP, my record from walk in darkroom to transmittable print was 17 minutes; with the majority of that time waiting for the chemicals to work. Bearing in mind that for news purposes all parts of the profess were super powered: 1) i got really good at spooling the film FAST. 2) we had large tanks that we could develop 6-8 rolls at a time in 1/3 the normal time, 3) stop and fix was done in seconds. 4) water rinse was seconds 5) the reels of film were all shoved into what was a GIANT hair dryer (about 3x the size of a normal dryer) they blew higher and hotter than actual hair dryers. Total time for this part: 11-12 minutes.
6) time to print: we all got good at reading the negatives so we could tell overall exposure time plus what to dodge and burn and by how much BEFORE making our first print. I got to about an 85% hit rate on finished prints on the first try. 2-3 minutes.
7) type the image caption and stick it on the bottom of the print.
8) attach the image to the spinning drum for transmission. 2-3 minutes.
9) hit send.
10) grab a coffee.
Thank you for sharing 🙂
Thorsten,
Maybe your best video to date.
Thanks
Thank you 🙂
Just to show progress, when I was in college, 1960/65, my friends family owned Rayner lithography in Chicago.
One Saturday I went with him so he could do a school project. We got to the business and he had to make a half tone. The room we were in was a camera, lens outside, and two lamps ar 45 deg shining on the item to be copied. He got a 16x20 inch sheet of film and hung it so it was receiving light from the lens. He exposed and developed it inside the camera/darkroom.
But my real start was 1957/8 when the boy across the street was developing film from a football game. It was in a steel tank and on a platform that shook the tank every so often. I saw the film come out and was hooked.
Can you imagine doing a game with a screw mount Leica and 135 lens? I guess you make due with what you have, a lesson for us all.
Those were my two extremes and I have used everything in between, but I settled on Leica M and Nikon Z6&7.
Very interesting topic and great explanation. Your work is excellent .
Thank you 🙂
Bought my sl2s reporter 3 months ago and today I bought another one, the standard black version, I’m liking it, now add two more lenses and im done.
Which you like the best if only one: Reporter color or black?
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard cause of the Aramide ‘’leathering’’ the reporter feels more premium, never noticed that until I held the black one yesterday.
I want to buy the SL2-S Reporter but no luck so far since it’s only 1,000 made.
Without a doubt Leica makes exquisite things to hold in hand, feel and use - makes photography a pleasure not a chore - encourages one to make a photograph to see what something looks like as a photograph - -:) Pure fun.
Thanks for another excellent video. For now I can only aspire to Leica ownership but your discussion has inspired me to shoot today with my little X100V on this fine sunny spring day here in Quebec. Mange tak!
Greetings from Southern Ontario! It looks like spring is just around the corner. Landscape photography season. I'm a Fuji X shooter primarily, but I do own some film Leica gear. Looking forward to exercising it
Thank you for yet another video Thorsten. Enjoyd it.
Thank you 🙂
Thanks for the comparison SL vs M - I bought an SL to use with my R lenses and found it's heavy to carry around. Best solution for me is to use adapter for R lenses on my M10 and voila! I'm done.
That's right 🙂
Love watching your videos!
Thank you 🙂
If you ask Peter Karbe which camera (M/SL) he would personally choose, I bet he would give you this answer, "Once you get used to write with a fountain pen, you wouldn't want to use a ballpoint pen anymore."
I think he would not tell ... then again, I suspect the one that works with his latest lenses is the one. I've seen some of his photos he took on holidays, testing new lenses not yet released.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard We all suffer from "newer things are more interesting" syndrome, don't we? But as a lens designer he could unleash his full potential with the larger L bayonet.
BTW Thorsten if you happen to touch base with Peter Karbe please tell him that the recent quality control of M lenses is a bit less than perfect. Two new (factory sealed) APO Summicron M 35 we come across have aperture blades problems: one of them has one single defective blade, and the other has a completely detached aperture ring mechanism (nothing happens when you turn the aperture ring). Another lens----Summilux M 28 has a slight play at the gap between the focusing ring and the bayonet mount-----since 2019 a local Leica salesperson has encountered 4 new SLX28 lenses with the same problem.
The salesperson had sent emails to Leica headquarters and received bureaucratic answers like: Leica lenses are sturdy and durable, if you encounter any problems please contact your regional Leica representative.
