zlatkob Posted October 21, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not meaning to get on the negativity band wagon. The SL is undoubtedly a great camera in terms of specs and IQ. In fact, compared to the price of the M (at launch), is the SL that much more expensive (excluding the lens)? What bothers me is the form factor resembling the A7 - who could blame Steve in his first impression really. But what bothers me even more is this ueber-stylized camera. I find the style too much of a statement of what marketeers and designers think that the would-be trend setting, affluent, all-things-Apple loving hipsters want or demand. Have another look at the style..... what do you think? I like it, at least from the photos online. The first impression is that it's *not* over-stylized. That's why some people are saying it looks like an unfinished prototype or block of wood. The lines are clean and simple. Everything seems very purposeful and machine-like. It has a resemblance to the Sony A7 series, but it's only superficial: the approximate shape, the grip. Look closely at the details and they are quite different and, as a result, I suspect that the feel and operation will be almost entirely different. The alternative to the straight lines approach of Sony is the curved lines approach of Canon. With either approach, one will be accused of copying / resembling another camera. I like that it's not cluttered with small buttons and switches. That is a nice departure from other mirrorless cameras (Sony, Fuji, Olympus). That's a design statement, but also a luxury of having a larger body to work with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Hi zlatkob, Take a look here Too stylized ... modern M5 ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mjh Posted October 21, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 21, 2015 The molded handgrip is an unusual design element for Leica. In general the front of a camera, including the handgrip if there is one, runs straight. The M, X, Q, T are all like that and the SL is no exception. The S is the odd man out. This design choice may have been motivated by its much greater weight, compared to any other Leica including the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTI Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share #23 Posted October 21, 2015 Fair enough comments. Rather than ergonomics, I was pointing out aesthetics. At the end of the day the aesthetics can be argued from both sides. And as pointed out earlier by mjh the SL seems to follow the S2 design-wise. It's just that to me the design is a bit too hip and cool...hahahaha. Makes me sound old. But I just can't put my finger on it, it kinda reminds of products/not cars, designed by Porsche. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 21, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 21, 2015 With the 'Holy Grail' M system, Leica had to make digital models look like the classic M of 1954 onwards. The S and SL look like CAD drawings, on screen and in real life. Why are they both void of any nice aesthetics? Design aesthetics trend. Look to Apple's flattened interface and icons. Bezel, embossing and roundish (voluptuous?) camera bodies are passing, at least today. I do wonder what Harley Earl would have done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdw Posted October 21, 2015 Share #25 Posted October 21, 2015 I think the S2 looks excellent. Very well visually balanced, and consistency in its lines. The SL is a completely confused mess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 21, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 21, 2015 I think the S2 looks excellent. Very well visually balanced, and consistency in its lines. The SL is a completely confused mess. Many will disagree with such a dogmatic and unjustified opinion. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 21, 2015 Share #27 Posted October 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just an opinion, Dunk. At first, I thought it looked like a bloated A7 from the square on image without a lens, posted on another site. But seeing the video, it looks more to me like a smaller, different take on the S. Nothing to do with the M, and with very clean styling - square edges, rounded grip - I think it is stylish and will grow on those who are shocked by it. At least it isn't a hard to hold scaled down dSLR design like the A7, or slippery like some say of the M. I don't have big hands, but the A7 was always too cramped in the hands for me - the grip too short. I think the SL looks great with a lens on it, though it does make the M lenses look tiny. Two hands, looks very ergonomic. But, hardly discreet with the zoom on it. Discreet cameras - not sure if that matters to me. I hated people's reaction when I pulled my d800 out of the bag with the 80-400 zoom - women's faces said it all, "you must have a very small dick" The M causes little more than curiosity. Then again, I don't really think the SL is aimed at that sort of use. Imagine the greater outcry if the camera looked like the M (sacrilege) or a Canikon dSLR. No surprise it shares some similarity with the only other full frame camera on the market - just better! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 21, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 21, 2015 Fair enough comments. Rather than ergonomics, I was pointing out aesthetics. At the end of the day the aesthetics can be argued from both sides. And as pointed out earlier by mjh the SL seems to follow the S2 design-wise. It's just that to me the design is a bit too hip and cool...hahahaha. Makes me sound old. But I just can't put my finger on it, it kinda reminds of products/not cars, designed by Porsche. Thinking of aesthetics in itself... I tend to agree... but of course I haven't yet seen it "live"... some details can be caught only when you see the item with your eyes, spatially... ; with this warning, I confess that my first impression about style has been "too next to Sony... they haven't added something characterizing a style of their own" ... some small allusion to Leicaflexes could had been fine (but just for aged people... ) .. or some reminiscence of S (the slightly "trapezoidal" front look ?) ... ore more classic strap lugs ... or a differently shaped "pseudo/pentaprism" ? Dunno... wait for live view... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 21, 2015 Share #29 Posted October 21, 2015 Just an opinion, Dunk. At first, I thought it looked like a bloated A7 from the square on image without a lens, posted on another site. But seeing the video, it looks more to me like a smaller, different take on the S. Nothing to do with the M, and with very clean styling - square edges, rounded grip - I think it is stylish and will grow on those who are shocked by it. At least it isn't a hard to hold scaled down dSLR design like the A7, or slippery like some say of the M. I don't have big hands, but the A7 was always too cramped in the hands for me - the grip too short. I think the SL looks great with a lens on it, though it does make the M lenses look tiny. Two hands, looks very ergonomic. But, hardly discreet with the zoom on it. Discreet cameras - not sure if that matters to me. I hated people's reaction when I pulled my d800 out of the bag with the 80-400 zoom - women's faces said it all, "you must have a very small dick" The M causes little more than curiosity. Then again, I don't really think the SL is aimed at that sort of use. Imagine the greater outcry if the camera looked like the M (sacrilege) or a Canikon dSLR. No surprise it shares some similarity with the only other full frame camera on the market - just better! Exactly! If it looked like an M or a Canon/Nikon, there would be even more tears on this forum. As it is, it's reminiscent of the Leicaflex SL ... appropriately! There's more than one way to design a beautiful product. I'm a little surprised that some of the sophisticated photographers out there can't see much difference between the SL and the A7. It's vaguely like an A7, being mirrorless and having a grip. but look at the details and they are entirely different. There are so many a differences that clearly a different design ethos is at work. Not necessarily better, but certainly different. For sheer functionality, I would have copied the curves of the Sony grip or, even better, a Canon grip, but that would have suggested more of a me-too product. I'm even more surprised that some sophisticated photographers (even some well known ones) where fooled by the photos on DPReview. Basic lesson of photography: photos don't always tell the truth. DPReview managed to make the camera look bigger than it is, like some medium-format behemoth. Other web sites and some people on Facebook have presented more accurate photos, showing that it's comparable to a mid-sized DSLR, but thinner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 22, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 22, 2015 One of the reviewers - Ming I think - said the camera became very uncomfortable to hold for a prolonged period of time. The rounded forms of the Canon and Nikon cameras are perhaps better ergonomically? Canon's grip is brilliant. There is even a small ridge on the front inside of the grip, like a little extra grip on the grip. You don't notice it at first, but then your fingers do, and they say "Thank you". Highly functional and highly refined. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
105012 Posted October 22, 2015 Share #31 Posted October 22, 2015 The M5 has great intuitive controls and in my experience is a pleasure to use (my second favorite M after the M3). Comparing dimensions of the bodies we have: SL: 147 x 104 x 39 M5: 150 x 87 x 36 (mm, those used to British Imperial units will have to convert). As for weight of the bodies we have (grams): SL: 847 M5: 645 So it seems fair to say that the SL is a little larger and quite a lot heavier than the M5 (especially with native lenses). As for styling, I personally quite like both M5 and SL 601, but love the M3. Functionality overrides style with any tool, although the best tools combine both. What would Oskar Barnack think of the SL with the 24-90 mounted? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 22, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2015 But what bothers me even more is this ueber-stylized camera. I find the style too much of a statement of what marketeers and designers think that the would-be trend setting, affluent, all-things-Apple loving hipsters want or demand. So what do you think of modern architecture then? Do you find the new Leica Park to be "uber-stylized" and "hipster" trendy? Presumably traditional Bavarian gingerbread architecture for Leica headquarters would be more to your liking? Many industrial designers such as Apple's Jony Ive are heavily influenced by the German Bauhaus school of design: clean geometric lines, minimalist, devoid of clutter and ornamentation. A major exponent of this design language is the famous Dieter Rams (of Braun) who enumerated Ten Principles of Good Design, the Tenth of which he states: "Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity." In other words: "Das Wesentliche" It seems apparent that Leica is following this design lexicon in their latest products, especially with the T and SL cameras. Like modern architecture, it may not be to everyone's taste but they are clearly looking towards the future of camera design rather than nostalgically embracing the past (such as the retro Fuji, Olympus, Nikon DF, are). Those cameras are highly "stylized". But minimalist design is hardly "trendy" nor the mere calculation of some "hipster marketers". This modern design aesthetic is classic and can also be seen in many other notable German products such as Braun, Bulthaup, Gaggenau, Bosch, Miehle, Audi, et al. One may argue over the ergonomic virtues of CaNikon's rounded bar-of-soap haptics, but Leica is clearly choosing to stand apart from them with their own unique design statement, even if they borrow some design cues from Sony A7 and Apple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirimiri Posted October 22, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2015 The SL looks like it was modelled in SketchUp, then 3D printed. I think once you take the average human hand into consideration, some parts of a tool must inevitably forsake artifice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTI Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share #34 Posted October 22, 2015 So what do you think of modern architecture then? Do you find the new Leica Park to be "uber-stylized" and "hipster" trendy? Presumably traditional Bavarian gingerbread architecture for Leica headquarters would be more to your liking? Many industrial designers such as Apple's Jony Ive are heavily influenced by the German Bauhaus school of design: clean geometric lines, minimalist, devoid of clutter and ornamentation. A major exponent of this design language is the famous Dieter Rams (of Braun) who enumerated Ten Principles of Good Design, the Tenth of which he states: "Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity." In other words: "Das Wesentliche" It seems apparent that Leica is following this design lexicon in their latest products, especially with the T and SL cameras. Like modern architecture, it may not be to everyone's taste but they are clearly looking towards the future of camera design rather than nostalgically embracing the past (such as the retro Fuji, Olympus, Nikon DF, are). Those cameras are highly "stylized". But minimalist design is hardly "trendy" nor the mere calculation of some "hipster marketers". This modern design aesthetic is classic and can also be seen in many other notable German products such as Braun, Bulthaup, Gaggenau, Bosch, Miehle, Audi, et al. One may argue over the ergonomic virtues of CaNikon's rounded bar-of-soap haptics, but Leica is clearly choosing to stand apart from them with their own unique design statement, even if they borrow some design cues from Sony A7 and Apple. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm not attacking the ten principles of good design :-) By all means, designers do your thing.... with or without principle. Granted, I have not expressed my own thoughts on what styling would have been better. To be honest I don't kow. But this design just isn't for me and that's just an opinion. In the case of the SL, Leica could have gone any which way with their design. The positioning of the product as well as the throw back to the naming of the product would have warranted something more akin to the original SL. Instead here we have a product which seems to resemble something closer to the A7 (as if all mirrorless bodies should take on this form) but then highly stylized. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 22, 2015 Share #35 Posted October 22, 2015 When I heard the first rumours of the SL I immediately thought that Leica would produce something like the Nikon Df. I'm glad that didn't go down that path. However, whilst the SL isn't completely retro it does hark back to the SLR's, and I really don't know why. They could have made a much more unique design and avoided the faux SLR styling of the Sony (and some Fuji, Olympus models). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisernchen Posted March 29, 2016 Share #36 Posted March 29, 2016 Many will disagree with such a dogmatic and unjustified opinion. dunk The opinion can be subjective which is why it is fun to see more debates. Coming from an industrial design background I would be inclined to agree that S/S2 is more finished as it carries over a well established and successful design layout from the former R8/R9, as well as more traditionally formed as other reflex cameras, which is good for S/S2. The SL is a bold move from Leica, something may need to see how it grows. The SL is a move that Leica took as the T, machined from solid aluminum block therefore the shape and geometry will be a little more limited, but at the same time it gives Leica better control on inventory - avoid being burdened from too many parts that require higher batch production and inventory issues, with SL, Leica can run much smaller production run at similar costs, but it gives more design limitation as we see it. Personally I am not the fan of the SL style, but certainly I can live with it, I would like it to be a little smaller, but it would probably imbalanced with the new 90-280 SL, or even the 24-90 SL, so it is sort of logical solution for heavier lenses but if eventually the majority of user like to have smaller (middle range primes) then it could be a negative factor - something most other maker (as did film M camera and R camera with added on grip or motor drive to balance with bigger lenses). However, with the size and weight Leica has departed itself to the market that Leica has the most fans, over emphasized on the fps that in a foreseeable future, lack of fast tele primes and pro support, will be a hard fight against the established Canon and Nikon, I do not see it a brilliant move, but of course I could be wrong. Can the SL be done otherwise? Of course, but Leica arrived for the design for some reasons, reasons perhaps not all will agree, it is more modern looking camera now, and looks most high-tech - but this design also compromise other things a lot, which I question, but Leica is Leica, as T, the design is weighted over user friendliness, and practicability. It is certainly a camera capable of delivering pro results, as does most camera introduced after 2012 from all major brands. It is the most highly specification Leica yes, it maters more to Leica as a brand, does little to photography as a whole. I do enjoy using it for several months now, could like it more if the design is a little different. B/K Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
artur5 Posted March 29, 2016 Share #37 Posted March 29, 2016 I'm going to disagree with many people here, but the first thing I thought after glancing at the SL was that it looked almost like one of those soviet Zenit SLRs from the sixties-seventies. Ugly tanks they were and ugly it is the SL as well (IMHO) Apart from the (non small) matter of pricing, design and overall size were an absolute deal breaker for me,as far as the SL system is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted March 29, 2016 Share #38 Posted March 29, 2016 "Taste is in the eye of the beholder." I prefer to spend a good deal more of my time looking through a camera than looking at it. But that said, I have no issues with the styling of the SL. It is trim, has plenty of gripping and control space, excellent controls and balance, and works brilliantly with my lenses. I have no complaints about its design and ergonomics at all. But if you don't like it much, there are many other choices in cameras to pick a favorite from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted March 29, 2016 Share #39 Posted March 29, 2016 Before buying the camera I was a bit worried that some of the claims in this thread about ergonomics (and less importantly esthetics) were true. I really don't understand the negativity, having used the camera for a month now. Ergonomics are excellent. I never feel the sharp edges or find any inconvenience with the handgrip. As for the looks, I get compliments all the time, from photographers and non photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted March 30, 2016 Share #40 Posted March 30, 2016 One of the reviewers - Ming I think - said the camera became very uncomfortable to hold for a prolonged period of time. The rounded forms of the Canon and Nikon cameras are perhaps better ergonomically? I felt exactly the opposite. I can hold the slim body of the SL much longer than the relatively fat/padded body of a D800 or 5Ds (I have all of them). I have to admit that it is maybe because of the difference in material: The Canikon have a plastic surface that I find not very pleasing to touch. The SL feels similar to the old Leica R cameras, a touch of leather and metal. I know this is not true, it is no leather, but the touch is different. Generally the touch (haptic, surface feel) is more like the old film SLRs - any brand. (F1, Pentax LX, X-700) In a car you can have the standard plastic gearstick. Or get a replacement in leather or metal. The SL feels more like that. So first I was not impressed at all by the looks of the SL. Now I like it, but mainly for its touch. And it gives you a good grip for a solid lens (R-lenses for example). I am tall and have relatively big hands. So I cannot hold the alphas properly with a big lens. Maybe with the 90-280 I will even like the additional battery grip. I do not often see the camera, but I touch it all the time. So this is more important to me. Stephan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.