Will SL be the new standard system

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica SL is already, now, my "standard system" on the basis of its excellent viewfinder, size, weight, ergonomics, lens compatibility, versatility, responsiveness, and image quality (not in any particular order). The Leica M-D is my 'adjunct' system: a rather more limited camera that is smaller, lighter, with top notch lenses and utter simplicity, for when I want to carry less but maintain the same quality standards. 

 

This is exactly the way I once had the Nikon SLR system and the Leica M system side by side. At that time, I simply couldn't afford Leica R as the SLR system, but it's what I wanted all along. 

 

Whatever the far future brings (and I consider ten years to be far future), it brings. I know that my needs and desires will likely not change as much as the technology might. My needs and desires in camera equipment haven't changed overmuch since 1984 ... I do now want more capability in the standard system for motion capture but whether I'll actually use it or not remains to be seen.

 

I'm too old to worry about what's going to be going on at the bleeding edge in twenty or more years. I hope I even get to see that time begin... 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Many of the Posts above read pretty much like comments people made in the 1960's & 1970's when Leitz developed the Leicaflex in its various forms. 

 

The cameras & lenses & accessories that Leitz built then were built well & worked well. Many Of these cameras & their lenses & accessories are still functioning well today & are still usable today. By today's standards. A significant accomplishment. None-the-less the reflex cameras & their lenses & accessories did not replace their range/viewfinder predecessors.

 

Time will tell what happens this time.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited September 20, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

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

[biglou]

I don't know about the SL but more generally Leica seems to follow the same patterns as before, that led to its marginalisation and difficulties.

The S line did not evolve as it could, same sensor now behind what is proposed elsewhere.

Still very, very expensive but not updated.

The SL was introduced with a new bayonet, not many lenses, no Ibis, a sensor probably very good but behind other proposals and an overall size difficult to justify.

The M stays as it is, no update of sensor or electronics and an Evf that was of poor quality from the beginning.

None of these products look really exiting today, at least for me.

What is sad is that incremental improvements would be enough to change this feeling.

As a customer instead of introducing the SL line i would have improved the S, perhaps introducing a mirrorless using the S lenses and improved the M line with new Evf and sensors.

The updated M could do all the SL does and much more.

For those wondering i have no time left to run the company, sorry...

[rscheffler]

A challenge for Leica is a relatively small user base that appears to have very diversified opinions about the right direction for the company to take.

 

The SL is certainly the best overall mirrorless I've tried thus far, but my heart is more with the M system and I would like to see it continue to receive technological updates in the areas of EVF and live view capability. 

 

IMO, the greatest improvement Leica could make is to drastically improve their customer support and service turnaround times. While Leica rarely seems to win a spec-sheet shootout, the gear is generally very capable and enjoyable to use. IMO it doesn't have to be technologically cutting edge. I would prefer the tradeoff of platform stability and the continuation of good UI. Maybe it's a reason I remain faithful to 'boring' Canon all these years... It just works.

 

It's such a pity the enjoyable 'Leica experience' comes crashing down once a serious problem arises (or it just needs calibration) and the gear ends up in the service department for a month or longer. Given they've just created Leica Professional, one would hope Leica will seriously address this aspect in order to properly support those Leica shooters using the gear to generate revenue...

Edited September 21, 2016 by rscheffler

[sillbeers15]

I don't know about the SL but more generally Leica seems to follow the same patterns as before, that led to its marginalisation and difficulties. The S line did not evolve as it could, same sensor now behind what is proposed elsewhere. Still very, very expensive but not updated. The SL was introduced with a new bayonet, not many lenses, no Ibis, a sensor probably very good but behind other proposals and an overall size difficult to justify. The M stays as it is, no update of sensor or electronics and an Evf that was of poor quality from the beginning. None of these products look really exiting today, at least for me. What is sad is that incremental improvements would be enough to change this feeling. As a customer instead of introducing the SL line i would have improved the S, perhaps introducing a mirrorless using the S lenses and improved the M line with new Evf and sensors. The updated M could do all the SL does and much more. For those wondering i have no time left to run the company, sorry...

