Leica SL (Typ 601) - Mirrorless System Camera Without Compromise

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let's not rewrite history. Leica dropped the R as sales were rapidly declining as users bought into AF systems from Canon and Nikon, this was impacted further by the advent of digital technology - the DMR was a superb solution but very expensive of course, and still with manual focus lenses. 

 

Leica dropped the R and said they did so because they couldn't compete in the DSLR marketplace. 

 

When the M with EVF capability was announced everyone said that was the R solution. Fast forward to 2015 and they announce a mirrorless FF body and now everyone says this is the R solution, but there's no dedicated adaptors to mount R lenses to it (yes multi adaptors but not a dedicated Leica 'solution'). 

 

Seriously how many R users are there who are chomping at the bit for a digital Leica body they can mount their lenses to ? Wouldn't most if not all have already bought into the R solution M with EVF? Or have they mostly simply moved on and are now using other stuff?

 

The SL may be 'fun' to try out with an assortment of lenses but it really needs its own range of AF lenses if it's going to be a proper new system. If it's going to take Leica another year to release just two lenses by the time it becomes a system it will be outdated. 

 

I'm thinking Leica may have been better off releasing the tele zoom as the first lens - most buyers will be existing Leica users and the M is better for wide to short tele lenses - the SL can offer M users a telephoto solution but not for another year or so. 

 

The more I think about it the more confused I am by whatever strategy Leica are working to here. Maybe Sony have managed to plant a mole in Wetzlar!….

[Advertisement]

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

[cpclee]

What will be very interesting to see, and only time will tell, is whether Leica made the right bet to abandon the 35mm SLR for mirrorless.  Circa 2010, indeed Leica could not remain a competitive maker of SLRs.  But going forward from here, as the bulk of the mainstream users migrates towards mirrorless and lesser SLR makers exit the market, the 35mm SLR might become viable and profitable niche for a small company like Leica.  That was how it played out before, when the M system almost died in the late 70s and only to see a resurgence in the 90s when every major manufacturer had exited that market.  At the volume that Leica ships (tens of thousands of cameras per model a year), being different might be more important than being practical.

 

 

 

Let's not rewrite history. Leica dropped the R as sales were rapidly declining as users bought into AF systems from Canon and Nikon, this was impacted further by the advent of digital technology - the DMR was a superb solution but very expensive of course, and still with manual focus lenses. 

 

Leica dropped the R and said they did so because they couldn't compete in the DSLR marketplace. 

 

When the M with EVF capability was announced everyone said that was the R solution. Fast forward to 2015 and they announce a mirrorless FF body and now everyone says this is the R solution, but there's no dedicated adaptors to mount R lenses to it (yes multi adaptors but not a dedicated Leica 'solution'). 

 

Seriously how many R users are there who are chomping at the bit for a digital Leica body they can mount their lenses to ? Wouldn't most if not all have already bought into the R solution M with EVF? Or have they mostly simply moved on and are now using other stuff?

 

The SL may be 'fun' to try out with an assortment of lenses but it really needs its own range of AF lenses if it's going to be a proper new system. If it's going to take Leica another year to release just two lenses by the time it becomes a system it will be outdated. 

 

I'm thinking Leica may have been better off releasing the tele zoom as the first lens - most buyers will be existing Leica users and the M is better for wide to short tele lenses - the SL can offer M users a telephoto solution but not for another year or so. 

 

The more I think about it the more confused I am by whatever strategy Leica are working to here. Maybe Sony have managed to plant a mole in Wetzlar!….

[bencoyote]

Fujitsu, if I remember well.

 

The funny thing is many processors in the industry, with fancy names (Jupiter VI, SuperIris IV, HammerPixel III) are in fact... Fujitsu processors. 

 

This company provide a catalogue of processors with different specifications for anyone in the industry. 

 

The Maestro is a mere rebranding, like most other processors in digital cameras.