Of course we can always send the lenses back to Leica for adjustment and repair, but it would be better if these problems are discovered before the lenses leave the factory. We Leica enthusiasts are obliged to protect the reputation of what we dearly adore. I am sure Peter should be very nervous about the final quality of what he designs and wouldn't want to see his masterpieces to be smeared by the slightest imperfection. He has the right to know about all these.
Thank you, Thorsten!
I bought the M240 which some say is not a classic but I like it very much. I then bought an SL which I use a lot on a tripod and I like that very much too. I love them both. Sure the M has been around longer with a great heritage. It has been many iterations. The SL is the new boy and it will go through many iterations too.
The M240 is is a very good producer. Will be doing a video on it soon 🙂
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaardstill waiting for your m-p 240 video! :)
The M is timeless and makes you want to take pictures. The SL is undoutedly a fine camera, but not something I rate higher than for instance the Nikon Z9 (quality and pricewise).
i love my M240, but its not the right tool for some live sports i shoot. been looking at an SL system as a possible solution due to higher ISO, image stabilization, and faster buffer.
I watched this right the way through to the last chapter headed, not surprisingly, "conclusion". As the information you gave up to that point was little more than a fairly detailed journey through the (well known by now) history of Leica camera development, I was hoping for some insight to justify your title for the video "Leica M or Leica SL? Which camera is better?". Sadly however, there was no "conclusion" at all. Simply a sign off with a request that we watch more of your feeds. Rather disappointing. What was the purpose of this discussion? Was there no conclusion because the question you pose is rather meaningless in any event? The answer depends on the sort of photographer you are and what sort of photography you want to use the camera for. Usually I enjoy your videos and I hope to do so again in the future.
I think the conclusion must be yours. For me it is the M. And as you can see in the comments here, some say Leica Q2 or Sony, and so on.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard then don't make you title seem like you will answer.
@@song-modebut he did answer
If I really need digital files, sometimes for reproduction, I use my M lenses on an A7Rii, which I already have. It lacks nothing that I need.
😊👌
What do you think about the original SL in 2023?
I like the SL 601 for the image quality that is more raw and film like than Leica SL2 and Leica SL3. The ergonomics and menu of the SL2 and onward is better though.
The digital back for R6 bodies was $6k. After many R3, 4, 5 and 6s, and having more failures than any Nikon or canon ever, I was done. I even had a 19mm R lens that had broken aperture control.
I have newer Laica lenses for M10-R. and need your advice. The new ones have "perfect" digital-looking files which I dislike. what 35mm old lenses would you recommend that render film-like files? meaning no pixelated harsh edges in contrasty areas etc. more soft and creamy files with lesser details. thank you very much
Good review. Thank you
I am curious, do you carry photo release forms around with you so that as you shoot you can get permission to use someone’s image for the photos you sell? Thanks
I answered your video by purchasing a M11 tonight, completing my 1994 Classic M6 & 2002 M6 TTL. This combo will allow me to shoot my 28 Asph, 35, 50 & 90mm Summicrons. Neither the Q2 nor the SL2 felt right.
I agree. Congratulations with the new M.
wonderful video. As always
Would love to hear what you think of the Q
I think it is genius and easy to "Always Wear A Camera". In real life, I love the M more and usually use that and only use the Q occasionally and when I "just want a photo" like others use their smartphone.
www.overgaard.dk/Leica-Q-Hemingway-digital-rangefinder-.html
If you want SL2 features like autofocus, an EVF and IBIS but with the lifestyle convenience, size and build quality of an M then purchase a Q2. I suppose the fixed 28mm lens might deter some people but it ticks the boxes for me!
True. Leica Q camaers sort of have it all in a small excellent package. But then, if you want super wide angle, tele lenses, lenses with narrow depth of field ... then the SL. Same feel in many ways, but SL *is* the bigger system.
he made the leica to test film rolls, the m followed many years later
The M cameras were NOT invented by Oskar Barnack as you seem to Imply; It did not emerge from the forehead of the Ur Leica or even the Leica I (A)! Nearly 30 years elapsed between the I(A ) in 1925 and the Leica M3 in 1954 with many developments along the way, most importantly interchangeable standardized lenses (1930) the rangefinder (1932), and Barnack was long dead when the M3 was introduced in 1954. Credit him for the LTM cameras, but not the M,
I understand what you are saying. M is for Messsucher (range finder), which was implemented before the 1930's as an add-on on top of the camera and integrated in the camera in the 1930's. Also interchangeable screw mount lenses was introduced late 1920's. In 1954 the camera model name was updated to M, the "M bayonet" was added instead of screw mount, and the rangefinder window was integrated with the viewfinder.
