New stuff for Leica S at Photokinia

[alan.y]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would love an SL with a bigger PRO sensor. The Summilux-SL 50 is so oversize for a 50 that I wonder if it's designed to cover a larger imaging area.

[jaapv]

I would love an SL with a bigger PRO sensor. The Summilux-SL 50 is so oversize for a 50 that I wonder if it's designed to cover a larger imaging area.

Isn't that camera called the S?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Isn't that camera called the S?

 

Until they put an EVF in an S, No.

 

Gordon

[ZHNL]

What I want is a few more summicron and maybe one summilux 60-70mm lens.

[jaapv]

Until they put an EVF in an S, No.

 

Gordon

Well, I cannot find a reason to prefer an EVF over an optical/reflex viewfinder.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

 and there will not be an update for some time. 

 

Ten days.........not that long  

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I cannot find a reason to prefer an EVF over an optical/reflex viewfinder.

 

Except for camera/lens focus checks, and eliminating the need (as on DSLRs) to micro-adjust focus for specific camera/lens combinations. (I'm still not sure why the S doesn't have....or apparently doesn't need....any such adjustment.  One can hear the lens almost 'self-adjust' upon camera startup.....but I'm not clear what's really taking place.)  An EVF typically offers various focus aids as well.

 

That said, I'll take an OVF any day.....based on EVFs that I've tried so far, including the SL.....all still look TV-screen-like to me.  But the gap is closing.

 

Jeff

Edited September 9, 2016 by Jeff S

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well, I cannot find a reason to prefer an EVF over an optical/reflex viewfinder.

 

Your choice of course. But for me...

 

- Image review through the viewfinder (useful when the rear screen is covered with glare).

- Live spirit level in the viewfinder.

- Image magnification for precision focusing of manual lenses.

- Pre-Chimping. WYSIWYG.

- Live histogram in the viewfinder.

- Clipping indicators in the viewfinder.

- Cheaper to manufacture. Decreases the weigh of the camera.

- Ability to select a focus point anywhere in the image area.

- EVF gain in studio and low light environments.

- no need to micro adjust AF lenses.

- no mirror slap.

- electronic first curtain shutter.

- silent shutter.

 

And that's ignoring the video side of things.

 

I think Leica should keep an S with the OVF. And a rangefinder M. However having the same basic camera with an EVF as well will expand Leica's reach into the market. The X1D system is still very lens limited but it will grow. If Leica wish to keep the S system alive they will need to embrace the future like they have with the SL and they will need to make a camera that can at least compete in price with what will be the new breed of "cheap" MF cameras.

 

And if you don't think people will give up a good optical finder for an EVF you just need to look at the photographers on these forums that has sold their M cameras to purchase an SL. It's happening. OVF's are going the way of film and vinyl. It'll survive, as a niche. Canikon, like Kodak will hang on for a while, hopelessly. But it's started and we can't stop it.

 

It is likely that within the next two years we will have 4 mini medium format systems with sub $12K camera bodies (Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji and Sony). Only one of those *may* have an OVF, and Pentax may develop an EVF body to lower costs. The excellent S lenses alone are simply not enough to keep the system alive. Leica will NEED to make a body in this range as a platform for the S lenses or else these four will be the entire MF market in 3 years.

 

Regardless of what any of us may "want". EVF cameras are the future and they are the close future. I think that Leica understands this with the SL. If the S system is to remain viable they will need an EVF camera body and they will need an entry point that isn't double of the nearest competitor. What Leica should be doing is getting the body price down, even if they need to make it back with slightly higher lens prices. The easiest way to do that will be to drop the mirror and prism.

 

Canikon are also going to learn this the hard way unless they start looking at the development of an EFV based camera system to take their lenses within the next few years. Keeping the OVF and ignoring the EVF because it's "superior" is exactly the mistake Kodak made with film.

 

Also you hinted that a larger version of the SL is an S. Since the major differentiator of the SL is its EVF a MF version would need to be an S with an EVF. Your personal dislike of EVF's doesn't make the S a larger version of the SL.

