interview with Dr. Kaufmann and CEO Kaltner on the SL

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The commercial future for Leica does lie in the SL or anything around that basic platform and not in the M anymore, so that gives the freedom to strip the digital M to a basic model without too many costs

[CheshireCat]

So it is absolutely not unthinkable that they will release a more pure M without EVF, smaller battery, thinner, etc. 

 

I agree.

But I for one won't buy it.

 

They could also sell the No-M, pure photography essence: you open the box, and you find no EVF, no battery, no display, no sensor, no mount... no camera.

I think someone would buy it anyway. Just don't throw the box away for resale value

[jaapv]

The commercial future for Leica does lie in the SL or anything around that basic platform and not in the M anymore, so that gives the freedom to strip the digital M to a basic model without too many costs

But that is not the case. the M will remain their signature camera for the forseeable future.

[Jeff S]

 How many M lenses have been released since 2012?  Two - the APO Summicron 50 and the 28 Summilux, and they have been incredibly hard to get.     

 

Plus the revised Summarit line (4 lenses), the 35 Summilux FLE version (available early 2012) and the updated 90 Macro Elmar (although same optics).

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

I am curious about the angst the release of the SL has caused many M camera owners. 

 

................................

 

There is a lot there where I don't see eye-to-eye with you, and where, unusually, I think you're arguing against some different points from those actually being made. 

 

Needless to say I'm ambivalent about the SL. I have confidence in Leica's ability to make a brilliant camera, and I think there's a great deal that's very attractive about the SL.

 

But I also think that even if Leica can't acknowledge it and don't believe it, its very existence will end up having the opposite effect on the M from what I had hoped for when I bought it: that it would develop into a truly versatile modern platform for M and R lenses along with others still to come. But sadly it's apparent that many Leica aficionados expect, and some even want, the M to become the "purist", i.e. traditionalist camera because of its history and its lack of AF. That is a great disappointment to me, not because I wanted a new toy in time for Christmas this year, and not because I want mega-menus filled with computerised wizadry, but because I hoped that Leica would find a way of developing the M in such a way that the DSLR-style of photography would remain a distinct and separate style, because it is so well served elsewhere. Instead of which I do fear that the SL will have the effect of making the "purist" vision of the old-fashioned M a self-fulfilling wish, and thus diminishing it to a gear-centric corner of retrogressive photography. Which perhaps is inevitable, but sad and not to be encouraged.

 

I overstate the case, but I don't think I falsify it.

 

Superficially, there's no reason why the M and SL shouldn't co-exist happily, one the MF and one the AF pinnacle of 35mm digital photography. But market forces are what they are, and Leica will be driving a good proportion of its own clientele in a direction that until now it has been encouraged to reject. It may not be recapitulation exactly, but neither is it stout resistance to the soft options of AF zoom-lensed automated photography.

 

Goodness, me, I sound  like an old fogey, but its the opposite really: I want camera designers who understand so much more than I do about optics and mechanics and so on to create something excitingly new for me, but the SL feels like a high-quality copy of a DSLR model that's been around for too long already. Too romantic I know, but how sad that of all the companies in the business, it should be Leica that takes the biggest swerve down the valley of commercial pragmatism to dash my vain hopes.

[wattsy]

......making the "purist" vision of the old-fashioned M a self-fulfilling wish, and thus diminishing it to a gear-centric corner of retrogressive photography.

 

......Leica will be driving a good proportion of its own clientele in a direction that until now it has been encouraged to reject. It may not be recapitulation exactly, but neither is it stout resistance to the soft options of AF zoom-lensed automated photography.

 

....how sad that of all the companies in the business, it should be Leica that takes the biggest swerve down the valley of commercial pragmatism to dash my vain hopes.

 

Peter, I'm not sure if this is satire or whether you are about to have some kind of seizure? If the latter, I think you might need to take a deep breath and count to ten. It is just a camera, after all.

[psss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a lot there where I don't see eye-to-eye with you, and where, unusually, I think you're arguing against some different points from those actually being made. 

 

Needless to say I'm ambivalent about the SL. I have confidence in Leica's ability to make a brilliant camera, and I think there's a great deal that's very attractive about the SL.

 

But I also think that even if Leica can't acknowledge it and don't believe it, its very existence will end up having the opposite effect on the M from what I had hoped for when I bought it: that it would develop into a truly versatile modern platform for M and R lenses along with others still to come. But sadly it's apparent that many Leica aficionados expect, and some even want, the M to become the "purist", i.e. traditionalist camera because of its history and its lack of AF. That is a great disappointment to me, not because I wanted a new toy in time for Christmas this year, and not because I want mega-menus filled with computerised wizadry, but because I hoped that Leica would find a way of developing the M in such a way that the DSLR-style of photography would remain a distinct and separate style, because it is so well served elsewhere. Instead of which I do fear that the SL will have the effect of making the "purist" vision of the old-fashioned M a self-fulfilling wish, and thus diminishing it to a gear-centric corner of retrogressive photography. Which perhaps is inevitable, but sad and not to be encouraged.

