Will SL be the new standard system

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Title says it all.   I think so  and in say 20 years will replace the M line.

 

They already have made provision for M and R lenses to be used.  The old `flex and R line was too expensive to manufacture  and not enough sale to support it.  The SL has to be vastly cheaper to produce than reflex and I do not know if there are enough young people buying into the M line.  If that is trues,  Leica can not afford to keep it going.

 

Throw out your opinions.

[AndreasAM]

Title says it all. I think so and in say 20 years will replace the M line.

 

They already have made provision for M and R lenses to be used. The old `flex and R line was too expensive to manufacture and not enough sale to support it. The SL has to be vastly cheaper to produce than reflex and I do not know if there are enough young people buying into the M line. If that is trues, Leica can not afford to keep it going.

 

Throw out your opinions.

Twenty years in technical and electronic development. We are talking ten, that is 10, future generations of camera's.

In that era everything is possible,

 

Everybody will, (by choice?!), probably have an organic quantum memory chip (preferably by Leica) directly connected to the brain by then, your eyes have implanted contact lenses with infinite resolution, variable focal length and endless depth of focus, a 1000 stops of DR, 48 bits and tethered to the Cloud.....

 

The SL and M will be long gone nostalgic history, shiny brass in a display cabinet in the Wetzlar museum.

 

And therefore some men will be still using it, but nobody else can see the pictures taken, because computer technology will have moved on.

 

Interesting times.......

[Peter H]

I think in three to five years' time the SL could easily be the main focus for Leica, with the M becoming more of a special-interest line for well-healed old gentle-folk. I hope not, but the signs are there.

 

But twenty years time? What we want and even yearn for today will be laughable by then.

 

Even nostalgia will have moved on.

[gpwhite]

Product analogies are always great fun. But consumers don't look at market strategies the way that producers do, so our dreams rarely come true, IMHO.

 

Porsche has gone through two seismic shifts in executive direction since the days of its more "pure" 911's, and the product today is very profitable and very far away from its original concept of Only The Essentials. But Wiedeking was an accountant looking to save Porsche from collapse by expanding into a broader range of cheaply built products, and then Volkswagen-think moved Porsche into an all out attack on Mercedes. The 911 is hardly what one would have imagined when its last brutal, purely essential model rolled out in 2002 (996 GT2).

 

But, you can today have a Cayman that is in many ways a modern and better 911.

 

Perhaps the M will become a a special-interest line for well-healed old gentle-folk (what Porsche calls an old timer, according to their marketing consultant who interviewed me), but Stefan Daniel might also whip out an eM with a carbon fiber body and electronically controlled RF focus patch projected into an OVF that offers two or three levels of magnification.

 

I will take mine in the black ostrich covering   

[jrp]

Well it really rather depends on how well this niche does.  

 

Unlike the M system, whose USP is compact full-frame lenses that require no electronics to use them (and a quirky focusing system), the SL largely relies on brand halo (OK, and lens quality) to distinguish it from the crowd.

 

Charging the eye-watering price that they do for lenses limits their potential market and puts them into competition with the Medium Format makers (current (Hasselblad, Pentax, etc), and future (Fuji?)) as well as the likes of Sony, who have better technology (e.g., sensor, IBIS, eye focus), (access to) more lenses, and shorter product cycles, if a less pleasurable shooting experience.  It took Sony (and Zeiss) a few years to get a decent lens line-up, but they are now more than pretty good, except, perhaps, at the extreme focal lengths.

 

Whether the SL line will survive this squeeze remains to be seen.

[Jeff S]

 

 

Unlike the M system, whose USP is compact full-frame lenses that require no electronics to use them (and a quirky focusing system), the SL largely relies on brand halo (OK, and lens quality) to distinguish it from the crowd.

 

 

 

While I'm not a fan of EVF (preferring OVF), I think you shortchange Leica by not mentioning the superior EVF on the SL, at least compared to others.  Seems to me an instance where Leica leapfrogged the digital 'competition'.

 

For me, the VF experience is first priority for any camera assessment.  YMMV.

 

Jeff

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My glass bowl went dark when I asked the question.

I do not know if I am (we are) still alive and kicking in 20 years. And what computers (nothing else is a digital camera) and their interfaces will look like at that time.

Miniaturization will continue. What will that mean for cameras ? Maybe FF will be much too big and heavy compared to much smaller technologies that will offer the same IQ ?

I am happy if Leica continues to complete the SL line (new cameras, new lenses) in the next years and leave "strategic thinking" to the horses (they have much larger heads).

 

Maybe you are already a bit spoilt because the Leica M has survived so many decades and you think it will continue "automatically". I do not have this certainty, also not about the SL.

It will be interesting to see what is still working in 20 years: The Hasselblad X1D (probably ?) or the Sony a7R II (probably not ?) or the Sony A9 (??) or the Leicas ?

