psss Posted October 24, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) i am really wondering how Leica can justify the price difference between the Q and the new SL body.....same sensor, Q comes with a phenomenal lens which would be at least 3000$ if sold separately, Sl seems to have better processing and with that better video capabilities.... but even if we deduct only 2000$ for the lens the Q body comes to less then 2500$, which would be much more in line with going prices of competitors.....SL is 7500$ or 3x the price? what makes it worse it that (as we all know) everybody only makes bodies to sell lenses....and to then upgrade the body again and so on....so Leica finally comes with a body to accommodate all existing lenses....but prices it out of the water...because it is Leica? if the difference between the SL and the Q (non optical parts) really is so huge (with pretty much no advantage in IQ) why didn't somebody stop the madness and cut costs to a point where it would at least be somehow competitive.....this way the price does not even make sense compared to the Q! nobody expects leica to compete with nikon, canon, fuji on price or features.....but it is strange that sony sells the RX1RII (42mpix sensor, 35 f2 fixed leitz) for a touch more then the A7Rii yet leica sells the Q for 35% less then the SL? i really wish someone from leica could enlighten me and tell me what in the SL body warrants the extra cost.....not sure what is on that list but i am sure most people would love to take a red pen to that list and would be more then happy with a "Q like" body at half the price.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Hi psss, Take a look here SL vs Q price difference. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
farnz Posted October 24, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 24, 2015 The difference probably has to do with amortisation of research and design costs needed to bring the SL into production. Besides, the cost is dictated by what the market will bear. If Leica has overestimated the market then it would need to adjust the cost in order to sell the projected number of units. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted October 24, 2015 The difference probably has to do with amortisation of research and design costs needed to bring the SL into production. Besides, the cost is dictated by what the market will bear. If Leica has overestimated the market then it would need to adjust the cost in order to sell the projected number of units. Pete. the Q has a EVF and AF, R&D can't be that much more and there is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of features in the SL either.... the projected sales for the SL must be 10:1 compared to the Q since it is the first leica in decades to accept R as well as all other lenses leica has made or is making...along with an entirely new line of lenses.......if leica isn't planing on making this their highest selling body, why make it at all? but with that price it definitely won't be....most people are perfectly used to and happy using their leica glass on sony, canon and nikon bodies right now.... don't get me wrong, i am actually very interested in this, the specs are perfectly fine for me , i like the size and in the big picture the price is the least of my worries as long as the camera performs in the way it should (hard to judge all this without actually seeing and using it)....what worries me is that this might be a dead end system like the S that in the end has to be dragged along, mostly supported by sales of M....and really only because the price of this body is 3000$ too high "because it is leica and some people will pay it" it is amazing how much press this new system has gotten and still gets from all angles and directions....other companies would kill for that kind of free PR......but for the most part it hasn't been positive......even people invested in leica glass (who should get this just as a second body or alternative) are held back by the hard to justify price..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted October 24, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 24, 2015 Whatever lead you to think that these products are priced off what they cost, rather than off what the market will bear? Personally I don't think the SL is too expensive anymore than any M digital is expensive. The challenge I see is whether anyone will see the SL as a compelling system to put money into. As a body for M & R lenses, I think they will sell plenty. But as a new system with its own dedicated lenses, I'm not sure. The initial lineup is embarrassingly thin and incomplete. No other manufacturer would have gotten away with announcing a "system" with just three lenses out of which two will be released a year later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted October 24, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 24, 2015 Let me add that I actually think the SL is a very compelling body for using M lenses. A lot of people are attracted to the M system because of the high quality of lenses and compactness and not necessarily the rangefinder concept. I know people who shoot entirely off the EVF (which is strange to me). The SL will hopefully cure that situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 24, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 24, 2015 It hardly matters what the Q vs SL cost far as I'm concerned. Nice as the Q is, I didn't buy one because I already have a nice Leica point and shoot (X typ 113) and could see no point to buying another. I wanted a proper system body, with the right features, ergonomics, viewfinder, etc, to use with my R lenses. That's what the SL is for me. The fact that I can use it with a new lens line, the M lenses, the S lenses, and the T lenses is a bonus. G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 24, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted October 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Let me add that I actually think the SL is a very compelling body for using M lenses. A lot of people are attracted to the M system because of the high quality of lenses and compactness and not necessarily the rangefinder concept. I know people who shoot entirely off the EVF (which is strange to me). The SL will hopefully cure that situation. there are M adapters for so many cameras out there....if that is what the SL is supposed to take care of, it really needs to be a LOT cheaper or the specs have to compete.....even RED has a M mount..... that was the argument professionals had (or the excuse)...the magic leica look M lenses provide.....nobody needs a SL body to shoot with M or R lenses...