What keeps most of us Leica users excited is from the distinct quality images produced from the Leica lenses and not the frequent bells & whistles update from digital & pixel race lead by many other mass production camera suppliers. If you're looking for quick product updates & replacements, you're in the wrong camp.

[biglou]

 

What keeps most of us Leica users excited is from the distinct quality images produced from the Leica lenses and not the frequent bells & whistles update from digital & pixel race lead by many other mass production camera suppliers. If you're looking for quick product updates & replacements, you're in the wrong camp.

 

 

 

I know a little about leica lenses since i own and use them, R and M.

Must have almost all models produced with a bayonet except the last R modul system and the zeiss hologon M.

What you say was true also in the seventies, it is not a good reason enough because you have splendid lenses not to keep up and follow the progress on other grounds.

Your way of thinking is what led Leica to rest on a captive bunch of customers mesmerized by the name.

Don't dismiss the new features some others implement, Ibis is really working well, many pixels sensors also, even if they are not german, that is why so many owners of Leica lenses are using them on non-Leica cameras with great satisfaction.

Anyway if i didnt like Leica i would not loose a second of my life writing here for no purpose.

I like Leica and despair when i see the same errors made in the past.

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 years is both a long time and at the same time, not so long.

Consider the Nikon D1 was released 17 years ago. The D5 is actually not that different. The process is essentially unchanged, and while technology has incriminated, it hasn't made that much difference. Mirrorless is just the next small change. In 20 years Nikon will release the D10, and it will look the same. You'll still mount an F mount lens, take a photo by looking though a VF (with TTL viewing) and pressing a shutter, transfer to computer, edit, and "share". The same as the D1, and not much different to the F really.

 

So, in 20 years, the M will be similar (it's only 4-5 generations after all), hopefully slimmer! The SL will also be much the same. Assuming the SL still exists.

I think the TL will evolve a lot faster either into a mini SL, or out of existence. The X and Q will also change faster. I expect they will use these platforms to try out things to see what works.

[haydenc]

There is not much better than an M for 28 to 50mm capture.

Wider and longer becomes a bit harder.

 

If the next M has a hybrid view finder like the Fuji XPro line, you wouldn't need an external view finder for non native M lenses.

And if they add to that a 36 MP sensor, I see that I could keep the next M for a long long time.

 

The SL is a great pro system for everything else the M is not good at. Like action shots and anything needing auto focus.

 

I don't see the SL replacing the M, it just give Leica users another option.

[biglou]

I don't know how Xpro line hybrid finder looks like but i would be perfectly fine with an M and and an Evf when needed provided it is a good one.

The best of two worlds in one camera.

An improved sensor would be welcomed too...

The quality, size, weight of M lenses give me no regret for not having any kind of autofocus.

Unstead of some kind of " hybrid " viewfinder i would be happy with an optical version closer to M3 experience

[haydenc]

I don't know how Xpro line hybrid finder looks like but i would be perfectly fine with an M and and an Evf when needed provided it is a good one.

The best of two worlds in one camera.

An improved sensor would be welcomed too...

The quality, size, weight of M lenses give me no regret for not having any kind of autofocus.

Unstead of some kind of " hybrid " viewfinder i would be happy with an optical version closer to M3 experience

The XPro 2 has the 1 view finder.

However it is very clever with what it can do.

It can show a rangefinder type window = optical ( like an M)

 

However it also has 2 extra modes available.

The first is it brings out a small black rectangle in the bottom left of the range finder window that then mirrors onto that an EFV of the focus point. So you can then see exactly what is in focus (from the sensor, not a guess like with a M)

The 2nd extra mode is that it flips a mirror that now shows the viewfinder as completely being an EVF taken from the whole sensor.

 

So one viewfinder to look into, 3 possibilities.

There is a bit more on it here.

http://fujifilm-x.com/x-stories/advanced-hybrid-multi-viewfinder-of-x-pro2-part1/

[biglou]

Thanks, seems interesting.

I will look through one.

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Have people here looked at the Leicina concept camera?

 

It seems to have a reasonably functional range/viewfinder & to take a variety of lenses, etc.

 

It can be seen in the article: "Leicina Concept ............" in the Section "Leica News".

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited September 21, 2016 by Michael Geschlecht

[sillbeers15]

   

 

 

I know a little about leica lenses since i own and use them, R and M.