It is also possible that photography has been (will then have been) completely surpassed by filming. If the resolution and quaity of filming is good enough, then still photos could simply be a by-product. (A simple image/frame or even a combination of several images/frames to get more sharpness (reduce jitter), finer details and a wider range of contrast and/or more DoF). Clever software could offer many new possibilities. Modern phones offer already a bunch of these possibilities.

 

I am not so sure that progress will always simply be linear.

[jrp]

I agree that the SL EVF is very good, other than in bright sunlight. But it is made by Epson and so not unique to Leica, at least in principle, just as the EVF for the M240 was also used by Olympus, earlier in the game. The Sony EVF is not as good, but good enough. It also allows me to combine focus peaking with the level, for example, rather than having to click a lot to get one or the other: The SL firmware needs further optimisation for use with manual lenses (and has less effective AF than the Sony).

 

In short: I don't think that the EVF is what is going to keep the SL line alive over the coming decade.

[thighslapper]

The SL system is the only one with compatibility such that almost all Leica lenses can be used..... and exploits their potential painlessly due to the superb EVF. 

 

If there is one thing that Leica has been consistently good at over the last 100 years it is optics. 

 

Although the M system is great its flexibility is limited by the M mount manual focus lenses that dictate almost everything about the design of the camera.

 

I think Leica made a conscious decision several years ago that the  M was an evolutionary dead-end ..... and instead of trying to incorporate increasingly complex design work-arounds to evolve the M they gave up and chose a different path.

 

So, yes, the SL system is now the Leica entry level Pro/Prosumer system and I see it being expanded and improved over the years to come. 

 

Whether the rise of phone photography will be inexorable and kill off all us old fogeys with 'real' cameras is another issue ..... and a global one rather than just confined to Leica. 

[jrp]

I can see why you say that, but they did update various M lenses for the digital era just this year.

 

That said, the M is a speciality system.  Its USP is the size of the lenses.  I cannot imagine that they would want to abandon that.  The rangefinder itself, is a feature, but a third-order benefit of the M system for contemporary customers, I would say.

 

Whether the SL takes up the mantle, remains to be seem.  The competition is hot.  Leica's prices are high.

 

 It may just depend on how fast they can stamp out more lenses, and whether there are enough customers (which depends on whether global growth and the super-rich continue to prevail).  I can see why they want to attract the pro, but the SL faces the  Canon/Nikon high barrier.  The latter may not give you the artistic photos that you aspire to, but they will deliver and, in the case of Nikon, at least, you'll get the artistry as well (e.g., with the 58mm and 105mm f1.4, but also the 35mm and 24mm f1.4, e.g.).

 

If they are slow in releasing useful lenses, then Sony, Hasselblad, Pentax, and Fuji may well heave the resources to make the SL obsolete.

[gpwhite]

I find all of these comments thoughtful and balanced, as well as more than weekend musing. Leica definitely needs to have a good strategic plan in an industry that is shrinking (obviously, I am not considering phone photos as part of this market scope), mostly because it has nothing to fall back on like Canikon or Zeiss. What a shame if Leica loses its way like Hasselblad has.

 

I cannot add much to Thighslapper's comment because I share it. My anecdote...  although I really appreciate and use the APO 50 M, it is the Summilux-M 50mm just before the ASPH that offers the most special drawing and more than enough micro-contrast on M or SL. The body really doesn't matter much. It is the glass, and usually the older M or R lenses unless you are shooting live sports or hummingbirds.

 

Because the SL was designed to use most all Leica lenses, as Kaltner mentioned at its introduction, it surely plays to Leica's pure strength. And the SL is particularly well suited to wide-angle lenses (for me, 24mm >), where I think Leica is unmatched, period.

[gpwhite]

 I can see why they want to attract the pro, but the SL faces the  Canon/Nikon high barrier.  The latter may not give you the artistic photos that you aspire to, but they will deliver and, in the case of Nikon, at least, you'll get the artistry as well (e.g., with the 58mm and 105mm f1.4, but also the 35mm and 24mm f1.4, e.g.).

 

At f/5.6 or so, all of these modern SLR lenses are excellent. But wide open, or perhaps 1 stop down to clean things up, Leica M and R lenses would seem unmatched when focused with precision on an SL. I have not shot, or even held, an Otus, but as you first mentioned, the size of an M lens or even an R Summilux is tiny compared to an Otus.

 

I truly hope that Leica can continue to make an OVF RF variant that will incorporate the evolution sure to come in digital capture and hold its own as a business case at 10,000 M units per year that Leica apparently sells now. But the SL (typ 6xx) will need to become the main horse pulling the company because it offers all of the driverless features expected by shooters born after 1980. Leica is obviously supporting that notion with a growing line of automatic lenses. In theory, Karbe should be able to adapt all of the R gems into SL platforms without nearly the substantial effort and expense committed to the halo S lenses.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well it really rather depends on how well this niche does.  