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted October 25, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 25, 2015 I'd think if there is significant demand for AF SL lenses out there, Leica would have launched a complete line of lenses rather than just 3. Truth is I think even Leica is not sure about the demand. The SL can take advantage of the millions of M and R lenses already in circulation. That pool out there is so big that it will easily allow Leica to sell a couple of thousands of the SL a month. (As recent as 10 years ago, Leica was shipping about just 1000 to 2000 M's a month. They've gotten bigger but still tiny in absolute terms.) True, there are a lot of mirrorless bodies out there but only two are Leicas and the SL is the more sensible of the two as far as mirrorless functionalities go. And only these two Leicas have software to compensate / customize for specific Leica lenses as far as I know. Leica sold a lot of lenses when they were a much bigger company selling hundreds of thousands of lenses a year. The SL is their first real chance to capitalize on that with a mirrorless in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted October 25, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 25, 2015 At the time of launch the SL has but one lens. To promote the adoption of this platform, Leica should just have bundled this body with both M and R lens adapters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leitztozeiss Posted October 25, 2015 Share #10 Posted October 25, 2015 Let me add that I actually think the SL is a very compelling body for using M lenses. A lot of people are attracted to the M system because of the high quality of lenses and compactness and not necessarily the rangefinder concept. I know people who shoot entirely off the EVF (which is strange to me). The SL will hopefully cure that situation. I agree - I have in the past appreciated the rangefinders in M film bodies but have grown to really like EVF's better. I am excited to get an SL to shoot M glass and eventually the 90-280mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted October 25, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 25, 2015 At the time of launch the SL has but one lens. To promote the adoption of this platform, Leica should just have bundled this body with both M and R lens adapters. I would tend to agree seeing advertise the camera as being able to be used with 145 leica lenses. I would presume though that the existing M to T mount should work on the on the SL so at least M lenses would be available and then you could stack the R to M adaptor on that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 25, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 25, 2015 I agree - I have in the past appreciated the rangefinders in M film bodies but have grown to really like EVF's better. I am excited to get an SL to shoot M glass and eventually the 90-280mm. I also agree that if you don't already own an M, the SL could be an attractive body for M lenses. Assuming the image quality is at least the equal of the M, and it would be a shock if it isn't, then the superb-sounding EVF will be very tempting for many people. If you already have an M though, the SL is a very expensive way of adding a top class EVF to your outfit. But since Leica currently give us no alternative, and won't tell us anything about the new M (assuming, as I do, there will be one) some will no doubt buy it for the EVF alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 25, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 25, 2015 Assuming the image quality is at least the equal of the M, and it would be a shock if it isn't, I don't think that is a given. Jono seems to suggest that the SL is very good with M lenses but not as good in the corners as the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 25, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 25, 2015 I don't think that is a given. Jono seems to suggest that the SL is very good with M lenses but not as good in the corners as the M240. Yes, and another SL reviewer (Ming Thein I think) says the M is still the best for M lenses, but doesn't really elaborate. I'm trying to be optimistic about the SL, just to counterbalance my overall scepticism about its value as a new system camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmak817 Posted October 25, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 25, 2015 Less than half the price of S, high IQ and can use S lenses? Sounds cheap to me. What other Leica camera body can do that? These guys are selling Porsches, not Audis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 25, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 25, 2015 I don't really think there's any point buying an SL just to use M lenses. This isn't some small, cheap electronic backup for M cameras (sadly, I don't see Leica ever making something like this). The decision for me depends on the quality of the SL lenses. I don't have (or want) a dSLR and to be able to use M lenses is a nice bonus. I would be interested in R lenses, but they look too expensive to me. The Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90 is listed for more than the new SL zoom on eBay. No thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share #17 Posted October 25, 2015 why would anyone with M lenses buy this SL? afaik adapters aren't even available yet and the whole point of the M system is a much more compact system....and there are plenty of M cameras available and i am pretty sure whatever happens the M system will there until the end of leica.....and of course the obvious solution that any sony A body is much more like an M then this SL is.... and obviously waiting for the SL lenses will at least be a 2 year experiment......i actually think leica coming out with a 24-90 first is a great move....picking up any print magazine looking at printed advertising, most images are probably shot with a canon 5D(II/III) and the 24-105 f4 zoom......it is THE commercial combo and has been for years....the big guns (hasselblad, phase,...) are sitting on the tripod to keep clients happy..... but one HUGE long zoom and a 50 won't get anyone to switch over to this..... i guess the more i am thinking about all this is really is what the general opinion is: a very expensive toy for people who take a couple of pics here and there......except that his one won't be dragged out on many walks i am afraid..... i am hoping to check it out in person at a local leica shop sooner then later to get a better idea of how it handles video... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 25, 2015 Share #18 Posted October 25, 2015 why would anyone with M lenses buy this SL? … <snipped> Those whose eyesight is failing will appreciate being able to magnify the view through the EVF and the enhanced (brighter) view in low light situations. Just two reasons off the top of my head. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 25, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 25, 2015 why would anyone with M lenses buy this SL? The M-T adapter works (the T mount is the same as the L mount for the SL), so as the ad says - with existing M-T and R-M mounts, you can use this camera with every M and R lens (with one or two exceptions), and LTM lens as well, I guess. Why not just use an M? Very good question. I will just use an M. But for images needing longer than 90mm, and macro, and zoom, the SL is a bette choice than the M(240), and unlike a dSLR, the SL will also take M lenses. Makes sense. But, if the camera doesn't really add anything with the native SL lenses, then I agree it becomes a bit problematic. So, Leica released the most versatile zoom (24-90, bringing recollections of the fabulous 28-90 R zoom) and made a point of saying that this camera can be used with 145 Leica lenses. That makes sense, doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted October 27, 2015 Less than half the price of S, high IQ and can use S lenses? Sounds cheap to me. What other Leica camera body can do that? These guys are selling Porsches, not Audis. so what is the Q? exactly the same IQ, comes with a pretty incredible lens and is a little more the half of the SL? i hate to make car comparisons but in this case we have the same engine in a just as luxurious body, a few less features (mostly video) but a whole second car (lens) thrown in....for a LOT less.... since the T is now the same mount as the SL, the T will be able to take S (and cine) lenses now....does not make it a better camera.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.