Am I the only one liking what Leica is offering here?

[tntrue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The price is annoying - I expected something closer to the $4995 (USD) price point.  

 

 

 

I'm hoping the Panasonic version will be more reasonable whenever it comes out.

[mjh]

I'm hoping the Panasonic version will be more reasonable whenever it comes out.

There won’t be such a thing as a Panasonic version of the SL.

Edited October 21, 2015 by mjh

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

Gee. I wonder why?

[lct]

Same for M or S cameras i guess. None are made by Panasonic.

[earleygallery]

Maybe not a Panasonic badged SL but I'm sure we will see a FF camera from Panasonic at some point. 

[mjh]

Gee. I wonder why?

Yeah, why would Leica want to license their cameras to Panasonic?

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe not a Panasonic badged SL but I'm sure we will see a FF camera from Panasonic at some point.

I’m not so sure about that.

[Linford]

As an M user who also owned the T (for the experience) and loves his MP film camera, I have been speculating for some time that Leica needed to address the segment the SL is there to capture. I think it could be brilliant if they follow through with lens options in the future. Maybe NOW they can move on with making the S a medium format RANGEFINDER. That would be epic!!! JMHO.--lt

[earleygallery]

I’m not so sure about that.

 

Why do you say that Michael? 

[mjh]

Why do you say that Michael?

Because I don’t quite see how it would fit in Panasonic’s business strategy. Or put simply, I am not convinced they would earn rather than lose money with a FF system.

[Paul Reading]

I like the design of the camera but I think it falls between two stools, if I had to write the spec for this camera this would be it except for the size. Firstly a pro is going to buy the S, so I don't see a big pro market for this camera, the majority will be sold to well healed amatures.

 

I think that they should have kept the camera an APS-C camera and kept the T-Mount. Using the T-Mount this camera could have been a similar size to the Contax G2. The image quality of the Leica T was good enough for most of us but the lack of viewfinder put a break on sales. This camera at say an 85% scale using the T lenses would have a much bigger market As an amateur I know if I bought this camera it would just end up in a draw because it it too big to lug around.

 

I can understand why Leica has gone this route, it wanted to put distance between itself and Sony. 

 

For me it should be:

 

APC-C neat autofocus camera(T) with interchangeable lenses (The SL but smaller)

M Full frame

S Medium format

 

I like the Q I think it is a brilliant camera. the X's need re-lhinking to include a built in viewfinder. That way there are two ranges. You have the X & T cameras at the standard level. The Q and M at the premium level and the S at the pro level. 

 

As it is I don't understand the SL, it does everything I want but is just too big.

[earleygallery]

Because I don’t quite see how it would fit in Panasonic’s business strategy. Or put simply, I am not convinced they would earn rather than lose money with a FF system.

 

I know it's not the same animal but they already offer FF movie cameras for the pro market, and their consumer camera line has gradually moved upmarket over the years from small sensor P&S cameras to the current M43rds and APS-C models, so FF is only a step away for them. 

 

As the market at the low end continues to lose ground to the smartphone/tablet and other imaging devices such as Go Pro, it leaves little else for them longer term other than to aim higher. 

 

Just my opinion, I have no idea of their business strategy as such. 

[John Black]

The 50 lux seems to be just slightly smaller than the sigma art in an online side by side comparison. It may be huge in RF standards but that's how a modern 50/1.4 looks like.

 

Edward, the weight gain of dSLR lenses as of late confuses me.  For years we all wished for lighter, easier to carry gear.  Things were going pretty good around 2010 for FF dSLR users - more stabilized lenses, mostly F4's, high optical performance (relatively speaking), and so on.

 

Then came the 55mm Otus, Sigma ART primes, Canon & Nikon prime updates (L and G), and the latest - Milvus.  I don't buy into the idea that this bulking up is all due to sensors and MP gains.  The M lenses are downright puny in comparison, and at least by technical measure, very strong performers on full frame.

 

I think this weight gain is more marketing than technical.  Since FF dSLRs cannot get as small as mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7 line, the dSLR makers swung the opposite direction with the implied message:

 

  Pro = bigger gear

  The bigger gear = the more pro

  Thus to be the most pro, we have must the biggest gear!!!

 

Leica is not advertising the SL as a "compact" system, so they are not really beholden to any size restrictions.  Though, I think the big lenses will turn away some would-be buyers.  The two basic reactions written in just about every on-line article have been - "it's huge" and "it's expensive".

 

Around this time next year, I'll be very interested to see what technology from the SL trickles down to the next M.  If the M inherits all the LV / EVF functionality (albeit via an external finder), by then I might be ready go back to a smaller camera.  But for now, I've pre-ordered the SL.  On a thread somewhere, somebody said Leica won't sell 100 SL's.  1 down, just 99 more to go  LOL

[IkarusJohn]

Not being critical of the SL but your points above do raise some questions...

 

Too big? Compared to the Sony A7 it is quite a bit bigger isn't it?

