Too stylized ... modern M5 ?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

It's always interesting to see how other people choose a camera. I tend to look at the quality of the images and how easy it is to use.

[steppenw0lf]

Different people must have different opinions of the camera and its design, because they actually have different views.

 

As a casual looker I see the camera from the front. I see a square/rectangle shape with a small hump on top.

 

As a user of the camera I mostly see it from the top, from slightly behind the camera. (If I see it at all. Looking through it means not seeing it.)

From this angle I see a clean design, all in metal. This looks very appealing to me. Much cleaner and slimmer than most DSLRs.

 

So yes, from my point of view I like the design of the SL.

 

Stephan

[Herr Barnack]

Whenever I have looked at the SL, it has never reminded me of the Sony A7. 

 

The SL is its own man, so to speak - a stand alone design with its own strengths and shortcomings.  It is not an S, nor an M , nor an A7.  That having been said, I have no interest in the S, SL or A7.  I am a dyed in the wool M kind of guy; I would not insult the SL by cmparing it to an A7, though.

[AlanJW]

Comparisons to Sony A7 are inevitable.  I've never paid too much attention to camera design except as it pertains to use:  "form follows function".  Ergonomics are something personal, but my personal opinion is the SL form follows function very well, handles well, and is simple to use -- very Leica-like.   The Sony was a mass of buttons and wheels that changed function when some other variable changed, and I found it difficult to use. The Sony way is not to simplify but to use buttons and wheels and menus and submenus to allow extensive customization.  Some people really like that or find they can readily adapt to it.  For them, the Sony form too follows function.  Beauty in the eye of the beholder or just familiarity?   I don't know, but anyone who thinks the SL is "too ugly" should pick one up and start using it.  It just might change your mind about a lot of things.

[Peter H]

Whilst camera styling is not the most important element in a camera by a long, long way, it is still important in some ways, and to some people more than to others. After all, photographers are supposed to be visually aware people, so why are they expected to be happy with ugly-looking things hanging around their body? Mind you, I know a few photographers whose visual awareness when it comes to anything not viewed through a viewfinder (and even that caveat doesn't always apply) is seriously in question.

 

Anyway, I think the SL is very nearly a handsome camera, and if it wasn't for the silly shape of the EVF lump on the top which I'm sure could have been designed not to look like it was pretending to be a prism housing, the sort of inauthentic frippery that should always be avoided, it could have been a nice bit of minimalist functional design.

 

The undermining of its own design identity wouldn't stop me using a camera if it fits its purpose, but I might find myself not admiring or enjoying it quite as much as I might. 

[jdlaing]

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. 

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whilst camera styling is not the most important element in a camera by a long, long way, it is still important in some ways, and to some people more than to others. After all, photographers are supposed to be visually aware people, so why are they expected to be happy with ugly-looking things hanging around their body? Mind you, I know a few photographers whose visual awareness when it comes to anything not viewed through a viewfinder (and even that caveat doesn't always apply) is seriously in question.

 

Anyway, I think the SL is very nearly a handsome camera, and if it wasn't for the silly shape of the EVF lump on the top which I'm sure could have been designed not to look like it was pretending to be a prism housing, the sort of inauthentic frippery that should always be avoided, it could have been a nice bit of minimalist functional design.

 

The undermining of its own design identity wouldn't stop me using a camera if it fits its purpose, but I might find myself not admiring or enjoying it quite as much as I might. 

I agree about the hump.   If it looked like an M with a grip and a EVF ( a somewhat bigger Q?), it would be ideal.

[ramarren]

Whilst camera styling is not the most important element in a camera by a long, long way, it is still important in some ways, and to some people more than to others. After all, photographers are supposed to be visually aware people, so why are they expected to be happy with ugly-looking things hanging around their body? Mind you, I know a few photographers whose visual awareness when it comes to anything not viewed through a viewfinder (and even that caveat doesn't always apply) is seriously in question.

 

Anyway, I think the SL is very nearly a handsome camera, and if it wasn't for the silly shape of the EVF lump on the top which I'm sure could have been designed not to look like it was pretending to be a prism housing, the sort of inauthentic frippery that should always be avoided, it could have been a nice bit of minimalist functional design.