The 35mm concept was introduced in 1925 as designed by Oskar Barnack, as a compact light-weight camera.
Many have a hard rality they are unwilling to change that a Leica M has to have a "Messsucher" and if removed (as in a future Leica M with EVF and thus no range finder), it cease to be an M.
M is a model name, not a certain unchangeable concept. Leica R stood for Reflex (mirror), Leica Q is a reference to Q in 007, SL is Single Lens (no mirror, Leica CL is Compact Leica, Leica C is Compact, Minilux is Mini, and so on. Leica S for no reason, Leica T for no reason. It's model names.
M model is essentially a light weight portable camera that in it's design is two rolls with metal plates connecting them (and keeping the film in dark while holding a lens between the two rolls).
how come nobody ever talks about the leica s3?
It's a smaller audience, but great cameras. Expensive, large, but great!
I've worked with one (rental for a job, I don't actually own one) and is one of the best cameras I've had the opportunity to use, absolute workhouse pro masterpiece. That said, I feel Leica priced it too high, even for its usual pricing standards. And realistically against industry established names like Phase One and the unbeatable price/performance GFX line from Fujifilm, only a few true devotees would even consider the S line as a viable and in any way cost effective proposition. But they are very affordable now in the used camera market and for the money, among the very best cameras you can ever buy. Stunning machines and lenses ❤️📷
Because hasselblad / phase one is better 😂
Agree about the size of mirrorless cameras. The better the glass the larger the set gets 🤦🏼 Guess it’s because of the focus motors.
Larger glass simply is more resolution and precision. You can make very small lenses of very high quality, but the assembling and precision required is tremendous. Give the lens designer more space and they will make perfect lenses in terms of performance. That's what the SL system (and the S system) allow for.
What 7 artisan lens is on the SL2?
That is the 7artisans 85mm T2.0 cine lens for L mount. It's a $450.00 lens: 7artisans.store/products/85mm-t2-0-full-frame-cine-lens-for-sony-e-nikon-z-panasonic-l/?ref=odW5Y4he
It little history missed the press photographers took picture on film, processed on site then scanned negative and sent image.
I would love to see a documentary or a feature length film on that. I've never heard about that practice but it's quite something to imagine
@@JHurrenPhotography Rumor has it that they developed in whisky, vodka or whatever and sent the negatives still wet via the telephone scanner. Maybe the truth is they drank a lot and developed film in their hotel rooms and sent the scans while still wet :-)
The title sounds like, which tool is better? An open-ended wrench or pliers? You can open a screw nut with both. But one is better for this, whereas the other one can be used more flexible.
Or Leica Q?! 😉
Another story for another day 🙂
Great summary. I always think we should capitalise what we are good at: so Leica should take advantage of great German mechanics and leave the electronics to Japanese. The return of M6 is a great move and I wish to see more film cameras from them in future especially medium format. Their move towards SL is confusing when it’s expensive, heavy and slow compared to oriental brands.
SL2, SL2s, and Q2s are the best cameras that Leica makes. M cameras are super slow, like a constipated turtle 🐢, and the focus system is slow as molasses, and the focus peaking is hideous, like a pig taking a dump in your backyard. 😅😂
Thorsten - I send you an email....
Did I answer it?
It's strange to me that there is no mention of the Sony A7 which was a year before the Leica SL. Suggesting that the Leica SL was the first modern full frame mirrorless system is disingenuous.