 

Gordon

[Guest chipcarterdc]

"OVF's are going the way of film and vinyl. It'll survive, as a niche."

 

Being both a photographer and a wee bit of an audiophile, your analogy "proves too much", as we lawyers say.

 

Vinyl is actually a *growing* niche and an increasing percentage of the industry's profits relative to every other physical form of recorded music (since streaming and downloading has decimated the CD). Film, similarly, is the "it thing" both among young "art" photographers and a certain high end segment of the client market that wants "that analog look" (as well as retaining usage among oldies like me (I'm 45), of course, who never completely abandoned film in the first place).

 

As in the examples above, I'm willing to bet that 10 years from now, the young 'uns will be returning to optical viewfinder and declaring EVFs passé and only for weekend photographers and soccer moms; similarly, a way to differentiate yourself to potential clients will be to own an optical viewfinder camera and to use the immediacy of the optical viewfinder capture experience as a selling point over the EVF shooters, since optical puts you closer to the "real world" while EVFs are one extra step removed from reality. Watch, I can do the pitch already:

 

"With an EVF, the photographer is using a computer-generated projected image to capture a recorded image of the image that reaches your eye. It's a simulacrum of a simulacrum; a photograph not merely of a TV screen but in effect taken *by* a TV screen. With my analog optical viewing method, I'm so much closer to the real/gritty/actual lived experience and thus my images actually reflect the decisive moment as it actually happened. Now give me lots of money."

 

If it turns out in 10 years that I'm wrong, I'll owe you a beer.

Edited September 10, 2016 by chipcarterdc

[Guest chipcarterdc]

Forgot to say:

 

"Keeping the OVF and ignoring the EVF because it's "superior" is exactly the mistake Kodak made with film."

 

Not exactly what happened to Kodak, although the story is often perceived that way. There are a lot of business school studies regarding the failure of Kodak that show that the description above is more of an urban legend or an oversimplification of what actually led to kodak's downfall. The real lesson of Kodak wasn't merely clinging to nostalgia (although that's part of it) or dismissing a new technology (after all, Kodak essentially invented the (commercial/consumer) digital camera); rather, the real lesson is Kodak's failure to recognize digital photography as a truly disruptive innovation. Because it failed to recognize that, it failed to capitalize on its own invention. Alternatively, some of the studies would say that the problem Kodak had wasn't its failure to recognize digital as a disruptive innovation, but it's failure to do anything during the interim period between the invention and the eventual full manifestation of disruption to prepare itself to thrive *either* in spite of or because of the disruption.

 

Nothing I have experienced with EVF cameras - and I own one (the RX1) and have used many others - convinces me that the EVF is a disruptive innovation. Popular? Sure. Useful? Yes. But has it/will it change the fundamental nature of how photography is carried out and make possible the previously impossible? Doubtful.

 

The 35mm portable film camera was a disruptive innovation because it made it possible to capture images in places and circumstances previously impossible (photojournalism/unobtrusive mobile street shooting). Digital was a disruptive innovation because, among other reasons, it put high volume photography capture within everyone's reach, made photo editing accessible to the masses rather than reserved to the high priesthood of professional retouchers, and gave you a way to determine if you got the shot before leaving the shoot, which was previously impossible even with Polaroid backs. I don't see EVFs wreaking that kind of disruptive change. They make it marginally easier to take pictures in dark locations and they're generally smaller: other than that, every other critical benefit you've listed of EVFs can still be achieved with optical viewfinders. A Leica M or DSLR with a good silent mode is functionally just as quiet. My D800 and Phase One XF have first curtain electronic shutter. Etc.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, you know what's a truly disruptive camera technology innovation? The iPhone. It has all of the benefits of an EVF camera, and in spades: it's smaller (thereby capturing the size benefits); its customizeable via apps in ways that are light years ahead of actual cameras; its cheaper; the image quality gap is closing fast; transmittal of photos is infinitely easier than with any "real" camera in existence; and - here's the really disruptive kicker, aside from the price/quality ratio - it's always with you. "The best camera you have is the one you have with you" because the pictures you take with it are better than the non-existent pictures not taken by the camera you either don't own because it's too expensive or that you left at home because it's too large to put in your pocket. It's the high quality camera phone that is the long-term problem for camera manufacturers, not the EVF versus OVF debate.

