NEW M.. This year.. This Fall...

[gpwhite]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the AF lenses are like that of the Q... uff... This will be a really special event... 

 

But keep in mind that the images you see from the Quasilux lens have been processed through all of that in-camera correction. Certainly the Q lens is good, but I would be very disappointed (and cancel my order) if the SL used the Q approach to lens correction firmware.

 

If the SL does incorporate the Q lens correction approach, how would M and R lens work? And why would SL lenses by expensive (by Leica standards) if they are designed/ manufactured to relay on pp?

[IkarusJohn]

LaVida Leica is a wonder - and it's really important to remember what they say right now, so that we can see how good his sources are after the event. 

 

It would seem that we're in for a new M with an electronic rangefinder and that the SL will have in camera auto-focus - we live in exciting times!

 

That seems harsh. They did get the bit right about there being a new camera this year! 

[jaapv]

It is very difficult if not impossible to tweak a sensor-lens combo on an interchangeable lens camera the same way an integrated lens-sensor unit can be optimized. The best we can expect is in-camera lens corrections for specific - and recognized- lenses, much like the current M series.

[jaapv]

 

 

It is very difficult if not impossible to tweak a sensor-lens combo on an interchangeable lens camera the same way an integrated lens-sensor unit can be optimized. The best we can expect is in-camera lens corrections for specific - and recognized- lenses, much like the current M series.

So no worries there.

 

However, I find it a bit strange to threaten cancelling an order if a lens gets additional corrections to make it better. The Q lens could never have been so good, small and relatively affordable if it had not been designed for optimum performance using all tools a lens designer has nowadays.

[edwardkaraa]

It is very difficult if not impossible to tweak a sensor-lens combo on an interchangeable lens camera the same way an integrated lens-sensor unit can be optimized. The best we can expect is in-camera lens corrections for specific - and recognized- lenses, much like the current M series.

So no worries there.

 

However, I find it a bit strange to threaten cancelling an order if a lens gets additional corrections to make it better. The Q lens could never have been so good, small and relatively affordable if it had not been designed for optimum performance using all tools a lens designer has nowadays.

It all depends on the price I guess. I don't like lenses that depend on software corrections, but let's say the 50 lux costs 2000$ while an optically corrected version would cost 6000$. I would seriously consider the first option.

 

If Leica wants to sell me the software dependent lux for 6000$ then that would be a big problem

[lct]

It all depends on the price I guess. I don't like lenses that depend on software corrections, but let's say the 50 lux costs 2000$ while an optically corrected version would cost 6000$. I would seriously consider the first option. [...]

 

If Leica wants to sell a 50/1.4 lens for $6K the problem will be to find enough buyers IMHO. The M and R 50/1.4 had more or less the same price 10 years ago. I would rather choose a $1K Zeiss 55/1.8 instead a $4K "SL" 50/1.4 personally and i would not be alone i suspect.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It all depends on the price I guess. I don't like lenses that depend on software corrections, but let's say the 50 lux costs 2000$ while an optically corrected version would cost 6000$. I would seriously consider the first option.

 

If Leica wants to sell me the software dependent lux for 6000$ then that would be a big problem

It isn't just about cost though Edward  -  it's also about size. 

[jonoslack]

If Leica wants to sell a 50/1.4 lens for $6K the problem will be to find enough buyers IMHO. The M and R 50/1.4 had more or less the same price 10 years ago. I would rather choose a $1K Zeiss 55/1.8 instead a $4K "SL" 50/1.4 personally and i would not be alone i suspect.

They don't seem to have any problems selling a 50 f2 for that price - as far as I can see the APO sells like hot cakes. I think that if something is demonstrably good in all it's aspects, there's plenty of people who have the money to pay for it (quite enough for a small company like Leica). The problem is that I don't have enough money to pay for it!

[LocalHero1953]

That seems harsh. They did get the bit right about there being a new camera this year! 

And they say they deliberately avoided signing an NDA and getting their hands on one, just so they could post accurate rumours and leaks. So they must be right.

.

.

.

.

