Would you prefer an R10 over SL?

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the SL (or mirrorless in general) makes for a good body to have if not just for using older lenses.  However, what we've learned here is that to the extent that new lenses are all going to be tele centric, then there really is no compactness or lightweight advantage to a DSLR.  So as a body for using new, AF lenses, I'd still prefer a DSLR.  The appeal of an optical viewfinder is to me much greater than whatever advantage mirrorless may offer in terms of elimination of focus shift and etc.  

[cpclee]

Personally I think a fullframe / 35mm DSLR will serve Leica better in the long term than the S2.  Advances are simply more rapid in the 35mm sensor and the appeal of the larger sensor of the S2 will wane.  The combination of high price and a limited lens system has left me uninterested in the S2 from the very beginning.  Whereas a full frame DSLR system priced like the SL with a lens range similar to the R would have been an immediate 'buy' for me. 

[ramarren]

The Leica SL is the realization of a dream I had in 2001 when I was pondering where I'd like to be with a digital camera. At the time I had my M6TTL and my Nikon F3/T ... and was dreaming of a Leica R8 and lenses.

• About the size of the F3 without the motordrive
• Able to use my existing (then Nikkor) manual focus SLR lenses
• 4000x6000 pixels - 24 Mpixel
• All electronic imaging system, no flippy mirrors to cause vibration or mechanical RF to need adjustment
• Enough power on-board for about 1000 exposures
• Enough storage on-board for about 1000 exposures
• Nice, simple controls; good balance, etc

With the cancellation of the Leica R line, prices dropped on bodies an lenses. I'd always wanted Leica R gear and couldn't afford it, so in the past several years I've picked up two Leicaflex SL bodies, an R8 body, and about a dozen superb Leica R lenses.

Now I'll have the digital body I wanted. Mine will arrive as soon as the dealer can get one in stock... 

 

I have no desire for a digital R10. I find DSLRs too bulky, clumsy, and their viewfinders are antiquated by comparison to the best of modern EVFs. Having gone from mirrorless to DSLR twice in the past seven years, I'll tell you for sure that it always feels like a retrograde step to me. 

 

l love my Nikon F and F6, similarly love the Leicaflex SL and R8. They were/are the best of their kind. But the time for flippy mirrors is in the past. For me, anyway. 

[IkarusJohn]

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.

 

I don't find it surprising at all.

 

However, my conclusion ... I'm not sure I reached one yet.  I xhaven'tbeen prepared to be too critical of the new system until I understand it better.  On paper, and from what I've seen, I can understand why people I respect tremendously have reviewed the thing pretty thoroughly, used it for a few weeks or months (until the shine of a new toy has worn off, as one put it), and they've confirmed their orders.

 

I like the idea, don't get me wrong, but it's a lot of money to spend on a whimsy.

 

So, what are my reservations (apart from cost - that is just making me pause)?  Well, I have no doubt about the sensor, the processor or the EVF; similarly the form factor has grown on me - I rather like the looks; the testing I've seen of the lens and sensor suggest that Leica's claims are justified - the image quality of the 24-90 lens looks really good; I means really really good.

 

That lens is big, though, isn't it.  It goes with the territory, but after some years of M use, it is big ...  The 90-280 is out of the question, regardless of how good it may turn out to be; at least, it is for the moment ...

 

Are there other glitches?  banding in the shadows?  I don't know.  I'm singularly disinterested in half-baked comparisons with Sony cameras.  If people want a Sony, go buy it.  I'm interested in this camera, and so far, I think it looks pretty good.

 

Thankfully, even if I decided today to buy the camera and confirmed my order (I have lodged an order), I would still have plenty of time to change my mind.  Leica can't even give me an NZ price yet, let alone a delivery time.  I ordered my 28 Summilux in May last year, and still no word on when I might get that ... It's all just vapourware down here.

[cpclee]

I disagree.  In fact, there is a good chance that Leica is approaching mirrorless entirely wrong.

 

So far, Leica is the only manufacturer who sees mirrorless as a viable basis for a professional system with big, tele centric lenses.  But mirrorless + tele centric lenses means no size or weight advantage to the DSLR: where the body is thinner the telecentric lens is longer.  So it's quite possible that other manufacturers realized this early on, and have decided that the only good use for mirrorless is consumer bodies with slower lenses, where you actually get the combined benefit of thinner bodies and shorter lenses.

 

Personally I think Leica's decision to exit the 35mm (D)SLR market might have been premature.  As the bulk of the consumer market shifts towards smartphones or mirrorless, the DSLR may become a profitable niche similar to what the rangefinder became after almost dying out in the 1970s and 1980s.  

 

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 

[IkarusJohn]

Can someone please explain to the luddite why this camera must have telecentric lenses (if I understand the comments above correctly).

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't be so quick to pin labels.  If the DSLR is so out of date as some here want to suggest, then there is consequently no future for the S system.  Clearly, that would;t be what Leica is asserting.

