I'm waiting for the new M and I'm worried...

[Loren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Its smaller than any pro level slr, virtually the same price as an M and will work with any Leica lens.

 

 

Precisely!

 

But there seems to be an eager propensity amongst the crowd to want to tie one's pants in a knot long before any critical analysis is done.

 

Group think prevails. The camera is less interesting than the psychology of all the squabbling.

[Advertisement]

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

[Loren]

Because it offers technology and a shooting experience no other camera does, at least the M240 has something to offer for it's price point. The SL is not very different to much less expensive competition.

 

The SL could have been a mainstream hit that could have taken major market share from Canon and Nikon at a price point under $5000. As it is, it will be a niche product like the M. This is not the best way for Leica to achieve their goal of 1% market share. I criticise Leica's lack of ambition.

 

 

So, you see the SL as inferior to the M?

 

From the few shots I have seen so far from the SL the IQ seems superior, particularly the high ISO. You also get autofocus and a world-class EVF. All for $1200 more than an M. Let's not forget that all M lenses work with the SL (as Leica claims) and only 50mm and above work well on the Sony. It's not a replacement for the M, it's a new system.

 

I have a feeling if the SL was released 4 years ago and the M just released today everyone would be bickering at the high cost of a stripped down camera with poor ISO performance, crappy EVF, and no autofocus.

[johnbuckley]

Of course, all those guys shooting football will just throw their Cs and Ns away and get this. LOL

Sorry guys, you come way short trying to find ANY customer for this failure.

Um, I'm a customer for it. Not next week, or next month, but as a Leica shooter who bought my first Leica circa 1980, and who has exclusively shot Leica since 2002, and who previously decided that when I was going to augment my Ms with a more natural long-lens set up I would probably buy an S, used or otherwise, I now know the camera I want to buy.  Leica has a fair, possibly sufficient number of customers like me -- people who might need an alternative platform to their M and would rather choose a Leica, whose every shortcoming is often outweighed by something unique and delightful, than a Canikon.

 

I think you are a troll, and if you aren't, and still wish to spout off here, fine, but in point of fact, on your assertion quoted here, I can attest you are incorrect.

[mmx_2]

Yup. This is also the case with the M and the Q. Leica COULD have a huge market share if they wanted to, cause the users want it. But at the current prices people simply can't afford it, and understandably so. So the products will always remain in the niche market.

 

This might also be a strategy from Leica. Since they are already now facing difficulties on their deliveries on the Leica Q (and some other products) they are already "selling what they can produce". If they want to sell more of the same products that means investing in new machinery, making new deals with sub suppliers, training more people and maybe even building a complete new factory. That would short term maybe be a good solution but also mean that they are building up more overhead cost and taking greater risks if a product flopps on the market. I believe that their current strategy is to stay at a stable level and earn money with that level. Growth is not always only a positive thing for a manufacturing company

[mjh]

As I see it, Leica has missed an opportunity for a major blockbuster hit by pricing themselves out of the market.

That may be because Leica isn’t after a ‘blockbuster hit’. Even after having ramped up their production capacity considerably, a mass-market product is out of the question. Sure, they could have simplified the design of camera and lenses and have it mass-produced somewhere in Asia, but apparently they didn’t want to. If they had, chances are that people would say it wasn’t a real Leica and wouldn’t buy it despite its more affordable price.

 

Leica equipment is expensive. Period.

[mmx_2]

That may be because Leica isn’t after a ‘blockbuster hit’. Even after having ramped up their production capacity considerably, a mass-market product is out of the question. Sure, they could have simplified the design of camera and lenses and have it mass-produced somewhere in Asia, but apparently they didn’t want to. If they had, chances are that people would say it wasn’t a real Leica and wouldn’t buy it despite its more affordable price.

 

Leica equipment is expensive. Period.

It's funny, my father, a Leica shooter since the late 1960s replied to the price tag of the new SL with a simple "but Leica was always expensive". So nothing new under the sun .

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You know, yesterday I picked up my hardly used DSLR, the Canon 5dmiii.  Just to contemplate it versus the new SL.  And, as I got re familiar with it as I can never get comfortable with all it's confusing buttons and etc., to the point I never use the Canon unless I have to, I began to like the idea of the new SL and considering buying it in the future.  Just might!  As an R shooter before they became obsolete, I miss those cameras. It wasn't the camera I hoped Leica would announce, but I think I might go for it.  Maybe in couple of years.  My next camera, either be the M246 or whatever Leica has up their sleeve next.

