Would you prefer an R10 over SL?

[lm_user]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that Leica's vision for the future of professional photography has been revealed, and the R10 was dropped some time ago, are you happier with the SL - or would you have preferred to have the R10?  Assume an R10 would have been full frame SLR based on the R9 (nice focusing screen, automatic stop down...) with optional autofocus lenses available for purchase...

 

The SL offers the ability to use M lenses and R lenses on the same body.  However, I am old fashioned and think I prefer to use my M lenses on an M and my R lenses on an SLR.  However, many of you seem to promote the mirror-less camera solution.  Not having ever used a mirror-less camera with manual focus lenses I am interested to hear your thoughts.  

 

 

[Peter H]

I continue to feel that the SL is too compromised (ironically) to be a truly successful pro-level line, so a DR10 might have made sense.

 

However, I'd really prefer an SL that is less compromised than the one we have, by which I mean a true S-light camera with the S-size sensor rather than something that seems to sit on some triangulated point somewhere between the M and the S, losing the unique qualities of each and adding very little of its own aside from a good EVF, which surely isn't enough to justify a whole new system.

 

So failing a proper S-Light, I'd be happy with the S and an updated M to truly get the best that Leica and its lenses can offer. I don't see the need for another D/SLR-type camera given what the S and M lines are potentially capable of.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Peter H

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

I have already said that I think Leica would have been better off developing a pro DSLR system. 

 

However, I think a FF DSLR would have been a better move for them than the S system. I'm not sure how much better S images are than the best FF DSLR's, or perhaps rather many pro's need/use the S format?

 

A FF DSLR would surely have had greater appeal to a wider base of photographers, pro and amateur.

 

The SL is an obvious development for Leica, in a way, but I'm not convinced about the 'one solution for all lenses' strategy. What is it they say about being a jack of all trades and master of none?

 

I'll don my helment and body armour now as I wait for the usual incoming.

[edwardkaraa]

To be honest a FF DSLR with AF lenses would have been much more appealing. Screw R lenses, they're discontinued and Leica doesn't make even one cent on them.

[edwardkaraa]

Earleygallery, we posted almost simultaneously but I see we're on the same wavelength.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Now that Leica's vision for the future of professional photography has been revealed, and the R10 was dropped some time ago, are you happier with the SL - or would you have preferred to have the R10?  Assume an R10 would have been full frame SLR based on the R9 (nice focusing screen, automatic stop down...) with optional autofocus lenses available for purchase...

 

The SL offers the ability to use M lenses and R lenses on the same body.  However, I am old fashioned and think I prefer to use my M lenses on an M and my R lenses on an SLR.  However, many of you seem to promote the mirror-less camera solution.  Not having ever used a mirror-less camera with manual focus lenses I am interested to hear your thoughts.  

 

 

Non-starter … for all the reasons previously documented. The future is mirrorless with AF telecentric lenses which on a FF reflex camera would require a larger mount  than the R9 could accommodate. 

 

http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/leica-dismisses-the-dslr-and-looks-to-a-mirrorless-future-1307734

 

Better to trust Leica design engineers than the King Canute fraternity and their unrealistic suggestions and ideas. 

 

dunk

Edited October 29, 2015 by dkCambridgeshire

[hkgmatt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have already said that I think Leica would have been better off developing a pro DSLR system. 

 

However, I think a FF DSLR would have been a better move for them than the S system. I'm not sure how much better S images are than the best FF DSLR's, or perhaps rather many pro's need/use the S format?

 

A FF DSLR would surely have had greater appeal to a wider base of photographers, pro and amateur.

 

The SL is an obvious development for Leica, in a way, but I'm not convinced about the 'one solution for all lenses' strategy. What is it they say about being a jack of all trades and master of none?

 

I'll don my helment and body armour now as I wait for the usual incoming.

 

I have the Nikon D810 as well as an S 006. Even with the best lenses I can find for the Nikon, the IQ on the S is far better than the Nikon, no contest at all. But I still use the Nikon more often than the S, because it's easier to carry around.

[biglou]

The SL is a brand new system, not an adequate solution for M or R lenses.

 

M lenses are better served by the Leica M and telemeter.

If Leica wanted a R lenses solution it would have built an adaptor transmitting diaphram command.

The S lenses adapt better on the S.

 

When you consider that you do not believe any more all said about a camera playing in another field than the Sony Alpha, this is the one to compare the SL with.

 

Now an updated M with up to date EVF would make sense, or a SL if Leica was able to provide an adequate adaptor closing automatically the diaphragm when the shutter is triggerred.

They could even build or make build by others same smart adaptors for Nikon and Canon lenses allowing autofocus.

They would not lose much since their dedicated lenses are very few, for the moment.

 

More generally the problem for Leica is getting state of the art sensors, Sony seems to have winned the race and still gaining speed.

That's why i am not optimistic on the future of the SL.