I would argue that you are over simplifying the process of digital electrical engineering. Digital image processing requires specified throughput on IO channels, as well as computational units to act on the data in parallel. That much can be the same and reused between cameras. However, there are multiple levels of firmware and large differences in how the fundamental electrical sensor data is processed. That is the essence of what makes something like the Maestro II different than other processors that may be the same part number from Fijitsu and used in different cameras. It is closer to I have a Mac and you have a PC and they both have Intel processors in them. However they are very different computers. (Not an exact analogy but closer)

[Jeff Daniels]

I can see the SL being quite succesful. Given its brutally functional styling, which I quite like, I wonder how much Sinar input there has been on the SL design and specification? It looks very Sinar-esque to me and, since Leica owns Sinar, it would make sense for them to collaborate. After all, nobody knows more about true, high-end, professional studio photography than Sinar. If anything the SL looks like it could have been designed by whoever was resposnble for the Sinar M modular camera. Either way, if I still had my R lenses I'd buy an SL in an instant, but I don't. I sold all R gear when my R9s and digital modules packed in (the backs, not the cameras). If they had told me this was coming I'd have kept the lenses. And that's the trouble with Leica, they don't really know who their supporters are and so they abuse them inadvertently. They don't share their roadmap. Having spent £60-70k on 'R' lenses it would have been helpful if they had let me know that there would be a proper body coming instead of teling me the Leica M was 'it'. I sold all my 'R' lenses and won't be buying them again. Would I mount my 'M' lenses on the SL? Of course not. A Q with the ability to mount M lenses is what we all want. Should they give it to us? Of course they should, it's a no-brainer. Will they give it to us? Probably not. And that's because they simply don't care about M lens users either. Just like they never cared about the 'R' or its users. My commitment to Leica has been significant (the first Leica S, many M cameras versions and lenses, Several R9s with DMRs and lenses). And what did Leica give me back? Nothing. Nothing at all. Just bad memories of a brand that doesn't love you as much as you love it.

[IkarusJohn]

Would I mount my 'M' lenses on the SL? Of course not. A Q with the ability to mount M lenses is what we all want. Should they give it to us? Of course they should, it's a no-brainer. Will they give it to us? Probably not. 

 

You sound bitter, Jeff; and I guess that's understandable.  If you believe that there will be no mountable Q to take M lenses (which I agree with), why "of course not" to mounting your M lenses on an SL?  I'm just curious, as I don't follow your logic.  Sure, if the answer is that you have a number of M cameras, why add an SL unless you wish to also use the SL lenses ...

 

The reason I ask is that Jono and I think Sean have both said the M lenses on the SL are not quite as good as on the M (no real surprise there, I guess) but mile better than on the Sonys.  Why bother?  Well, adding an extra body with an excellent EVF and the option to use AF is attractive.  There isn't another camera which plays nice with M lenses, other than the M itself and that is useful.

 

The Sinar really is huge, but I get the design reference (from the Sinar website):

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[dkCambridgeshire]

Maybe people are reading too much into body design similarities … many pentaprism cameras look similar but that does not mean rivals' designs were copied. 

 

The interview with Steffen Skopp reveals the SL's design inspiration:

 

http://kristiandowling.com/blog/2015/10/22/meeting-with-the-leica-sl-type-601-designers

 

It is very 'R3-ish' which some Leica enthusiasts appear not to appreciate. 

 

The R3 was in fact based on a Minolta XE-1 chassis.

 

I cannot see any Leicaflex SL DNA in the shape/design. 

 

dunk

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Sinar really is huge, but I get the design reference (from the Sinar website):

 

It is huge and fussy to use because a small sensor requires very precise perspective controls compared to real large format view cameras. Oh, and of course it is from the Swiss.

[IkarusJohn]

It is huge and fussy to use because a small sensor requires very precise perspective controls compared to real large format view cameras. Oh, and of course it is from the Swiss.

 

But doesn't the smaller sensor provide greater latitude for depth of field?

Edit - I've just seen you were referring to perspective controls - another skill I have yet to attempt.