[algrove]

M lenses work with the SL (as Leica claims) and only 50mm and above work well on the Sony. It's not a replacement for the M, it's a new system.

 

 

I am not defending the Sony as I do not own one. However, there are MANY reports of M  lenses from 16 to 35 working well on the Sony A7 cameras and also on the latest A7R2.  Please do your research, as arguments like that only weaken the your argument.

[algrove]

Um, I'm a customer for it. Not next week, or next month, but as a Leica shooter who bought my first Leica circa 1980, and who has exclusively shot Leica since 2002, and who previously decided that when I was going to augment my Ms with a more natural long-lens set up I would probably buy an S, used or otherwise, I now know the camera I want to buy.  Leica has a fair, possibly sufficient number of customers like me -- people who might need an alternative platform to their M and would rather choose a Leica, whose every shortcoming is often outweighed by something unique and delightful, than a Canikon.

 

I think you are a troll, and if you aren't, and still wish to spout off here, fine, but in point of fact, on your assertion quoted here, I can attest you are incorrect.

John

We both could be potential SL customers.  Heck, we have bought just about every new Leica brought out in the last 5 years! That said here are my current thoughts on the SL. I emphasize these comments are about MY needs alone and perhaps do not parallel what other Leica M users want for an AF system.

 

Over time many M users will probably need or want an AF camera to replace or augment their M system. Since many SL reviews say use M lenses on an M to get the most out of them, for my next system, I will want a completely new system. I have made no decision what that system will be and potentially it has not even been introduced to date.

 

What do I want in an AF system in the future? Yes, but first and foremost, for me, I use my M system mainly for street use and travel. Aging generally means less muscle strength and most often worsening eyesight. So for me buying into a new AF system means I want it light weight and small in size. I got the Q for exactly this reason. Thus, for me, the SL is not that AF camera system I would want to either replace or augment my M system. Why would I want to double the weight of my current M configuration just for AF?  I want light and small. R lenses work well on the M so no need for me to change how I use my (now few) R lenses.

 

I frankly hope the Q is so popular that evenually Leica decides to offer it as an interchangeable lens camera, perhaps using T lenses. It is such a nice small package that I for one could consider it over the SL because of small form factor and less weight.

 

This SL system is very nice and can be enjoyed by many current Leica users ( and hopefully many new buyers into Leica), but unless I pump iron many hours a day, I do not see this system for me. Even though I have a heavy high MP, MF system I drag to landscape locations, the SL just will not be an option for replacing this MF system since when that MF system is put up for sale, I will want something smaller like a Q.

[hepcat]

I doubt that the "R-series carried the company" very far during the early '70s – the company reputedly lost money on every SLR body they sold (the Wetzlar ones not the later rehashed Minolta bodies). Leica nearly went under in the late 1990s because of the amount of money they sunk into the development of the R8. They essentially bet the farm on the R8 and it failed miserably – not because of digital (which wasn't remotely mainstream then) but because there wasn't a market outside Germany (where it sold ok) for a superb manual focus camera. If it wasn't for Hermès taking a friendly strategic stake (and,a little later, Panasonic lending €25m), the company would have run out of money long ago.

 

I reiterate my earlier comment that the M system is (and will likely remain so) where the money is for Leica.

 

Ian, actually the Minolta-Leica R bodies sold pretty briskly and were fairly well-received.  The R4, next to the many iterations of the M, was probably one of the largest sellers Leica had for several years, and the R6 and R6.2 were actually very good SLRS that are still popular and command value on the used market today.  That's not to say, of course, that it made E. Leitz enough cash to be profitable...  but they didn't close their doors either.  I agree that the M8, as marvelous as it was, (I had one briefly) was indeed unsuccessful; although I think that the DMR, had it been able to continue development, would have made the R8/R9 system very popular with pros.  But that's just speculation on my part.  

 

there is no doubt that the M is the flagship body and system for Leica.  it's iconic.  It's what everyone envisions when one thinks of Leica.  But in the larger picture of total units manufactured and sold, and from the profit center perspective, it's the rest of the diversified line that is keeping the company in cash.  My M9-P, bought used at roughly 5/8ths of its retail price, was still THE most expensive camera i've EVER bought.  It remains the single real apparent "luxury" item in my world.  I'm not poor by any stretch of the imagination, and by some standards I'm probably wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice...  but by US standards, I'm squarely middle-class: the typical Fuji/mid-range Canon and Nikon market buyer. For working photographers like me, owning a digital M body and lenses is a real stretch financially.   Knowing Leica's relatively limited production facility compared with the Japan Giants, there just aren't that many M digital bodies out there, per capita.   I don't know how much money they'd have to make per unit to make the digital M a profit center, but I'd guess it'd be a LOT higher than the $7k we're seeing now. 