Leica's argument, implied by its current lineup, is that the DSLR can only be profitable for them at the medium format level; at the full frame level, they cannot be competitive.  This is a statement about where the competitive edge lies, not whether the SLR is somehow outdated or irrelevant nor how mirrorless is somehow superior in every aspect.  There is not a single manufacturer that is suggesting the SLR market will be gone.  All that has been said is that it will shrink and will eventually become a professionals-only segment.  

 

 

 

Can someone please explain to the luddite why this camera must have telecentric lenses (if I understand the comments above correctly).

[bybrett]

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

Looking at that photo of Stefan holding the lens it looks like a case of less mirror more glass...

[mjh]

So far, Leica is the only manufacturer who sees mirrorless as a viable basis for a professional system with big, tele centric lenses.

More to the point, Leica is the first manufacturer with such a system. Which arguably places them in a much better position than launching another entry in the steadily shrinking DSLR market would.

 

But mirrorless + tele centric lenses means no size or weight advantage to the DSLR: where the body is thinner the telecentric lens is longer.

It is much simpler: Mirrorless technology never carried a promise of smaller and/or lighter lenses. Telephoto lenses are longer, some wide-angle lense are shorter (those focal lengths requiring retrofocal designs for a DSLR), but everything considered the average lens size is the same. Only the mirrorless bodies are actually smaller and lighter.

 

This has nothing to do with lenses being (near or somewhat) telecentric or not.

 

 

So it's quite possible that other manufacturers realized this early on, and have decided that the only good use for mirrorless is consumer bodies with slower lenses, where you actually get the combined benefit of thinner bodies and shorter lenses.

Again it is much simpler. Those other manufacturers, namely Canon and Nikon, virtually own the professional FF market. Replacing their established DSLR systems by a mirrorless alternative would threaten that position, and that explains their late and half-hearted attempts at a mirrorless camera system. Whether that strategy is sustainable remains to be seen.

[bybrett]

More to the point, Leica is the first manufacturer with such a system. Which arguably places them in a much better position than launching another entry in the steadily shrinking DSLR market would.

 

'System' meaning 'camera system' or 'system camera'? 

[mjh]

Can someone please explain to the luddite why this camera must have telecentric lenses (if I understand the comments above correctly).

The SL doesn’t require telecentric lenses – far from it. For one thing, true telecentric lenses (where the exit pupil is at infinity) are quite unusual; there are some applications for such lenses but not for photography as we know it. When people are talking about telecentric lenses, what they really mean is what Olympus has started to call ‘near telecentric’ lenses – lenses where the exit pupil is at least a couple of centimetres away from the rear element. Near telecentric lenses are generally desirable in digital photography as sensor pixels are most effective if the incident angles of the chief rays are close to perpendicular – which they are if the exit pupil is far from the sensor. This applies to both mirrorless cameras and DSLRs; there is no difference between both camera design in that respect. The only difference is that when the flange distance is short, as it generally is with mirrorless systems, you could use lenses that are decidedly non-telecentric, i.e. lenses where the exit pupil is really close to the sensor. Some M lenses are like that. DSLRs don’t allow for such lenses by virtue of the mirror that prevents lenses (and thus the exit pupil) from getting too close to the sensor.

 

Summing up, it is not like mirrorless cameras would absolutely require near telecentric lenses; the point is rather that even though they don’t, near telecentric lenses are still desirable, just as they are for a DSLR.

[mjh]

'System' meaning 'camera system' or 'system camera'?

Camera system. Which implies system camera.

[bybrett]

Camera system. Which implies system camera.

Thanks, understood. A camera waiting for a system.

[cpclee]

Which arguably places them in a much better position than launching another entry in the steadily shrinking DSLR market would.

 

 

That's an assumption.  The rangefinder market did shrink for many years too but when just one or two manufactures were left, it became profitable for those who stayed. 

 

 

 

Again it is much simpler. Those other manufacturers, namely Canon and Nikon, virtually own the professional FF market. Replacing their established DSLR systems by a mirrorless alternative would threaten that position, and that explains their late and half-hearted attempts at a mirrorless camera system. 

 

 

That's also an assumption, that Canon or Nikon didn't seriously consider making professional mirrorless systems but simply decided that it's a very bad idea.  And they could well be right.

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

 

Don't be so quick to pin labels.  If the DSLR is so out of date as some here want to suggest, then there is consequently no future for the S system.  Clearly, that would;t be what Leica is asserting.

Leica's argument, implied by its current lineup, is that the DSLR can only be profitable for them at the medium format level; at the full frame level, they cannot be competitive.  This is a statement about where the competitive edge lies, not whether the SLR is somehow outdated or irrelevant nor how mirrorless is somehow superior in every aspect.  There is not a single manufacturer that is suggesting the SLR market will be gone.  All that has been said is that it will shrink and will eventually become a professionals-only segment.  