 

The undermining of its own design identity wouldn't stop me using a camera if it fits its purpose, but I might find myself not admiring or enjoying it quite as much as I might. 

 

 

i disagree. It's not pretending to be anything but what it is: a housing for the large EVF. I like the fact that, like with a DSLR, it is in line with the lens axis—which makes particular sense for any camera that can be used with a variety of long lenses. 

[lct]

Not sure if there would be enough room for an RF-like viewfinder as large and comfortable as Leica or Sony, especially on smaller bodies. As long as it clears the left eye i don't see any problem in such a design which allows for holding the camera more comfortably with heavier lenses IMHO.  

 

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!

 

[Peter H]

i disagree. It's not pretending to be anything but what it is: a housing for the large EVF. I like the fact that, like with a DSLR, it is in line with the lens axis—which makes particular sense for any camera that can be used with a variety of long lenses.

I agree that it's position is fine for the type of camera it is. And that it does its job well.

 

But this thread is about the aesthetic element of the design and whether it appeals, and of course the shape of the vf is influenced by SLR prism housings. Whether that bothers you or not is a matter of personal taste. I ideally prefer design that does without that decorative element. I think the hump should have been a simpler geometrical shape consistent with the rest of the body, which looks so good because it does away with all superfluous shapes and angles.

 

Im labouring a very small point because the success of a design often turns on the execution of the smallest details.

 

This is just a personal preference, and makes no difference to the photos the camera produces.

[dkCambridgeshire]

The Leica SL 601 exterior design was particularly influenced by the R3's exterior prism shape/appearance - and the R3 chassis was largely based on the Minolta XE. The SL 601 VF's exterior does not appeal to everyone; aesthetically the front sharp edged 'step' with its LEICA logo does not 'blend' so well into/onto the front of the camera; it could be prettier. Secondhand R3 bodies sit unsold and unloved on dealers' shelves for months so why did the Leica SL's design brief include the dated R3 prism look? Many new Leica converts are probably not old enough to remember the R3 and those Leica enthusiasts who do may not remember it with great affection or longing as regards its exterior appearance or its Minolta heritage.'Retro' look cameras do not appeal to everyone so it's likely some potential SL customers will be put off by its clunky appearance - I certainly was but eventually bought a secondhand example because I needed a Leica non-rangefinder FF 'R' platform and the s/h price was very favourable. When I first saw the SL 601, I was immediately put off by the VF front plate - but decided I would eventually acquire one and live with its dated appearance - because for me, the SL's other attributes outweigh its not so good 'looks'. 

 

The SL 601 is what it is and with the Leica Q appears to be selling very well. The camera might experience greater demand and sell in greater numbers if it looked less retro - but currently Leica seem to have full order books and the SL and Q seem to be selling well and meeting sales targets. Consider also that if the SL 601 had a better looking body which created more demand - could Leica's production resources meet that demand? They appear to be working flat out to meet to meet the demand for the Leica Q thus production resources are already stretched. 

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

[FlashGordonPhotography]

If the SL looked like the R9, I think leica might have not been able to make enough of them. If the T had looked like the X-Vario they wouldn't be selling in low numbers.

 

The SL is fantastic in the hand but it ain't pretty. And pretty sells better than industrial.

 

Gordon

[profus]

If the SL looked like the R9, I think leica might have not been able to make enough of them. If the T had looked like the X-Vario they wouldn't be selling in low numbers.

 

The SL is fantastic in the hand but it ain't pretty. And pretty sells better than industrial.

 

Gordon

SL might not be pretty ( actually I rather like it, though I still prefer the looks of M240 to it ), but I am definitely happy it doesn't look like R9...

[AndreasAM]

How tastes differ.

 

The amorphous (ugly) shape of the R8/R9 did always stopped me of upgrading from my R6.2/R7. Although they were better camera's.

I am glad they didn't follow this design path for the T and the SL, as suggested. I would then seriously hesitate to give Leica my money.

 

How looks matter, either way!