 

I've never used a large format field camera, but I must confess I find them intriguing - all those rails and the bellows, and the glossy wood and brass; even the modern ones, actually.  As a child, our school photos were taken by a man hidden under the black cloth - there was typically the comedian who'd run from one end to the other so he appeared in the photo twice (much to the Headmaster's irritation - it must have been funny the first time).

 

I imagine there's a discipline we've lost with handheld photography.  I saw a video a while ago of Ansel Adams taking a picture at the coast.  I don't recall if the image was particularly striking, but what was interesting was the time spent framing, calculating the exposure then taking a number of images.  It was impressive to me, if you consider all that effort; you'd need to have spent a lot of time considering the shot in the first place, whereas the rest of us would have snapped the shot and moved on.

 

One day, perhaps.

[KariP]

On this forum I've found many complain SL being big or heavy compared to M (240)?? I can't see why. Many of us (like myself) need / chose to use M with MFGrip to have GPS, flash and computer connectivity and EVF because we want to frame axcurately with (suoer)wide angle lenses and to focus more accurately.

Now, I measured my set up and the M+MFG+EVF is 130 mm tall and weighs 830 g. The SL is of (about) the same weight but fits more easily to camera bag being only 104mm tall. And less than 10 mm wider, yes.

Can someone take or create pictures of SL and M+MFG+EVF side by side from front ant top (both have eyepiece protruding).

That would be interesting.

Thank you!

Kari

[pico]

Would those who complain about weight be happier with a plastic or composite camera and lens?

[wlaidlaw]

On this forum I've found many complain SL being big or heavy compared to M (240)?? I can't see why. Many of us (like myself) need / chose to use M with MFGrip to have GPS, flash and computer connectivity and EVF because we want to frame axcurately with (suoer)wide angle lenses and to focus more accurately.

Now, I measured my set up and the M+MFG+EVF is 130 mm tall and weighs 830 g. The SL is of (about) the same weight but fits more easily to camera bag being only 104mm tall. And less than 10 mm wider, yes.

Can someone take or create pictures of SL and M+MFG+EVF side by side from front ant top (both have eyepiece protruding).

That would be interesting.

Thank you!

Kari

On a different thread I did compare the weights of SL + Kit lens and M240 + MF grip + EVF and a really big lens, the nearest I have to the 24-90, which is a Contax 28-85 f3.3 (constant) on a Novoflex LEM-CONT adapter. The M240 was a bit over 1600 grams, the SL and Kit lens is just under 2000 grams, so it is about 25% heavier than the equivalent set up M. A number of actual users have mentioned that with the 24-90, it is a bit front heavy, I would guess similar feeling to an M with the 0.95 Noctilux. 

 

Wilson

[charlesphoto99]

Lets face it: very much like hi-fi, cameras are now a luxury item, and esp Leica (though one could argue most manufacturers). Nobody really 'needs' most cameras that are now being produced, so the companies instead create a perceived need, which rears its head every 6-12 months. So Leica, despite their smaller size, still have to put out a new camera every six months or so just to stay relevant and keep their brand active. Any publicity is good publicity as they say. So I see the SL as a step - the r&d has trickled up from other lines, and will trickle back when the time comes. I foresee a new M in a year's time with tech from the SL - sensor, processor, better EVF (add on with M), etc. Even if it isn't a big seller the r&d will be amortized for sure into the ongoing release cycles we now find ourselves in.

 

Unfortunately more and more pros are being priced out from this gear, and its really being produced as toys for the well heeled (I'm saying this as a pro who sees clients paying less than they did in the nineties) which is fine for Leica and those that can afford it but more and more it seems just a race on paper to see who can spec out the best bling vs what's actually needed to make photographs (ninety five percent of which never get printed anyway). And people lap it up, selling their six month 'old' gear at pennies on the dollar just so they can have bragging rights on the latest greatest vs owning what they can actually use and understand.