Must have almost all models produced with a bayonet except the last R modul system and the zeiss hologon M.

What you say was true also in the seventies, it is not a good reason enough because you have splendid lenses not to keep up and follow the progress on other grounds.

Your way of thinking is what led Leica to rest on a captive bunch of customers mesmerized by the name.

Don't dismiss the new features some others implement, Ibis is really working well, many pixels sensors also, even if they are not german, that is why so many owners of Leica lenses are using them on non-Leica cameras with great satisfaction.

Anyway if i didnt like Leica i would not loose a second of my life writing here for no purpose.

I like Leica and despair when i see the same errors made in the past.

I have my fair share of frustration with Leica as well. What I'm trying to say is that Leica is not a big (in business revenue & turnover volume) camera producer. It is unlikely for them to lead in product rejuvenation at industry level. IMHO, Leica did well and are committed as I see that they develop and spec their own sensors compared to Hasselblad & PhaseOne, charging an arm and leg with a 3rd party developed sensor. I see even less value and distinction to pay for Hasselblad & PhaseOne in such case. As for rate of product evolution, let Leica worry about it themselves as they need to survive. I have been saying that Leica will produce a AF M earlier cause that is the only way to make us loose our wallet for new lenses and more but did not expect it to come in the form of SL. Look at Canon & Nikon, both are the big camera producers today that are in danger of loosing more market share when they continue to stick to DSLR product range.   

[biglou]

 

I have my fair share of frustration with Leica as well. What I'm trying to say is that Leica is not a big (in business revenue & turnover volume) camera producer. It is unlikely for them to lead in product rejuvenation at industry level. IMHO, Leica did well and are committed as I see that they develop and spec their own sensors compared to Hasselblad & PhaseOne, charging an arm and leg with a 3rd party developed sensor. I see even less value and distinction to pay for Hasselblad & PhaseOne in such case. As for rate of product evolution, let Leica worry about it themselves as they need to survive. I have been saying that Leica will produce a AF M earlier cause that is the only way to make us loose our wallet for new lenses and more but did not expect it to come in the form of SL. Look at Canon & Nikon, both are the big camera producers today that are in danger of loosing more market share when they continue to stick to DSLR product range.   

 

 

We don't seem to be far apart in our thinking and i agree it is not an easy game for a medium sized company against giants in electronics and sensors...

Was reacting to a common bias on theses fora wich consist of dismissing the interest of " more pixels " sensors since Leica is not offering them.

I know the arguments, need of perfect stability, more computer power (bullshit) better quality per pixel etc...

On the other side if you build some of the best lenses on the market you want a solution to be able to record their output.

In the old days the solution existed, technical pan or the like, wonderful film.

Now when we buy a camera we are limited by its sensor so the race for improved sensors has a meaning, it is not only " bells and whistles " for no real photographic purpose.

Edited September 22, 2016 by biglou

[jrp]

Only up to a point.  I remember the transition from 12Mpx to 24 and then 36Mpx.  It required significantly extra care to take advantage of the extra Mpx.  Unless you are printing large, the resolution is more or less wasted, even if you take care.  And it's probably wasted on anything that moves.

 

Of more interest are the overall look (where dynamic range comes in -- clipped skies are a pain), absence of aberrations (purple fringing, etc) and weight.  Some of the tricks that the Pentax / Olympus cameras are doing to get better colour fidelity by pixel shifting, etc,  would be more valuable than straight extra pixels.

 

However, I have never studied the fabled medium format look, so I may be missing something.

[biglou]

" fabled medium format look "

 

When you have the right occasion try to look closely to a large format contact print.

I don't think any bubble printer can come close to the quality.

So you are right in a way, sensor is not enough, the printing device though " good " is not " perfectly good "

[Guest]

The SL is certainly the best overall mirrorless I've tried thus far, but my heart is more with the M system and I would like to see it continue to receive technological updates in the areas of EVF and live view capability. 

 

The M is special. Size wise I prefer the M, but the SL-body for me is by far more useable. Lenses however I am happy with the M lenses 21 - 135. Don't like the sizes of the SL lenses.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm not really sure what the "standard system" is. Most here read that as the SL being the new M. I'm not sure that is really valid as the cameras are very different. Yes, they are both 35mm format, but there things tend to end. The SL is Leica's interpretation of the best camera they can make in 35mm format. Whether you agree with this or not, this seems to be their aim, and size is something that will not limit that ambition.