         

[gpwhite]

It is very difficult if not impossible to tweak a sensor-lens combo on an interchangeable lens camera the same way an integrated lens-sensor unit can be optimized. The best we can expect is in-camera lens corrections for specific - and recognized- lenses, much like the current M series.

So no worries there.

 

However, I find it a bit strange to threaten cancelling an order if a lens gets additional corrections to make it better. The Q lens could never have been so good, small and relatively affordable if it had not been designed for optimum performance using all tools a lens designer has nowadays.

 

Jaap, the Q lens is very nice on axis, yes. But the peripheral area of the image (let alone the corners) is not nearly as good as any of the M 28mm lenses. As discussed on many posts re the Q, the firmware lens corrections brought the package in at a much lower price and likely with less bulk. That's fine. My specific point was that if the SL were to somehow use the same approach to apply firmware corrections over optical corrections, I would not be interested. It is good to read that you believe the Q's level of firmware correction could not be achieved/ included in an interchangeable lens camera.

[edwardkaraa]

It isn't just about cost though Edward - it's also about size.

I understand that, but Leica are the masters of miniaturization. If they can design the M 50 lux without the need for CA and distortion corrections by software, they can design the SL 50 lux similarly. Now if they get more buyers by making the lens cheaper, as lct is suggesting, then I would definitely understand. Also for the zoom lenses, one would expect some kind of software interventions especially for distortion.

[jonoslack]

I understand that, but Leica are the masters of miniaturization. If they can design the M 50 lux without the need for CA and distortion corrections by software, they can design the SL 50 lux similarly. Now if they get more buyers by making the lens cheaper, as lct is suggesting, then I would definitely understand. Also for the zoom lenses, one would expect some kind of software interventions especially for distortion.

I quite agree . . . . but it's apparently the AF mechanism, motor etc. which makes the lenses big . . . . and although there is certainly no distortion correction on the M lenses, there is certainly vignetting and colour cast correction . . . one reason why they never really work that well on the Sony cameras. 

[jonoslack]

And they say they deliberately avoided signing an NDA and getting their hands on one, just so they could post accurate rumours and leaks. So they must be right.

.

.

.

.

         

I'm afraid I have a cynical suspicion that they 'rewrite history' on their website to show that they accurately predicted something after the event - this probably isn't true, just an aspect of my unpleasant mind . . .. but this time is certainly a good time to remember what they seem to have said:

 

The SL has in body AF

the X-U is an M type camera with an electronic viewfinder as per the Konost camera product

[lct]

They don't seem to have any problems selling a 50 f2 for that price - as far as I can see the APO sells like hot cakes. I think that if something is demonstrably good in all it's aspects, there's plenty of people who have the money to pay for it (quite enough for a small company like Leica). The problem is that I don't have enough money to pay for it!

 

Like hot cakes i don't know but the M 50/2 apo is a very special lens which doesn't even compete with the "regular" M 50/2 non apo. The "SL" lenses would need to be very special if Leica envision such strastospheric prices IMHO. The R debacle is still in Leica's memory hopefully.

[edwardkaraa]

I quite agree . . . . but it's apparently the AF mechanism, motor etc. which makes the lenses big . . . . and although there is certainly no distortion correction on the M lenses, there is certainly vignetting and colour cast correction . . . one reason why they never really work that well on the Sony cameras.

While I see your point Jono, just for the sake of argument, I would say that vignetting and color cast are caused by the sensors inadequate technology not the lens itself, and better future sensor designs may resolve this issue. But certainly AF lenses are significantly larger than their MF counterparts, and that would be expected. If Leica decided to make the lenses smaller by leaving out some optical corrections, I personally would defer my judgment until I see the results and decide for myself whether the amount of software corrections is objectionable or not to me.

 

PS. Even Zeiss seems to have jumped on this wagon, and I do find the uncorrected distortion on the batis 85/1.8 truly unacceptable.

[IkarusJohn]

I still wonder about the 1% market share. 

 

If if the new camera is an S Light, and has lenses of that quality, while it will be fabulous, will it get the company to 1%?  It looks like the right move to me, but I do wonder. There would be no point in rejoining the dying dSLR sector (sorry, James) and it seems Leica has little to offer in the mass EVIL market (Sony A7 series), so it is going for the top end of the EVIL market.