 

I overstate the case, but I don't think I falsify it.

 

Superficially, there's no reason why the M and SL shouldn't co-exist happily, one the MF and one the AF pinnacle of 35mm digital photography. But market forces are what they are, and Leica will be driving a good proportion of its own clientele in a direction that until now it has been encouraged to reject. It may not be recapitulation exactly, but neither is it stout resistance to the soft options of AF zoom-lensed automated photography.

 

Goodness, me, I sound  like an old fogey, but its the opposite really: I want camera designers who understand so much more than I do about optics and mechanics and so on to create something excitingly new for me, but the SL feels like a high-quality copy of a DSLR model that's been around for too long already. Too romantic I know, but how sad that of all the companies in the business, it should be Leica that takes the biggest swerve down the valley of commercial pragmatism to dash my vain hopes.

 

M is for purists because it is manual focus....99.9% of all people taking pictures incl and in many cases especially professionals embraced AF decades ago....mostly because it just works...

i actually think it is funny that after decades of dominance of the SLR we are going back to viewfinder camera design....which the M dominated and which IMO makes much more sense then SLR....and with EVF it makes even more sense and i am pretty sure we are the beginning of that evolution...i doubt there will be too many DSLRs around in a couple of years....

the SL is nothing special in terms of development and all in all i think leica has done a pretty good job with it....there is no reason to come up with something completely and totally new and different....just looking at the most successful cameras in the last couple of years, they are all in many ways back to basics, especially on the outside....fuji, olympus and sony....

leica decided a long time ago that there would be no M AF and at this point it can't be....and in a way the gamble turned out ok for leica....they are the only ones left standing....but the SL needs to be a part of the leica future if they want to get out of the purists corner....

[IkarusJohn]

Peter,

 

I think you're overly pessimistic (I wasn't really responding to your comments so much as the combined effect of a lot of opinion which surprised me). 

 

First off, I don't see the SL as a dSLR. I can see they're both 35mm through the lens systems, and yes the SL will stand on the toes of SLRs, but it is something different. 

 

Second, the SL is probably a better multi-system platform, and that may diminish the M. I'm not so sure, though. I'd be amazed if the main M camera has any less functionality that the existing M(240).  I can't think why Leica would do that. But, it will always be based around the optical view finder and manual lenses. No SL, S or T lens compatibility. You will still be able to use your M & R lenses, with an improved EVF, I'm sure. 

 

Autofocus was never on the cards for the M, and that is the main distinction - the T, the SL and the S fill that hole. 

 

Cheers

John

[luigi bertolotti]

The commercial future for Leica does lie in the SL or anything around that basic platform and not in the M anymore, so that gives the freedom to strip the digital M to a basic model without too many costs

the fact that SL is their commercial future at this moment is a hope, not a certainty... while the M, though in a much slimmer market, is a sureness... in any case I see no reason for they ought to "strip" the M (it's already a "no-bell-and-whistles" camera.... apart video...) even if maybe I could appreciate this : it has always been a costly camera, still keeping a market of its own : why renounce to a product which brings in good industrial margins ? It is sufficient to keep it decently up to date with technology , and a stripped down / less costly model probably won't increase its slim market share.

[Peter H]

Peter, I'm not sure if this is satire or whether you are about to have some kind of seizure? If the latter, I think you might need to take a deep breath and count to ten. It is just a camera, after all.

 

It wasn't me.

 

It was the voices.

[CheshireCat]

i actually think it is funny that after decades of dominance of the SLR we are going back to viewfinder camera design....which the M dominated and which IMO makes much more sense then SLR....and with EVF it makes even more sense [...]

 

Quite a bit of confusion here.

 

All the cameras you cited are "viewfinder cameras".

The SLR and the SL have exactly the same type of TTL viewfinder (through the lens): the SLR has an optical one while the SL has an electronic one, but they are functionally identical.

 

Classic M cameras, instead, have a direct optical viewfinder (with rangefinder functionality). The latest M cameras (M24x) finally also have a TTL option when used with the external EVF, finally reaching the flexibility level of SLR cameras.

 

So it is exactly the other way around: Leica is finally going forward to SLR style TTL viewfinders after a long dark era of rangefinders.