 

Personally I think its a cool camera, and one that I may be able to afford used in a few years time after the SLIII makes it debut... (still using my 'ancient' M9's and MM, and currently shooting a book project  for a client with both). 

[Peter H]

On this forum I've found many complain SL being big or heavy compared to M (240)?? I can't see why. Many of us (like myself) need / chose to use M with MFGrip to have GPS, flash and computer connectivity and EVF because we want to frame axcurately with (suoer)wide angle lenses and to focus more accurately.

Now, I measured my set up and the M+MFG+EVF is 130 mm tall and weighs 830 g. The SL is of (about) the same weight but fits more easily to camera bag being only 104mm tall. And less than 10 mm wider, yes.

Can someone take or create pictures of SL and M+MFG+EVF side by side from front ant top (both have eyepiece protruding).

That would be interesting.

Thank you!

Kari

 

I think there's still a fair bit of confusion about what's behind the size/weight issue.

 

I've now seen lots of comparisons of the SL with other set-ups that prove that the SL is not the biggest, heaviest camera available. But when you look at the wish-lists people have been posting for ages now for the next M, one of the most regularly and most strongly expressed wishes is that it should be smaller. 

 

Now many of us didn't follow every utterance from Leica and testers, so some of us were, naively I've been told, expecting this announcement to be the next M, so it's perfectly understandable that a larger camera will be a disappointment to quite a few people.

 

That doesn't mean that the SL is a massive camera, but its size certainly confounded the hopes and expectations of many people, so the size comparisons that have become very popular over the week since the announcement don't really address the issue many have raised.

 

The fact that you can build an M up to be quite a large piece of kit if you want to, or that there are comparable cameras already as large if not significantly larger than the SL, is beside the point for many people, because they have already rejected larger cameras, so aren't looking for another one, however accomplished it may be.

[IkarusJohn]

Someone (don't recall who) called me arrogant, and something else intended to be unpleasant, for observing in another thread that for most photography an iPhone is actually the best choice if one wants a light camera.  Now, I agree that perhaps I was more than a little dismissive of people's concerns over weight, but only partly.

 

The point is that more pictures are being taken now than ever before (apparently); most are not printed (and let's be honest, 90% of pictures taken in the film era weren't worth printing anyway - I know mine weren't); most smartphones take better pictures than any compact camera ever took; and life must surely be getting tough for professional photographers.  Once, they were the only ones who knew how to take a photograph at all, now every man and his dog is posting on Instagram, Flickr and Facebook.

 

For camera makers, the effect is twofold - smaller market and less demand for traditional "consumer" products.  The cameras in iPhones really are that good.  On the plus side, that makes developments like the SL that much more important.  If dSLR is declining, that makes the d810 and 5d3 cameras even more important as it is really only that end of the market which is healthy.  That puts Leica with the flagship, but curious M camera and the huge and expensive S camera in a very strange place.  I'm not surprised that the M cameras have enjoyed a resurgence since the M9.  If you like photography, and you want something more than your iPhone, what do you buy?  Not a consumer product - it will be marked "Professional" because you're looking for more than what your smartphone offers, and your smartphone offers a lot.  The growth in interest in the M camera (and film) matches the growth in vinyl records and HiFi (in a remote way).

 

The future for photography, I think, lies in cameras like the M and the S (more rarefied), the D810 and the 5D3.  That's why the SL will probably be one of those moments when we look back and say Leica made the right move - I do think this will be a game changer.

 

Peter, I don't think anyone would call you naive, and I certainly hope you are not levelling that accusation at me.

[psss]

ok, got to play with one today, body size is perfect for me, i always found M bodies a little on the small side and i can't really use my sony A without the grip....which is also the first thing i would buy for this SL btw....the lens looks really nice but it is heavy.....the camera becomes pretty front heavy, the grip will probably help....i was able to get a card in and take a couple of shots but was more interested in the video....no surprises in regards to IQ, the lens does have a nice punch, no signs of issues (but i guess that is to be expected from a 5000$ lens) video looks very nice....

in general the body handles well, menu is a little tough to handle at first but i think leica is on to something with the unlabeled buttons, i think i can customize this perfectly.....