 

 

 

IkarusJohn, on 30 Oct 2015 - 09:22, said:

Can someone please explain to the luddite why this camera must have telecentric lenses (if I understand the comments above correctly).

 

What has your post got to do with my question (which you quote)?  

 

I'm grateful for you standing up for me, when I call myself a luddite, but it really isn't necessary.  I have no doubt you're absolutely right about dSLRs.  Leica kept making the rangefinder for decades after everyone else (Nikon & Canon) gave up on the idea.  I'm also very sure you're right about Leica's thinking on SLR in medium format - what they've done (as they've done before) is taken a great idea and put it somewhere new.

 

What I would really like to know is why everyone assumes that all SL lenses will be telecentric.  Sure, the three lenses announced appear to be telecentric, but the camera also works with M lenses (which are anything but) and how many R lenses are telecentric?

 

Just for the sake of discussion, I am aware that telecentric has been thrown around a lot in the past.  Whether it is object-telecentric, image-telecentric or double-telecentric, or just has (marketing) aspirations, the point is telecentric lenses in theory have the image hitting the sensor square to the axis of the lens (if you'll excuse some loose language) rather than at high incidence angles, like M wides at the edges of the sensor.

 

It may be the answer is "because they can", and that's fine.  But it does mean big lenses ...

[IkarusJohn]

The SL doesn’t require telecentric lenses – far from it. For one thing, true telecentric lenses (where the exit pupil is at infinity) are quite unusual; there are some applications for such lenses but not for photography as we know it. When people are talking about telecentric lenses, what they really mean is what Olympus has started to call ‘near telecentric’ lenses – lenses where the exit pupil is at least a couple of centimetres away from the real element. Near telecentric lenses are generally desirable in digital photography as sensor pixels are most effective if the incident angles of the chief rays are close to perpendicular – which they are if the exit pupil is far from the sensor. This applies to both mirrorless cameras and DSLRs; there is no difference between both camera design in that respect. The only difference is that when the flange distance is short, as it generally is with mirrorless systems, you could use lenses that are decidedly non-telecentric, i.e. lenses where the exit pupil is really close to the sensor. Some M lenses are like that. DSLRs don’t allow for such lenses by virtue of the mirror that prevents lenses (and thus the exit pupil) from getting too close to the sensor.

 

Summing up, it is not like mirrorless cameras would absolutely require near telecentric lenses; the point is rather that even though they don’t, near telecentric lenses are still desirable, just as they are for a DSLR.

 

Thank you Michael!

 

Please ignore my post above.

[cpclee]

No one is suggesting telecentric designs are a requirement for mirrorless.  The point is Leica has chosen to go for very big and heavy lens designs for their mirrorless system whereas other manufacturers wouldn't, and it's not clear that Leica has made the right decision.  Personally such lenses do not appeal to me.  I'm sure there are others who feel the same.  

 

 

Summing up, it is not like mirrorless cameras would absolutely require near telecentric lenses; the point is rather that even though they don’t, near telecentric lenses are still desirable, just as they are for a DSLR.

[mjh]

That's an assumption.  The rangefinder market did shrink for many years too but when just one or two manufactures were left, it became profitable for those who stayed.

So you suggest Leica should launch a new DSLR system and simply wait until the likes of Canon and Nikon wither; then whatever DSLR market share is left is owned by Leica and their DSLR business will finally be profitable. Well, good luck with that.

[mjh]

No one is suggesting telecentric designs are a requirement for mirrorless.  The point is Leica has chosen to go for very big and heavy lens designs for their mirrorless system whereas other manufacturers wouldn't, and it's not clear that Leica has made the right decision.

Again, (near) telecentricity has little to do with lenses being big and heavy. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[cpclee]

Sorry I worded poorly.   What I meant to say is telecentric is not a requirement for the SL, but seems to be how Leica has chosen to position the native SL lenses, possibly as a way of differentiating from the M and R lenses.  

 

 

What has your post got to do with my question (which you quote)?  

 

I'm grateful for you standing up for me, when I call myself a luddite, but it really isn't necessary.  I have no doubt you're absolutely right about dSLRs.  Leica kept making the rangefinder for decades after everyone else (Nikon & Canon) gave up on the idea.  I'm also very sure you're right about Leica's thinking on SLR in medium format - what they've done (as they've done before) is taken a great idea and put it somewhere new.

 

What I would really like to know is why everyone assumes that all SL lenses will be telecentric.  Sure, the three lenses announced appear to be telecentric, but the camera also works with M lenses (which are anything but) and how many R lenses are telecentric?

 

Just for the sake of discussion, I am aware that telecentric has been thrown around a lot in the past.  Whether it is object-telecentric, image-telecentric or double-telecentric, or just has (marketing) aspirations, the point is telecentric lenses in theory have alight hitting the sensor square to the image (if you'll excuse some loose language) rather than at high incidence angles, like M wides at the edges of the sensor.

 

It may be the answer is "because they can", and that's fine.  But it does mean big lenses ...