[Peter Walker]

Watching these conversations about the Leica SL have been instructive and entertaining.  How a product launch can release so much passion is beyond me.  It's a product.  It might succeed.  It might fail.  The company made its bet and now will see how it fairs in the market.  Being a brand new product, the company owes no allegiance to existing customers of any of their other product ranges.  So there's no need for the passion.  You either like it or you don't.

 

My advice to anyone who wants to stay angry at Leica for not producing the camera that they wanted, is this: Do not touch one of these SLs.  You'll be sorely tempted to ignore all the grumbling, forget about its affordability and slap down your plastic.

 

Regards

Peter

[Peter H]

Watching these conversations about the Leica SL have been instructive and entertaining. How a product launch can release so much passion is beyond me. It's a product. .......

 

Regards

Peter

It's not really passion any more than all the photos professing love for the cameras in question is real love.

 

There's a lot of hyperbole and history bound up in some of the exchanges you're probably referring to, but try not to be too affected by it and take it in the spirit in which it is intended. Which I accept is not always completely transparent, especially if you don't know the individuals concerned.

 

My apologies for any misunderstanding my contributions may have caused.

[pico]

... The SLR and the SL have exactly the same type of TTL viewfinder (through the lens): the SLR has an optical one while the SL has an electronic one, but they are functionally identical.

How do they compare in terms of view-to-exposure delay? I simply do not know.

[algrove]

Depends on the external temperature and I would call it the exposure-to-view delay.  You get my drift. Oh, any snow yet?

[CheshireCat]

How do they compare in terms of view-to-exposure delay? I simply do not know.

 

Good question.

 

On the 1Dx (arguably the fastest DSLR currently on the market), the shutter lag is 55ms (a special setting enables 36ms when the lens is used wide-open).

I don't have any data about the SL.

 

Note that view-to-exposure lag for the SL does not take into account the EVF lag.

In other words, with a very fast subject, even if the view-to-exposure lag is zero (which it isn't) your subject framing might be off.

 

It is also important to note that view/shutter lags found in specs do not take AF lag into account.

AF lag is usually higher than the shutter lag, therefore it is the critical bottleneck if you don't pre-focus.

 

When AF is put into the equation, the 1Dx with almost any Canon L lens is a blazing-speed-demon compared to the A7R2 + FE 55/1.8, especially when subject-tracking is critical.

I have not tested the SL, but on a tech-specs standpoint, I strongly doubt it will ever come close to the 1Dx. I may (and hope to) be wrong.

[mooky]

Geesh, when Kauffmann speaks, I hear a uber rich guy who bought and for now, has saved the brand. But seriously, the new SL is an extension of the R3 that started in 1976?

Forgive me Andreas, but the REAL SL started before that, and as usable as the R bodies were, they were NOT of the quality of the original SL series of cameras.

The original SL series SL/SL2, were the finest SLR bodies of the day, simply excellent even to this day. Too, with a customer user base as dedicated as the M base that know the R system and it's differences, and I may add, better than you. Thanks by the way, for finally? giving an R solution, even I appreciate that - what - 6 years later.

I don't think we (me included) should be fearful of Kaufmann screwing up the M brand because of the new SL being able to use M glass. As to new SL primes, he didn't mention any time lines, so as I told myself when it was released, I'll wait for some primes to show up before I commit - hopefully they won't have vibration reduction - which I don't need or want. You'd think Kaufmann would at least try and say something more about the 'professional SL lens system' road map.

[Jeff S]

As to new SL primes, he didn't mention any time lines, so as I told myself when it was released, I'll wait for some primes to show up before I commit - hopefully they won't have vibration reduction - which I don't need or want. You'd think Kaufmann would at least try and say something more about the 'professional SL lens system' road map.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2015/10/leica-sl-lenses/

 

No mention of new primes beyond the announced 50 Summilux, which is listed at 'end of 2016'  (with the 90-280 in 'mid 2016').

 

Jeff

[robert_parker]

Not sure if you're taking the Micky, but I can't help but disagree.  It sounds like an incredibly bland corporate platitude to me.  I can't think of any major German brand (or successful Mittelstand company for that matter) that would say something different about their biggest selling product.  They know what they're doing but they do talk in horrendous cliches IMO.  What does it even mean?  Between revolution and tradition?  Everything and nothing.  Pretentious waffle!

No, I was entirely serious - that a company embraces both revolution and tradition seems to be a perfectly good mission statement to me and it eminently suits the Leica brand.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[CheshireCat]

No, I was entirely serious - that a company embraces both revolution and tradition seems to be a perfectly good mission statement to me and it eminently suits the Leica brand.

 

It sounds like a nice motto... but revolution literally means to turn away from the past, while tradition literally means hand-over from the past.

 

It should be clear that the two terms are in total antithesis, and when this happens, I call it marketing BS.