SL vs Q price difference

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.... 

 

Well, not the same engine (the sensor is actually different), and the lens and sensor in the Q are optimised for each other and the image is electronically modified (which you can't do with the Sl - it can adjust for colour shift and a few other things, but it has to play well with over 145 lenses of different mounts).  I don't really think the comparison is valid at all.

 

The SL is an interchangeable lens camera that has to be designed to play fair with a number of SL lenses of different designs, the S lenses, M lenses and legacy R, LTM and other lenses.  That's a whole different crap shoot (as our US friends might say).  Why compare the SL to the Q, when it actually sits between the S and M in terms of functionality?  or more correctly, alongside the M as they're both full frame cameras, only the SL does the electronic thing a whole lot better than the M (EVF, AF, video, wider range of lenses etc etc) and still plays fair with M lenses (though if we're nitpicking the M is better off axis with challenging M lenses and the SL is better in the centre - read Sean Reid, don't take my word for it).

 

Is the IQ exactly the same for the SL as the Q?  I haven't seen anyone say that with any accuracy, and the SL gets there by a far more complicated path.

 

As for the T, it has the same mount, but it has a Sony APS-C sensor in it.  What has that to do with it?  You can run a comparison between the two if you like, but having owned a T, they sound like chalk and cheese from what the reviewers are saying.

 

All this spec and paper based speculation is leading to some very strange conclusions.  Can I suggest that if anyone thinks the SL, Q and T are comparable, visit a Leica store after 16 November with an SD card and your favourite M lenses in your pockets and try each camera out with native lenses and the M lenses (apart from the Q of course).  If you find the T does everything you need and the SL doesn't add anything (or similarly the Q), then you will be a very happy customer.

 

Cheers

John

[psss]

not sure how anything you are saying makes any sense....the sensor is the same, the path is the same, because the Q only has to deal with one lens it is likely that it gets better results then the SL ever will with a comparable lens....the Q has AF and EVF (with only slightly lower specs) ....SL has a better processor to get data off the sensor faster and can therefor deal with video much better.....but in terms of IQ there is no reason at all why they should be different....

i only brought the T into this because you mentioned the fact that the SL can handle S lenses as an advantage over the Q....

[IkarusJohn]

No, the sensor isn't the same - the SL is apparently an updated or modified version of the Q sensor.  I don't know what the "path" is you refer to.

 

The Q lens isn't really "comparable" to any M or SL lens as it's designed specifically for the Q sensor - that is an advantage, I'll grant you, but designing a sensor to make a multitude of lenses is a different thing.  Having a matched lens and sensor is a huge advantage, I agree.  I'm not sure you can say, though "it gets better results then the SL ever will."  I will wait for a careful comparison, if anyone ever makes one ...

 

There is every reason why the Q and SL would have different image quality as they do different things.  I guess your point is the Q will give better image quality at 28mm than the SL at 28mm.  I'm not sure that is right.  All the reviews I have read suggest that the M(240) with the new 28 Summilux gives better image quality than the Q (I'm going from memory, but I distinctly recall reviewers commenting that while the Q is called a "Summilux", the 28 Summilux on the M produced a better image).  If that is the case, it is a big call to assume that the 28 Summilux on the SL will not be as good as the Q.  Jono has tested the 28 Summilux on the SL, and I await his review with interest.

 

The one thing the Q can't do, and is really the point, is take full frame images at other focal lengths with other lenses.  That's what makes the comparison rather futile, and comparison of prices irrelevant, doesn't it?

 

I guess we'll need to wait and see - as you might have guessed, I don't like leaping to conclusions.

 

I didn't mention the T.

[mmx_2]

I can tell you a secrect on sales prices, they are more or less never calculated on a cost + Fixed percentage margin = sales price. Instead you put the price tag as high as think the market is prepared to pay for your product. This can in some extreme cases mean that you are actually not earning any money on the first sales or even making a loss (a real life example being Sony Playstations) but this is normally compensated either in other areas (like service, accessories or in cases with for example printing machines that only one type of paper can be used and only be bought from you) or by the simple fact that cost is a variable that typical goes towards zero over time.

 

In the Q vs SL discussion I simply think that the intended markets are totally different and that the different customer bases are prepared to pay different prices for the two products. This has nothing to do with cost.