Perfecting the M was a much less dangerous choice and at the same time more useful for Leica customers.

Edited October 29, 2015 by biglou

[edwardkaraa]

I have the Nikon D810 as well as an S 006. Even with the best lenses I can find for the Nikon, the IQ on the S is far better than the Nikon, no contest at all. But I still use the Nikon more often than the S, because it's easier to carry around.

So imagine you had a Leica SL DSLR with beautiful AF lenses that would put your Nikon lenses to shame and a fantastic OVF like that on the S

[Guest]

"Would you prefer an R10 over SL?"

 

Yes !!!

 

 

edit/addition:

It's "Yes" only because of my preference for an OVF over a EVF, and that for me is likely to last a long time even though the tide of progress is against me, and I know I'm in the minority on this. I felt, still feel, the same way with my film cameras, ( movie ), but as that world has embraced digital they are now rarely used......but when I do still use them it's a real joy to have a "real" viewfinder.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Guest

[Leicaiste]

Now that Leica's vision for the future of professional photography has been revealed, and the R10 was dropped some time ago, are you happier with the SL - or would you have preferred to have the R10?  Assume an R10 would have been full frame SLR based on the R9 (nice focusing screen, automatic stop down...) with optional autofocus lenses available for purchase...

 

The SL offers the ability to use M lenses and R lenses on the same body.  However, I am old fashioned and think I prefer to use my M lenses on an M and my R lenses on an SLR.  However, many of you seem to promote the mirror-less camera solution.  Not having ever used a mirror-less camera with manual focus lenses I am interested to hear your thoughts.  

 

 

Would I have preferred a R10 ?

 

In 2009 : yes.

 

In 2015 : no.

 

IMO, PRO FF EVF will replace the PRO FF DSLR in a not to distant future.

 

R&D money is better used on the future.

 

It is different for the M. It is a niche market.

 

Agreed non-AF FF DSLR would also have been a niche market, but not possibly a profitable one if you believe Leica.

 

;-)

[wildlightphoto]

Would I have preferred a R10 ?

 

In 2009 : yes.

 

In 2015 : no.

 

IMO, PRO FF EVF will replace the PRO FF DSLR in a not to distant future.

 

R&D money is better used on the future.

 

I agree completely.  Since I have yet to see and handle the new Leica SL my opinion is based on the a7II which I have been using since July. The Sony's EVF, while not as pleasant to use as the best optical viewfinders (Leicaflex SL for example) has numerous practical advantages which merit consideration.

 

It's disappointing that there is no auto-diaphragm option for R lenses, this feature would be a USP to distinguish the SL from other EVF cameras.  However the ability to magnify the image for focussing, zero discrepancy between the focussing plane and image capture plane even after much abuse, and the real-time exposure feedback have won me over to the EVF.  Additionally, for those who prefer Auto F***** the EVF technology means an end to the front-focus and back-focus problems and the AF micro-adjustment kludge that plague most SLR cameras.

 

Personally, not having deep pockets, the SL's (and a7's) ability to use a wide variety of lenses means that for those tasks which don't require optimum image quality I can use an affordable lens instead of choosing between a premium lens and food.  This is a huge advantage for the EVF camera.

Edited October 29, 2015 by wildlightphoto

[earleygallery]

 

It is different for the M. It is a niche market.

 

 

So you say that the M is different because it has a niche in the market. Of course there was a time when most manufacturers offered rangefinder models and they slowly disappeared as the DSLR became more popular and affordable.

 

Why should the SLR be any different? Leica could fulfil another niche by offering a quality SLR camera against a tidal wave of EVF models!

 

That said, until Canon/Nikon enter the FF EVIL market I don't see any major impact on their established SLR markets. SLR's still outsell EVIL cameras by 3 to 1.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I agree completely.  Since I have yet to see and handle the new Leica SL my opinion is based on the a7II which I have been using since July. The Sony's EVF, while not as pleasant to use as the best optical viewfinders (Leicaflex SL for example) has numerous practical advantages which merit consideration.

 

It's disappointing that there is no auto-diaphragm option for R lenses, this feature would be a USP to distinguish the SL from other EVF cameras.  However the ability to magnify the image for focussing, zero discrepancy between the focussing plane and image capture plane even after much abuse, and the real-time exposure feedback have won me over to the EVF.  Additionally, for those who prefer Auto F***** the EVF technology means an end to the front-focus, back-focus and AF micro-adjustment kludge that plagues most SLR cameras.

 

I'm optimistic the auto-diaphragm option will eventually be a reality - even if it's a third party fix. There are hints elsewhere that it's feasible; if so, it could sell in sufficient quantities to make it a viable product.

 

dunk

[lct]

I've used SLRs and DSRLs for 30+ years and i still own two of them currently but it is a soon-to-be dead format to me so i would not have invested in a company basing its long term strategy on that. YMMV.