Full-frame mirrorless is not the point, they were out and about before the SL. The *new* is he SL concept with 51.6mm diameter of the bayonet; the idea of a camera system with a large enough bayonet that any future lens design can be made for it without limitations. That meant huge cameras and huge lenses (again), and that is the idea Canon, Nikon, etc copied as it started a new wave of *system cameras* where you buy a body, then a lens, more lenses and build a collection of lenses. Any new product where you marry the user with an entire new series of products is a gold mine. Apple made their own eco system where you buy one Apple product (iPhone for example) then a watch, then a computer, then iCloud, etc. It's a system. The SL is just that, and it happened as everybody was sure "real" cameras was dying and phones would take over.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaard what you're describing is the essence of the e-mount (Sony) ecosystem which was launched in 2013 and currently has 14mm-600mm native autofocus lenses and that single mount supports APSC, full frame and cinema cameras. It's built on the promise of future-proofing. It just seems like a strange omission as Leica cameras also use Sony sensors.
die Lumix S5 ist besser - the Lumix S5 is better
Too bad you don't have a film Leica in your hands but what seems to be an M10 R to talk about the Leica M and 35 mm film in all the first part of the video !
And then there’s the Q…
The M is about to celebrate 70 years? 100 for 35mm?
1954-2024, yes. The 100 year anniversary Leica already celebrated ... but maybe they should do it again 🙂
The idea that SL has a Panasonic heritage is seared into my mind. If I want to get the sharpness of a Japanese-styled camera I would simply go for a Nikon Z9 which has much better electronics.
An M camera has a German heritage. It is not about sharpness, but the atmosphere and 3D-pop that matter.
The SL was made by Leica just as much as Panasonic. Back when Leica made cameras together with Minolta, the Minolta versions also came out long before the Leica versions, even the same base. Don't know why that is. The L-mount for sure is Leica's invention, Panasonic agreed it was a great idea and started developing bodies for it. And seem to make more bodies than Leica, with a turn to video capabilities as well. If you use the Panasonic SR1 and Leica SL2 side-by side you will find their sensor performance much the same, and also speed of operation (buffer etc), but the Leica SL2 is *so* much simpler in use it is a wonder (to me) why Panasonic make it so complicated.
@@MagicOfLight_ThorstenOvergaardI love my S1R but you are absolutely correct. It is immensely complicated for no reason. I have a love hate relationship with it. But it’s all warm and fuzzy 🥰 with my SL2.
One big advertisement. Cmon.
I owned both M11 and SL2S as well as Nikon Z9. To me M11 is great and SL2S kind of sucks. If one is going for modern features and video you might as well go straight for Sony, Nikon, Lumix or other contemporary cameras. M series is unique and is classically beautiful with modetn technology for still images, GREAT.
This is just my 2 cent opinion. If you disagree with me that's ok, keep your opinion to yourself.
I don't think any camera sucks, I just use a camera more if I like it. M mostly, then SL and Q and TL2.
Leica M all the way! The SL line will age, the M won't, ever. Now the Leica SL is already "old news" against the SL2/SL2S and by the time there is an SL3 and SL4 and then an SL AI or whatever BS will come next, no one will look at the older SLs while the M will always be an M, classic by its own right and, if you know what you are doing and you know the meaning and feel of the art of true and pure photography, that's it📷
PS - All Leicas are great cameras (well, almost all of them haha) and I actually do enjoy the SL line though in fact I still prefer the original SL because it has by far better light capabilities than the SL2 and since I have steady hands the the added benefits of the SL2S for almost double the cost now never appealed to me as a logical or necessary upgrade. I personally concentrate on trying to upgrade my skills rather than upgrading my gear.
True
I disagree completely. Digital M will also age and no one will look at it. Aside from M9 famous for the CCD sensor, M8 / M10 are forgotten and fading. Film M holds value but not digital M. As the owner of both systems: there are shots that M couldn’t take but SL can. AF makes a big difference to the workflow. The tele lenses of SL eg 400mm blow M away. So it really depends on the need of the photographer and not the value of the camera. If you want to buy something that retains value: go get a gold nugget or a house. 😂
No digital camera is 'forever'. No camera with electronics is forever. Batteries become obsolete. Wiring and circuit boards corrode and break down, even Leica M.
This is true. I have a Leica TL2 and as much as I love it, there’s some difficulty already in finding accessories, etc for it. And look at M240 prices, commonly can be found for $2500 USD or so, the M cameras will drop as time goes on. I agree, the film ones will hold value but there’s this belief that digital somehow gets worse over time and obsolete. It’s a flawed mass belief because the camera isn’t going to change over time. If an m10 took a great photo 6 years ago, it’s going to look exactly the same today.