 

And, given that, even with the cost being twice what the same Panasonic camera sells for, I'd bet that for every m body that is sold, there are a couple of dozen Panasonic-Leicas sold.  Of course we don't know anything about their margin per unit by model so, of course, this is all speculation on my part as well. 

 

I just can't imagine that there are enough M sales with enough profit to keep the company afloat, even with the M lens sales.  I'd further speculate that if the M line was so profitable that the company could make it on the M alone, they probably would be doing that; but I doubt that it is,  hence the diversification of the product lines.  And as Michael said in post #21 in this thread, Leica camera company is really a lens manufacturer who happens to make some pretty fine bodies upon which to mount them.  

[biglou]

So, you see the SL as inferior to the M?

 

From the few shots I have seen so far from the SL the IQ seems superior, particularly the high ISO. You also get autofocus and a world-class EVF. All for $1200 more than an M. Let's not forget that all M lenses work with the SL (as Leica claims) and only 50mm and above work well on the Sony. It's not a replacement for the M, it's a new system.

 

I have a feeling if the SL was released 4 years ago and the M just released today everyone would be bickering at the high cost of a stripped down camera with poor ISO performance, crappy EVF, and no autofocus.

 

 

The argument that the SL can M and R lenses is valid, but these lenses may also be used on Sony, not any advantage buying the Leica for that, it brings nothing more.

One has to consider if at this price point the SL and the three autofocus lenses announced are a good reason enough to enter a new system.

The pro photographers will never abandon what they use, huge proven kits with all kind of lenses and more advanced sensors, priced a lot less.

Maybe some videographers will find it useful, this i don't know.

[LocalHero1953]

I frankly hope the Q is so popular that evenually Leica decides to offer it as an interchangeable lens camera, perhaps using T lenses. It is such a nice small package that I for one could consider it over the SL because of small form factor and less weight.

I've wondered much the same. But what could be left out of the SL to create a Q-sized ILC with the T/L mount? And if you don't leave anything out, could you make it smaller? And if you can make it smaller without leaving anything out.......then why is the SL so big?

[algrove]

I've wondered much the same. But what could be left out of the SL to create a Q-sized ILC with the T/L mount? And if you don't leave anything out, could you make it smaller? And if you can make it smaller without leaving anything out.......then why is the SL so big?

Not sure. Good question. The main reason I can think of is so that the SL can take S lenses and appeal to those have S lenses. I do not buy the arguement that it is the ultimate R lens solution. I find my M's take superb images with the R lenses I have used on them.

[mjh]

I do not buy the arguement that it is the ultimate R lens solution. I find my M's take superb images with the R lenses I have used on them.

Its vastly superior EVF alone would be a reason to prefer the SL over the M when using R lenses.

[edwardkaraa]

Its vastly superior EVF alone would be a reason to prefer the SL over the M when using R lenses.

It might be just wishful thinking but if the EVF is good enough to focus M lenses without magnification I would even prefer it to the rangefinder.

[algrove]

Its vastly superior EVF alone would be a reason to prefer the SL over the M when using R lenses.

Can't afford the sherpa.

[Adam]

I don't want a built-in EVF in the M, even the SL one. I prefer an add-on EVF since I can use it with the M to shoot from the hip.  The lack of simple solution for a tilting VF in the SL and S is a big drawback for me.

 

Also EVF technology will never surpass good optics of the OVF.  Unless we are talking about two viewfinders in one that can be toggled. But that is Star Trek technology.

[Mornnb]

 Unless we are talking about two viewfinders in one that can be toggled. But that is Star Trek technology.

 

Nope, Fuji did it in the Xpro1.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/features/page_03.html

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ndhey]

I still use the M8, and will stick with it until Leica, one day, produces a digital M, that has the same form factor as the film M's.  I don't care if the  viewfinder uses analogue or digital technologies. As long as it has the same gestalt.

[Adam]

Nope, Fuji did it in the Xpro1.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_pro1/features/page_03.html

 

Thanks! I forgot about Fuji.  If M retains the original OVF and adds a toggle for a SL type EVF display that would be useful for long and ultra wide lens, provided the OVF stays as is. Not sure if that is what the Fuji system is since not clear to me if the  OVF can focus manually like Leica's.  

 

I just hope that a flip EVF will also be available.

 

Anyway, I heard people are working on teleportation,replicators and holodecks...