[IkarusJohn]

Releasing a new dSLR would be an enormous step backwards into a declining market where the competition is very mature. An R10 up against the latest Nikons and Canons would never work. 

 

Leica's strategy suggests two things to me:

 

(1) they have decided the EVF has reached a stage where it is viable instead of a mirror box and prism. That's very significant - the simplification of not having a rangefinder or SLR mechanism is cost and space saving, and opens other opportunities. That they persisted over three years after the indifferent EVF on the M(240) camera, their pride and joy, shows they were very confident of where technology was heading. 

 

Also, the fact they could see the availability of this EVF and build the camera around it does suggest that Leica has learned a thing or two about electronics. The best EVF on the market - if they can achieve that, I also am reasonably confident they can source a sensor of similar quality (note, I said quality, not the highest MP count). Leica has made a clear decision that in 35mm, 24MP is the place to be, and 36MP in medium format. 

 

In pactise, I have no trouble with resolution with 24MP at all. With the 36MP cameras I had, resolution handheld, in the field was one of many issues I had. I just don't use cameras on tripods on test beds, and I don't examine my pictures magnified 200% looking for problems. 

 

(2) they've set their lens design accordingly. Large mount and lenses designed without the concern the M lenses have for size - they're AF, so they were never going to be small. 

 

Lens quality?  This is Leica we're talking about. I somehow thing they know more about designing and making the World's best lenses than DPReview and DXO know about testing. What recent Leica lens has been less than stellar on release?  I also doubt there are Solms and Wetzlar lenses in terms of design and quality - same team, same history, just new premises, changing market and higher production levels. 

 

As for having an S sensor in the SL, how much bigger would the new zoom lenses be?  Compare the sizes of the relatively modest focal lengths of the S telephotos, and think how much bigger the already colossal 90-280 zoom would be!  Leica invented the 35mm format for stills photography, and it has become the standard for good reason - it makes the system compact. 

 

So, no. I wouldn't buy an R10.  That's last century's news. And an SL with a 45x30 sensor would be hopelessly enormous if it was to meet the same market sector. If it wasn't aimed there, it would be a different version of the S, only thinner and ergonomically compromised and stripped of one of its best features - the optical viewfinder. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by IkarusJohn

[Peter H]

John, how odd that I agree with almost all your reasoning above, but still disagree with your conclusion that the SL is a good move for Leica.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Peter H

[edwardkaraa]

It's not surprising that a dinosaur like myself using a 1954 designed rangefinder would still feel that the OVF is still unsurpassed. I tried last week the Leica S at the local Leica store and was totally impressed with the viewfinder. I don't think any EVF no matter how advanced would give me the same pleasure of using it. This doesn't mean I won't buy the SL, I still I think it's a good idea, but all I'm saying is that I would have been much happier with a real mini S in 24x36 format.

[dkCambridgeshire]

It's not surprising that a dinosaur like myself using a 1954 designed rangefinder would still feel that the OVF is still unsurpassed. I tried last week the Leica S at the local Leica store and was totally impressed with the viewfinder. I don't think any EVF no matter how advanced would give me the same pleasure of using it. This doesn't mean I won't buy the SL, I still I think it's a good idea, but all I'm saying is that I would have been much happier with a real mini S in 24x36 format.

 

 

Unlike Japanese DSLR manufacturers, Leica would never contemplate designing/fitting a cheapy mirror box and prism (or pseudo prism) to their cameras - as fitted to many Japanese DSLRs. Thus the mirror box and prism fitted to the S is a quality item and likely to be a significant part of the production cost. A state of the art EVF on the other hand might be considerably cheaper and easier to assemble into a FF camera. Sure, a Leica designed FF DSLR would be a fabulous tool … but at a fabulous price … partly due to the cost of the reflex components, and would require a whole new set of AF lenses which would likely not be auto-compatible with the T and would be even larger and more cumbersome on the M (via adaptors) than existing R optics.  Furthermore, now that many of us are aware that a FF DSLR is not on the Leica road map and the good reasons why, those who insist that it should be, should consider refraining at every opportunity to suggest that Leica have got their sums wrong.  I'm not saying that you have Edward … more referring to the real spoilsport dinosaurs who attempt to aggravate with their ill-considered, impractical, armchair camera designer proposals. 

 

dunk

Edited October 29, 2015 by dkCambridgeshire

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

.............. Furthermore, now that many of us are aware that a FF DSLR is not on the Leica road map and the good reasons why, those who insist that it should be, should consider refraining at every opportunity to suggest that Leica have got their sums wrong.  I'm not saying that you have Edward … more referring to the real spoilsport dinosaurs who attempt to aggravate with their ill-considered, impractical, armchair camera designer proposals. 

 

dunk

 

Dunk, that's more than once now that you've suggested that people who less than enthusiastic about the SL are somehow attempting to be aggravating, or are dinosaurs. I don't think that's helpful or friendly.

 

Can we discuss our different thoughts about cameras without resorting to this kind of thing please?