AF is definitely not the fastest but maybe firmware will improve it....it is fine but nowhere near great....

i am definitely closer to buying one then i was before i got to play with it, but it still feels a little strange to pay so much for it, i have to find the one thing that no other camera can offer...but i will definitely make an effort to find that now....

[digitalfx]

 Would I mount my 'M' lenses on the SL? Of course not. A Q with the ability to mount M lenses is what we all want. 

 

Isn't that what the SL is? Its the same sensor as the Q, similar EVF...yes its larger, but do you really think its possible to keep the same size body and add interchangeable lenses and not make significant compromises?  Or maybe I don't understand what you are wishing for. Personally Im excited about using my M lenses. I sold all my R lenses too...but quite frankly they were a bit dated designs anyway, so I don't miss them. Yes I wish I kept a few of my favorites, but I'm not going to lose sleep over the older lenses.

 

EDIT:

oops...I forgot, I still have a 35-70 f4 and 70-180 f2.8...maybe I am looking forward to using them

Yes, I guess I am sorry I sold my 35-70 f2.8 and Summilux's

 

Nov 16 can't come soon enough. 

 

BTW- to all those bitching about the prices of the new SL zooms...look at this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Vario-Apo-Elmarit-R-70-180-2-8-70-180mm-f-2-8-ROM-11279-RARE-Yr-2000-/201454833488

 

or better yet, this (this is a modified Leica R zoom):

http://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/duclos-zooms/products/duclos-70-180mm-t3

[IkarusJohn]

I may be accused of being Poly-Anna-ish, but do you think it is reasonable to expect Leica to have upgraded the lens designs from the R 28-90 (released in 2003) and the R 70-180 (released in 1995)?

 

I'd be very disappointed if the new SL 24-90 and 90-280 did not outperform those lenses significantly on a digital camera.

[k-hawinkler]

I may be accused of being Poly-Anna-ish, but do you think it is reasonable to expect Leica to have upgraded the lens designs from the R 28-90 (released in 2003) and the R 70-180 (released in 1995)?

 

I'd be very disappointed if the new SL 24-90 and 90-280 did not outperform those lenses significantly on a digital camera.

Thanks a lot John.

 

As an owner of the Vario-Elmar-R 28-90/2.8-4.5, are you letting me indirectly know that that lens is a lemon?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[k-hawinkler]

I may be accused of being Poly-Anna-ish, but do you think it is reasonable to expect Leica to have upgraded the lens designs from the R 28-90 (released in 2003) and the R 70-180 (released in 1995)?

 

I'd be very disappointed if the new SL 24-90 and 90-280 did not outperform those lenses significantly on a digital camera.

 

Thanks a lot John.

 

As an owner of the Vario-Elmar-R 28-90/2.8-4.5, are you letting me indirectly know that that lens is a lemon? Just kidding. That lens makes the most spectacular glares/flares of any lens I have ever seen. No kidding!

 

BTW, the other new lens 90-280 should be closer to the 105-280/4.2, no?

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks a lot John.

 

As an owner of the Vario-Elmar-R 28-90/2.8-4.5, are you letting me indirectly know that that lens is a lemon?

 

Karl-Heinz, I had no idea you were a comedian!

 

Of course the lens isn't a lemon - I've lusted after it for years, but never had a platform for it, and now that I might do, I can't afford it!  I did think about getting one to use with the A7R, but that camera and I fell out before I found one.  I then thought about Leitaxing one for the D800E, but that seemed criminal, and I had the 80-400 zoom so it seemed excessive.

 

I've been thinking about you recently, and the SL 90-280 lens.  The size is really daunting, then I think of what you do with your Sonys and your M and adapters, and somehow it makes me feel better!  I can see I'm going to need to dust off my tripod!

 

I can't recall - do you do much video?

 

Cheers

John