Edited September 10, 2016 by chipcarterdc

[alan.y]

"The best camera you have is the one you have with you"

 

But that's just it. I leave the S more often at home than I would an SL-sized S (w/ correspondingly smaller lenses), and I'm willing to trade the OVF (which I also prefer) for the increased portability. The Hasselblad X1D appeals but I'd like to stay within Leica. Having tried the S, the M no longer satisfies on the IQ front.

 

For some people anything above an iPhone is not portable. I'm not one of those people.

 

Of course we can all endlessly spout our personal perferences. I just think an SL-sized S (or an SL with an S-sized sensor--whatever you want to call it) is potentially in the works, since the SL lens mount is oversize, and the Summilux-SL 50 is likewise much larger than a 35mm full frame mirrorless normal would seem to have to be. 82mm filter, same as most S lenses.

[alan.y]

"OVF's are going the way of film and vinyl. It'll survive, as a niche."

 

Being both a photographer and a wee bit of an audiophile, your analogy "proves too much", as we lawyers say.

 

Vinyl is actually a *growing* niche and an increasing percentage of the industry's profits relative to every other physical form of recorded music (since streaming and downloading has decimated the CD). Film, similarly, is the "it thing" both among young "art" photographers and a certain high end segment of the client market that wants "that analog look" (as well as retaining usage among oldies like me (I'm 45), of course, who never completely abandoned film in the first place).

 

As in the examples above, I'm willing to bet that 10 years from now, the young 'uns will be returning to optical viewfinder and declaring EVFs passé and only for weekend photographers and soccer moms; similarly, a way to differentiate yourself to potential clients will be to own an optical viewfinder camera and to use the immediacy of the optical viewfinder capture experience as a selling point over the EVF shooters, since optical puts you closer to the "real world" while EVFs are one extra step removed from reality. Watch, I can do the pitch already:

 

"With an EVF, the photographer is using a computer-generated projected image to capture a recorded image of the image that reaches your eye. It's a simulacrum of a simulacrum; a photograph not merely of a TV screen but in effect taken *by* a TV screen. With my analog optical viewing method, I'm so much closer to the real/gritty/actual lived experience and thus my images actually reflect the decisive moment as it actually happened. Now give me lots of money."

 

If it turns out in 10 years that I'm wrong, I'll owe you a beer.

 

 

Vinyl and film are "coming back" within an extremely small sliver of affluent Western(ized) society with a particular brand of individualism. Some call this sliver "hipsters." Hipsterism, incidentally, is somewhat new to DC but seems quickly quite strong there, and maybe that's part of your perception. The barometer for me being boutique coffee shops.

 

I suspect photography as a medium will become antiquated and replaced by video and some kind drone or implanted Augmented Reality device. I doubt in 10 years OVF vs EVF will even be an issue. If I'm wrong in 10 years I'll buy you a hand-poured single origin coffee.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

If it turns out in 10 years that I'm wrong, I'll owe you a beer.

 

I drink Guinness. I'll meet you at the pub.

 

Gordon

[diddus]

But that's just it. I leave the S more often at home than I would an SL-sized S (w/ correspondingly smaller lenses),...  Having tried the S, the M no longer satisfies on the IQ front.

 

For some people anything above an iPhone is not portable. I'm not one of those people.

 

 

 

I think there is a correlation between weight/size, IQ and willingness to carry. I refused to carry a 5D with an L lens for the past few years but now am willing to lug around an S for a long time, just because it gives me something extra. 

 

I used to be willing to carry around a 5D for long periods of time as well ... until the point came where there were other options. 

 

I must say though I usually still run around with my M9 and am very very happy with it. Every once in a while I will take the S outside, aside from the weight the usability is very different. I fail to capture natural scenes with the S that I can easily capture with the M9. For me those are just two entirely different beasts.

 

I don't mind EVF's but I don't love them. I'm relatively indifferent about them. A smaller medium format system with Leica lenses would be very appealing though I feel it would be VERY difficult to price it logically AND competitively.