[psss]

I can tell you a secrect on sales prices, they are more or less never calculated on a cost + Fixed percentage margin = sales price. Instead you put the price tag as high as think the market is prepared to pay for your product. This can in some extreme cases mean that you are actually not earning any money on the first sales or even making a loss (a real life example being Sony Playstations) but this is normally compensated either in other areas (like service, accessories or in cases with for example printing machines that only one type of paper can be used and only be bought from you) or by the simple fact that cost is a variable that typical goes towards zero over time.

 

In the Q vs SL discussion I simply think that the intended markets are totally different and that the different customer bases are prepared to pay different prices for the two products. This has nothing to do with cost.

i understand what you are saying but what you are describing is maybe retail clothing? or sunglasses? handbags?

this is not how you want to explain the price of a supposedly professional camera.....

the price of a professional camera is a little bit like the price of a power drill....it needs to get the job done, it needs to not fail, and it needs to keep up with the power (and power consumption) of the other brands....and of course it has to look cool and manly.....but in the end it comes down to performance and price.....

 

in the days when the "leica look" was unique to leica cameras because you could not use the lenses on any other camera, the separation was easier....today not so much...adapters, open mounts, software fixes in post for lens flaws....

and just like in the old days of film.....a lower grain, higher resolving film stock will decide what the photo will look like, these days it's sensors.....

[bab]

Yes all very practical reasoning, but using the SL with Cine glass is another market not mentioned and the Leica inventories in Asia and world wide that are still available for sale is a huge resource for this SL body. The Alfa or Beta testers though have not exactly rung the bell about the IQ using M lenses on the SL...but would you give that blatient negative feedback publicly if Leica was sending you cameras to test and allowing you to post reviews which In turn drove traffic to your site? Past experience shows roughly three year cycles for Leica introductions, the launch of the SL availability this next month and the telegraphed lenses for next year is a complete break from their usual stride. Go L!!

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... The Alfa or Beta testers though have not exactly rung the bell about the IQ using M lenses on the SL...but would you give that blatient negative feedback publicly if Leica was sending you cameras to test and allowing you to post reviews which In turn drove traffic to your site? ...

 

I thought we were discussing the new Leica SL, not the new Sony A7 cameras. 

 

Which reviewers have said the M lenses have "not exactly rung the bell" and how does that become blatant negative feedback?  I've read lots of wild speculation here about M lenses from people who haven't used the camera, but not one thorough reviewer who supports what you say. I have read very good reviews which say M lenses are best on M cameras, but nothing that supports your rather wild statement. 

 

And as as for driving traffic to your site, I can think of one reviewer who hasn't seem the camera, and seems miffed about it - but then, he speaks to the dead. I confess, I haven't been over to dpreview because, based on past experience, I don't generally find their reviews match with my experience of cameras in use. 

 

So, rather than running about like Chicken Little, I intend to let a bit of reality and considered evaluation filter through before I make my final decision. So far, I haven't seen a single image taken with a lens I have ...

[mmx_2]

i understand what you are saying but what you are describing is maybe retail clothing? or sunglasses? handbags?

this is not how you want to explain the price of a supposedly professional camera.....

the price of a professional camera is a little bit like the price of a power drill....it needs to get the job done, it needs to not fail, and it needs to keep up with the power (and power consumption) of the other brands....and of course it has to look cool and manly.....but in the end it comes down to performance and price.....

 

in the days when the "leica look" was unique to leica cameras because you could not use the lenses on any other camera, the separation was easier....today not so much...adapters, open mounts, software fixes in post for lens flaws....

and just like in the old days of film.....a lower grain, higher resolving film stock will decide what the photo will look like, these days it's sensors.....

 

Maybe it used to be only "consumer products", but today market prices are the fact for all branches. Yes, you are right that a professional camera is somewhat different from clothes and sun glasses, but my point is only that the final price tag of a product, even a professional camera from Leica, is little related to the actual cost price of the product and much more related to the "believed maximum accepted market price" of the product.

 

Leica has been very successful in creating a "myth" about themselves, if only IQ vs price mattered (by purpose ruling out larger formats) we would all be running around with Fuji cameras that for a fraction of the price gives "similar" image quality as our beloved Leicas. If we only looked at the "best" sensor, we would all end up with Sonys, only looking at fastest AF or "most versatile camera" would give me a Nikon, or possibly a Canon, pro level DSLR, but if I way in all factors, add excellent service, the craftsmanship of the German engineers combined with my own emotional feelings about the product, I end up with my three Leicas which I almost love as much as my daughter and wife . Leica is not only about image quality, it is also about image and quality giving you top class image quality.