 

Too heavy? Plastic Japanese cameras? Really? Which plastic cameras (comparable to the SL) are you talking about? The Sony has a magnesium body I see...

 

Professional? Any real pro, by that I mean someone who works full time as a photographer, will need (not maybe want but need) a comprehensive array of lenses and accessories and easy/fast support. The Leica is some way off that goal IMHO so no, the SL won't appeal to many pro's not because it's a bad camera, just that it simply doesn't yet have any 'pro' lenses to pair with it (and no, one cannot include M lenses). 

 

For the wealthier amateurs I'm sure it will serve very well, especially older users who are having some difficulty focussing with their rangefinders, they now have an option with a leading EVF and focus aids, without needing to sell a valuable and excellent set of M lenses. 

 

There's no need to try and rubbish other brands with comments like 'plastic Japanese cameras' in trying to justify why you like the SL.

 

Hi James,

 

Come now, James.  Rubbish other brands?  Which brand do I mention?  I agree with almost all of what you say, because you haven't really responded to the points I was making.

 

I wasn't referring to the A7 at all.  Yes, the SL is bigger than the A7.  I'm not sure why you make that leap.  Because it's really the only other fun frame mirrorless, I guess.  But do you see this as the choice?  If so, then the A7 wins hands down, I guess.  It isn't even in the picture for me.

 

How do you get that I was comparing the SL with plasticky Japanese cameras?  or that I was calling the A7 a plasticky camera?  Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was talking about cheap and nasty compacts and some not so cheap compacts that had "features" which turned out to not work at all well.  My first Sony handicam was horribly plasticky and had AF which was also pretty awful, and my Canon G10 wasn't plasticky but offered a lot and actually delivered not so much.

 

My brother's first camera was a Diana, made in Japan.  It melted to a lump of plastic on the hat shelf of the car on a hot day.

 

I don't really think this camera will be defined by the A7, and I remain of the view that "professional" really is there to distinguish this camera from "consumer" or "prosumer" labels.  It would be great if working professionals shelled out for this camera, but I sincerely doubt it.  The S is aimed at the professional market, and if you believe what you read here more are sold to amateurs than to Professionals - who knows if that is true, but the good thing is that it is selling.

 

Many here have observed that pros will buy Canikon dSLRs because they're cheaper, great work horses, lots of good lenses, and well supported.  I seem to recall you saying that Leica should have made a 35mm dSLR and that SLRs are not a dying part of the market ...

 

What I was commenting on is what the label "professional" means to me, rather than any comment on a sector of the photography market I know little about - I see it, and I have a friend who is an award winning local photographer, and I don't see Leica in their futures.  I'm sure the UK is a completely different place.

 

Cheers

John

Edited October 21, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[mjh]

I know it's not the same animal but they already offer FF movie cameras for the pro market, and their consumer camera line has gradually moved upmarket over the years from small sensor P&S cameras to the current M43rds and APS-C models, so FF is only a step away for them.

Panasonics camera business is limited to MFT right now (and has been for 7 years); I doubt they would be interested in APS-C. I have never heard anyone from Panasonic suggesting that they had the slightest interest in FF.

[earleygallery]

John, 

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you - I didn't realise you were comparing the SL to a Diana, in which case yes the Diana is plasticky and not so 'professional'. 

 

You can only compare the SL to similar cameras on the market, and the nearest thing to it is surely the Sony A7 - not a camera I'd ever be interested in by the way so don't mistake my comments as supporting Sony. But putting the 'luxury' badge aside, it is the only really comparable camera. 

 

I did indeed say before that IMHO Leica would stand to sell more units if they made a really great DSLR and I still think that. DSLR's still sell approx 3 X the volume of mirrorless cameras (FF/APS-C/43rds).

 

How much additional performance does the S offer over a top '35mm' sensor? Would a FF DSLR appeal to more 'pros' than the choice of the SL or the S I wonder…. Would an APS-C DSLR with weather sealing and a fantastic line of dedicated AF Leica lenses appeal to more amateurs and some pros?

 

Would a compact EVF only body with an M mount appeal to more M users as an alternative body? 

 

Lots of other paths that Leica could have taken but admittedly I've not employed market researchers or designers to form my opinions, but those guys don't always get it right. 

[IkarusJohn]

I didn't realise you were comparing the SL to a Diana, in which case yes the Diana is plasticky and not so 'professional'.  

 

 

I agree that the only other full frame EVF camera is the A7 series, but that doesn't necessarily make the SL its natural competition.

 

If the A7 floats someone's boat - ranging from 42MP to 10MP, 4 axis in body stabilisation, small, magnesium body, etc etc - then it's THE BEST CAMERA EVER, to quote some one else.

 

But, if you've made your way through life and a series of Canonet, Nikon (FE, FM, FE2, FM2, F5) & Hasselblad (503cx) film cameras, early digital (an Olympus something or other), Canon G10 and finally found you away to Leica, then your view is (or it is in my case) that there are more important things than numbers on spec sheets.  Now, you can blame me for buying into the A7r, bearing in mind unhappy experiences with Sony products, but I did, and it wasn't a happy experience.