 

So, what impact on the M system?

 

First, we need to acknowledge that all manufacturers source their sensors from a limited pool of manufacturers. Sure, each can specify different characteristics to their sensors (provided they order enough to justify the cost); but the differences lie in lenses, processing and how the sensor is packaged.

 

Second, for the M system, the lenses are the gems - small manual focus lenses close to perfection. But, the system is limited to 16mm to 135mm (if you include the WATE). In practical terms (without add-ons) the practical limit is actually 28-90. Lots of photography happens in this range, but it is a very limited system. The reason for this limit is the optical rangefinder - a strength for some, but a techonological pain in the ass. The focussing patch cannot be moved, we are stuck with frame line pairs and there's no magnification, focus peaking or focus confirmation. More critically, the lenses and bodies must be accurately calibrated, and lens "defects" like focus shift are problematic.

 

Third, the M body is stuck in a time warp. Sure, many like it (myself included); but the justification for the removable baseplate on a digital Leica is very thin ...

 

So, the stregnths of the M system? Traditional simplicity (ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus) provided in a traditional way, and the lenses. To me, rather than pushing the M system beyond its natural limits (the M(240) with rubbish EVF, video and lots of other things which go beyond the original M concept - a bit like a small house with too many large bedrooms subsequently added), it would be better to play to those strengths.

 

I doubt Leica will do it, but options of M cameras with the traditional optical viewfinder and fixed patch, but also an M mount based camera without the limitations - this inevitably means the EVF from the SL, but in a simple elegant body, with no baseplate. I know this is largely covered by the SL (but for many, it is too big and too complex) and what is the point of a non-AF EVF based camera limited to 16-135mm. More M mount lenses in a wider range?

 

Well, that is for Leica to convince us with. I remain of the view the M(240) was in many respects a step too far, beyond the natural limitations of the system. If Leica removes those limitations, and plays to the strengths of the M system while removing the anachronisms (baseplate, and maybe an EVF option) then the system might be revitalised.

 

Cheers

John

[Jeff S]

 - a bit like a small house with too many large bedrooms subsequently added

 

But great that they made one of the rooms a low cost option.....and soooo cool that they added a magic button to make all the extra rooms disappear at will.  Amazing.

 

Jeff

Edited September 23, 2016 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sillbeers15]

  

 

We don't seem to be far apart in our thinking and i agree it is not an easy game for a medium sized company against giants in electronics and sensors...

Was reacting to a common bias on theses fora wich consist of dismissing the interest of " more pixels " sensors since Leica is not offering them.

I know the arguments, need of perfect stability, more computer power (bullshit) better quality per pixel etc...

On the other side if you build some of the best lenses on the market you want a solution to be able to record their output.

In the old days the solution existed, technical pan or the like, wonderful film.

Now when we buy a camera we are limited by its sensor so the race for improved sensors has a meaning, it is not only " bells and whistles " for no real photographic purpose.

I agree with your thinking. However I would look at a holistic approach for consideration. Sensor size & pixel density alone isn't complete without considering the corresponding sizes of optics necessary to support the higher digital resolution. On most accounts, we tend to think the more the better in getting better quality images. However in real world, things are more complicated for some specific application. Say for example in capturing wildlife shots, the micro4third sensor sized 100mm - 400mm (FF equivalent of 800mm) can be handheld due to compactness and lightweight of the lens while a FF 800mm lens will needed to be tripod mounted and a medium format camera will not even be part of this discussion as no lenses are available in this range. As for landscape shots, the reverse is true. So for conclusion, no one system fits all application. As in the Leica SL, I can see that it is intended to be a broad application range camera to appeal to a bigger user group over the M. The financial resource limitation of Leica as a small camera maker means it will focus to higher end products (capitalizing on its optical strength and heritage) with bigger margins to compensate for its lower production volume. Be it successful or not, the way I see it, Leica will not be suicidal to make small & compact lenses for the SL and neither will it make a SL sensor with more pixel to challenge the S.