 

We should remember the S was a competitive camera in terms of pricing to it's rivals.

An EVF S would have to be a lot more expensive than the X1D I feel, as it would be to close to the SL. ... abandoning all the S lenses would be sad, but given the troubles wit AF maybe a calculated loss.

[peterv]

  ... abandoning all the S lenses would be sad, but given the troubles wit AF maybe a calculated loss.

Please don't say that, before we can can count to ten, some rumor site hungry for clicks will pick up on it.

 

Speculation around PK-time is okay, but no need to create FUD. Leica have invested a lot and made great effort in designing the outstanding S lenses and the system is here to stay. Want an EVF? Get an SL and an adapter. When I read/hear interviews with top cinematographers, they tell us they miss looking through the lens and seeing the optical image directly on the groundglass. It's got something to do with feeling connected to the scene in front of the camera as it unfolds.

 

An EVF can be a tremendously important technical aid while shooting, and it shoudn't be dismissed as such, but the optical path in an S is really very good and it is a strong selling point for the S system. Maybe an add-on high quality EVF can be implemented on a new S, so that we have a choice, getting the best of both worlds.

[Deliberate1]

....the real lesson is Kodak's failure to recognize digital photography as a truly disruptive innovation. Because it failed to recognize that, it failed to capitalize on its own invention. Alternatively, some of the studies would say that the problem Kodak had wasn't its failure to recognize digital as a disruptive innovation, but it's failure to do anything during the interim period between the invention and the eventual full manifestation of disruption to prepare itself to thrive *either* in spite of or because of the disruption.

 

 

Quite right, Chip.

In June, at an opening of a local art gallery where I show my work, I carefully listened anonymously to a fellow whilst he dissected one of my images for the benefit of his companion. After he got caught up in the weeds of digital capture, I felt compelled to interject my self into the conversation since the image was a lovely 24"x 24" print from a chrome taken with my beloved Rollei 6008i. Turns out he was the manager of the sensor division at Kodak back in the day.

The story he told was filled with regret and veiled disgust over the demise of a company and world that he truly loved. He described, in essence, a corporate culture built on chemical company DNA that utterly failed to appreciate what it possessed and what could be done with it. Rather than streamlining and prioritizing the development of this technology, and its promise of corporate resurrection, this fellow was obliged to go to the heads of every division to get them to sign off on whatever the next step in digital development might be. This petroleum based corporate culture, which traveled at the speed of oil, lethally failed to appreciate that digital development was proceeding at the speed of light, or the speed of Fuji, or others who would ultimately overtake and surpass Kodak in what can reasonable be considered one of the most stunning examples of corporate hara kiri in history. 

Now he works for some high end tech company outside Boston that produces electronic screens - probably the same ones Kodak would be using on its digital cameras in a timeline that the crafters of its business model lay at night dreaming about. It was clear to me at the end of the conversation that this fellow, while he ended up on his feet in a pile of money, still has those what-if Rochester dreams when he shuts his eyes.

David

Edited September 10, 2016 by Deliberate1

[alan.y]

An EVF can be a tremendously important technical aid while shooting, and it shoudn't be dismissed as such, but the optical path in an S is really very good and it is a strong selling point for the S system. Maybe an add-on high quality EVF can be implemented on a new S, so that we have a choice, getting the best of both worlds.

I must say though I usually still run around with my M9 and am very very happy with it. Every once in a while I will take the S outside, aside from the weight the usability is very different. I fail to capture natural scenes with the S that I can easily capture with the M9. For me those are just two entirely different beasts.

 

Now if only Leica would make a digital medium format rangefinder--a real one with an OVF--with compact, manual focus lenses...

[Deliberate1]

Vinyl and film are "coming back" within an extremely small sliver of affluent Western(ized) society with a particular brand of individualism. 

 

I am hedging my bets with a freezer full of Kodak Easyloads and Fuji Quickloads in 4x5. Time will determine whether it will be a treasure chest or very cold trash can.