 

You could also say I was a bit dumb returning to Nikon with the D800E and a handful of lenses, and you'd probably be right.

 

But for someone who has a clutch (okay, more than a clutch) of Leica M lenses, there is an itch I can't help wanting to scratch - it involves bird photography, taking one camera and lens on motorbike trips, taking pictures of my son kite surfing and paragliding, skiing and walking in our wonderful outdoors and taking the odd macro shot - they are all areas the M can do, but it's a stretch.

 

The SL looks like it will fit that spot perfectly, and add good video (which I'm still very unsure about, but might be worth a try in a way that I thought it wasn't a good thing on the M).  The SL is smaller than the Nikon I had, costs about the same as the M(240), and looks like it will add some amazing things to what my photography does already.

 

No, the A7 isn't competition for this camera, in my view - they are speaking different languages at the same party.

 

As I said elsewhere, my perception is that the SL has found a niche which is not shared by the A7 cameras or any others, and they just might have stolen a march on the other manufacturers.  They have provided what appears to be a quality product where there is no other, and which just might be an important future.  It will take time, but Leica was there first.

 

The A7 promises much, but in my experience doesn't quite deliver what it promises (Karl-Heinz does amazing things with his, but I never achieved a good relationship with the camera).  The Leica promises less from a spec sheet perspective, but would seem to deliver what it promises and more.

 

Time will tell.  If I do buy one, I hope it doesn't join the Nex-5n, A7r, Nikon D800E and Leica T in the secondhand sales.

Edited October 22, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[fcomarin69]

Will it be possible to wait until we have the camera in our hands and go out for a test before starting to kill a camera that you can't have yet to critique? Unfortunately the picture posted in dp hold by a woman was one of the worst they can have and spark a bunch of reactions. (We forget that in our profession or in appreciation, photography can deceive)  I'm sure is bigger than the sony 7rII and smaller than Canon and Nikon flags.

 

We can talk about price, yes agree, I think is high but if the IQ, ISO performance and the DR are better than the CANIKON and if the latitude to open shadows and control highlights is +1 1/2 exposure, I will considered. I work with many cameras including my M8. I had and have deliver work to customers using Canon, Sony, Leica T (ups sorry I forgot is not "professional camera", they will kill me if they found about it) Hassy, etc. I use any camera I consider will responde to the needs. I have adapt my Canon TS lenses to my Leica's for architectural work (they pre-fix at F8 or F 11) and the quality is good if you know your walk around.

 

About the specification of 24MP, I think is a sweet spot. 80% of the market is what it needs. The rest of the camera I will know once I have it in my hand next Friday during the presentation.

 

Why is that we are trading the pleasure to be a photographer and squeeze the best of the equipment that we can have for the technical part of photography that is not important? More menus, more settings more this more that...I agree, technology advance and we need to adapt to the new circumstances but from there to critique any equipment that you never try or if you try never do it for a month that is nuts...of course if you get pay by any brand to talk bad about other cameras regardless about what they are...well, I guess you are doing your "professional work".

[dkCambridgeshire]

Not being critical of the SL but your points above do raise some questions...

 

Too big? Compared to the Sony A7 it is quite a bit bigger isn't it?

 

Too heavy? Plastic Japanese cameras? Really? Which plastic cameras (comparable to the SL) are you talking about? The Sony has a magnesium body I see...

 

Professional? Any real pro, by that I mean someone who works full time as a photographer, will need (not maybe want but need) a comprehensive array of lenses and accessories and easy/fast support. The Leica is some way off that goal IMHO so no, the SL won't appeal to many pro's not because it's a bad camera, just that it simply doesn't yet have any 'pro' lenses to pair with it (and no, one cannot include M lenses). 

 

For the wealthier amateurs I'm sure it will serve very well, especially older users who are having some difficulty focussing with their rangefinders, they now have an option with a leading EVF and focus aids, without needing to sell a valuable and excellent set of M lenses. 

 

There's no need to try and rubbish other brands with comments like 'plastic Japanese cameras' in trying to justify why you like the SL.

 

There are both M and R lenses of more than sufficient professional quality which suit the SL admirably … and that's why Leica have launched the camera and is providing the necessary adaptors. The initial L lenses' availabilities fall short of expectations and will put off potential buyers who might otherwise consider the new system. But, when we see images made with the better R lenses e.g. the 280/4 and the later Solms designed R zooms, we could be in for a pleasant surprise. I'll be using mine at a Leica Mayfair function next month and will post some image examples on the forum … but expect others will beat me to it. 

 

dunk

Edited October 22, 2015 by dkCambridgeshire

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[algrove]

If I had many S lenses I would get one in a flash as it fits right into that segment. I have R lenses and find my M's 240 work fine with them all including the venerable R24-90. I understand from SL reviews M lenses are best suited to M bodies so that limits my preference for an SL today. But there is always tomorrow. Do I need a pro camera? Heck no, but I don't need an M either to capture images even though I have one. Why do I have M's? Because I wanted them.