 

I hope for Leica's sake the price isn't too high and that the quality matches the price. The M system is starting to look reasonably priced ...

[Mornnb]

I still wonder about the 1% market share. 

 

If if the new camera is an S Light, and has lenses of that quality, while it will be fabulous, will it get the company to 1%?

 

Only if it's affordable and competitive in terms of size and features compared to an A7, i.e. lenses around the $2000 mark, body around the $3000 mark.

[DG Hawkes]

In the end, if comes down to what lenses are readily available.  The Sony cameras are a quantum leap ahead of the Leicas in terms of tech (IBIS, 42MPx or 12MPx+lower noise, 4k video, full-frame focusing of manual lenses, etc) but they are still struggling with to get a broad range of lenses out.  Zeiss (55mm / 90mm and, to an extent the 35mm an 28mm) have helped a bit, but they seem to lack production capacity: the Batis lenses (built by Cosina / Voigtlander) are still unavailable 6m after they supposedly started shipping.  The native Sony zooms are bulky and average performers.  Leica M lenses work well enough on the Sony  7rII, if you are not fussy about the edges / corners, so that is what I am using at the moment, since I like their weight.  I doubt that I will go for an SL, at least for a few years, unless they offer a demonstrable advantage over the Sony body (which is a high bar).

As a seriel Leica lens owner I think you are very unfair re. the average performer comments towards Sony. The Sony Zeiss 16-35mm is an excellent lens (and I had a WATE until earlier this year) and the 70-20mm G series lens is as good as my Canon L lenses as far as any print or pixel peep I can see. I wish the bodies weren't so good, or that Leica would up the game as I miss my R9 and M desperately. Don't enjoy using the Sony much, but the picture is what counts at the end of the day and the 7Rii leaves little to be desired.

[luigi bertolotti]

Like hot cakes i don't know but the M 50/2 apo is a very special lens which doesn't even compete with the "regular" M 50/2 non apo. The "SL" lenses would need to be very special if Leica envision such strastospheric prices IMHO. The R debacle is still in Leica's memory hopefully.

 

Hum... I'm curios to see the pricing level they will assess... if rumors are true, the first emphasis will be on zooms (not surprisingly... zooms are out of the M way) : well... I suspect they won't be stratospherically priced... they must be the basis of the camera inroad to new users... users who aren't accustomed (like we are...  ) to certain costs for glass-only... a camera with a 28-90 (btw, a range which will impose firmware corrections by sure, imho) can not stay in the 10K range...  and WE (the "loyal customer base") can always be kept comfortable with the motivation that "a zoom won't be never like one of their legendary primes" ; my idea is that they will start to play the "highly priced primes game" only some time after the camera initial rollout... after having understood in which hands the SL  finds its market ... if they are (hopingfully) mainly NEW customers they can find the way to setup a complete line of SL primes so that the new customers buy into (with superWAs, Macro...) ... if the buyers are mainly M users (which would be a failure for them) they could limit the development to some Teles...  ... I suspect that not many of us, with our nice current M8/9/240s and a "future M" in sight, would think seriously at buiding a new lenses' set : personally (supposed I whish to spend money into SL.(*)...) I think that an SL with a zoom and a long tele (in the 3-400s) could be the top I could justify.  

 

 

(*) far from sure... unless it has some kind of "magic" that triggers the WANT IT syndrome

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mjh]

It isn't just about cost though Edward  -  it's also about size.

It is also about image quality. Digital corrections are a new tool in a lens designers toolbox and a good lens designer will use whatever tool does the best job in achieving some objective. Declaring digital corrections taboo is not a rational position. Unless of course one designs lenses for analogue cameras where digital corrections are not an option.

 

Leica has a lot of experience in grinding complex aspherical surfaces and I suppose an additional aspherical surface would go down well with traditionalists. But aspherical lenses can create issues of their own, such as second-order aberrations and a less than pleasing bokeh. Each tool has its pros and cons and these should be evaluated carefully rather than excluding useful tools for purely ideological reasons.