David

Edited September 10, 2016 by Deliberate1

[Printmaker]

... over the demise of a company and world that he truly loved. He described, in essence, a corporate culture built on chemical company DNA that utterly failed to appreciate what it possessed and what could be done with it... 

 

Interesting David but only part of the story. At the same time digital hit photography with massive changes, digital revolutionized the graphic arts industry. Just as soon as computer processors were powerful enough, countless thousands of workers who assembled the films used to produce the printed page (cameramen, strippers and platemakers) lost their jobs. Magazine pages, which once took hours to produce and consumed dozens of pieces of film now took minutes and needed only four pieces of film from an imagesetter. Eventually direct to plate technology eliminated film altogether. While Kodak did make printing plates they were never as popular as their graphic arts films and chemicals. Loosing the graphic arts market represented a far bigger revenue loss for Kodak than the rolls of Tri-X and Kodachrome or the boxes of Polycontrast we once consumed. Similar losses happened in radiology, astronomy and even the military/surveillance.

It was a sad day when my new Xerox copier repairman turned out to be a Kodak technician subcontracted to Xerox to service the machines on my island. Here was a man with 30 years of service to the Great Yellow Father reduced to changing drums and replacing circuit boards on printers his company did not manufacture. He would tell similar stories of how this corporation seemed to always take the wrong turn every time the road forked.

It was a pity. Kodak was a great resource for photographers. They published hundreds of truly wonderful guides on every aspect of photography as well as sponsored the photo departments at several colleges. Their reps and technicians were always there with solutions and suggestions in studios and darkrooms. Kodak's frontline people were truly outstanding at passing on that company's commitment to quality. We can blame their demise on the generals or the changing times. But the truth was, Kodak was simply too big and they failed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I think there is a correlation between weight/size, IQ and willingness to carry. I refused to carry a 5D with an L lens for the past few years but now am willing to lug around an S for a long time, just because it gives me something extra. 

 

I used to be willing to carry around a 5D for long periods of time as well ... until the point came where there were other options. 

 

I must say though I usually still run around with my M9 and am very very happy with it. Every once in a while I will take the S outside, aside from the weight the usability is very different. I fail to capture natural scenes with the S that I can easily capture with the M9. For me those are just two entirely different beasts.

 

I don't mind EVF's but I don't love them. I'm relatively indifferent about them. A smaller medium format system with Leica lenses would be very appealing though I feel it would be VERY difficult to price it logically AND competitively.

 

We should remember the S was a competitive camera in terms of pricing to it's rivals.

An EVF S would have to be a lot more expensive than the X1D I feel, as it would be to close to the SL. ... abandoning all the S lenses would be sad, but given the troubles wit AF maybe a calculated loss.

 

Why abandon the S lenses? One of two things can happen. An EVF S that is thinner with a lens adaptor. The SL already does this.

 

However, the S isn't *big* in medium format terms. Yes it isn't a pocket camera but only the X1D is smaller. The Fuji and Sony are unknowns at this stage. The Pentax is both bigger and weighs more. If we keep the same lens mount with an EVF then we can make the camera lighter and cheaper and use the existing lenses and body design. We could keep battery compatibility. We could maintain choice by having an EVF and an OVF model using the same lenses. Keeping the same design would mean that the EVF S could accept a battery grip, unlike the Hasselblad. If removing the prism and mirror took 200 grams off the weight the S would become immediately competitive in terms of size and weight for a medium format camera.

 

The S is a great design. I don't see why Leica would need to abandon that just because they add an EVF version to the range.

 

It would mean a new sensor so we got PDAF or CDAF (it's not going to be a sports camera, is it??) focusing on sensor for the EVF side of things. That's also improve live view on the OVF version, which could also have the option of an add on EVF.

 

Leica took a chance to make the SL bigger than some other mirrorless but smaller than some DSLRs. The S can be exactly the same. Anyway it'll be the size of the lenses that decide the real overall system size. Look at what's happening to Sony. It's going from a compact system to a full sized one as the new lenses are released.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. and for those who think I'm wrong about EVF's taking over, I see that the first Canon EVF based DSLR has been leaked and it takes EOS lenses.

 

Gordon