Unlike the M system, whose USP is compact full-frame lenses that require no electronics to use them (and a quirky focusing system), the SL largely relies on brand halo (OK, and lens quality) to distinguish it from the crowd.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that. As previously mentioned the EVF is class leading. It is also one of the most adaptable mirrorless cameras on the market. It has the highest build quality of a mirrorless camera. Though Nikon/Sony have somewhat better sensors the one in the SL is as good as anything from Canon in colour retention and dynamic range. It has GPS built in.

 

I think Leica has plans to make the SL it's *main* system. They need an AF camera system in 35mm in the modern mirrorless era. I think the SL is where cameras are heading, not where they are now. It's a well though out and flexible platform that's going to be smaller in market sguare than it's competitors purely based on price. Should Leica introduce a *budget* model later then they really could need more stock than they can produce.

 

I also think that the SL gives Leica the freedom to keep the M line more *pure*. If you want an EVF solution for your M lenses the SL will do that. GPS, Matrix metering, zooms, macro. All for the SL. There might be (and I hope there is) an EVF M (or better a hybrid) or add-ons like we have now. But the traditional rangefinder M can continue without the pressure to be everything for everybody because the SL exists.

 

I think the M will continue. Firstly, the M9 and M have been successful for Leica. Profitable even. The M9 proved that more people than Canikony think want a camera that inspires the photographer to think about what they're doing. To be more involved in the process of photography. Fuji are also doing well because they get this but some of their cameras are still perceived as copies of the original. There is a need for a camera like the M.

 

Secondly, the M is the heart and soul of Leica. Its iconic shape and functionality are what Leica means in photography. It's what people think of when they think of the brand Leica. from purely a marketing perspective they need to have the M available even if customers buy the SL. And what Leica really wants is to bring photographers in with the SL and then bring them in deeper with a Q and S and then finish them off with the M.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

 It may just depend on how fast they can stamp out more lenses, and whether there are enough customers (which depends on whether global growth and the super-rich continue to prevail).  I can see why they want to attract the pro, but the SL faces the  Canon/Nikon high barrier.  The latter may not give you the artistic photos that you aspire to, but they will deliver and, in the case of Nikon, at least, you'll get the artistry as well (e.g., with the 58mm and 105mm f1.4, but also the 35mm and 24mm f1.4, e.g.).

 

If they are slow in releasing useful lenses, then Sony, Hasselblad, Pentax, and Fuji may well heave the resources to make the SL obsolete.

 

I'm not even sure what this means, sorry. Are you saying *artistry* is lens dependant? Certainly different lenses draw differently but in many brands there are some lovely lenses available. Even Canon, which you don't seem so sure about. As far as I'm concerned since the end of the Mandeler era Leica lenses are getting closer and closer to their Japanese counterparts. More emphasis on technical perfection and less on being interesting. My shooting partner's Canon zooms are not really any worse than the Leica SL one's at capturing fabulous images. The limitations and primary differences are the photographers, not the lenses.

 

I don't think Leica cares at all about attracting pros. They'll get a few (like me) but what they really want is to be perceived by non working photographers as a brand that a professional would choose. It's all marketing, plain and simple. Leica pricing means most working photographers won't play, preferring to make the same income while spending less on gear. Just like when Nikon puts the D5 in a magazine ad. That's not for the working photographers. They already know what they're getting. Fuji even named a camera "pro".

 

As for being slow at releasing lenses. Sony took a few years to build their range. they relied on Metabones adaptors to get people into the system. Fujis *pro* zooms came after they had been around for two years. Pentax didn't even have a camera for 5 years that anyone would call a pro specced body. *If* Leica announce 4 new Lenses like the rumours say they will, plus the 59mm, then we'll be on track with what Sony, Fuji, micro 4/3 have done with road maps.

 

After all, it's been less than a year since the SL release.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

Standard system? I am not sure what that is supposed to be. When Leica had the M and R systems running side by side there was no standard system, just two different systems for different requirements. The same now - a number of systems, from the S down to the C-Lux all aimed at a specific customer group. None is "standard" - or all of them.

[jaapv]

I agree that the SL EVF is very good, other than in bright sunlight. But it is made by Epson and so not unique to Leica, at least in principle, just as the EVF for the M240 was also used by Olympus, earlier in the game. The Sony EVF is not as good, but good enough. It also allows me to combine focus peaking with the level, for example, rather than having to click a lot to get one or the other: The SL firmware needs further optimisation for use with manual lenses (and has less effective AF than the Sony).

 

In short: I don't think that the EVF is what is going to keep the SL line alive over the coming decade.

No- but the camera is a clear reference to the Leicaflex and as such starting point. I would not be surprised if it evolved over time  to a camera that bears  some similarity to the R4 series.

 

BTW, I do not agree with the cliché: "old people buy the Leica M and thus the system will die out"

Even if it were true that only oldsters buy Ms, it does not take into account that the young people who buy something else now will grow old in their turn and replace the present generation of M customers .

The original buyers of the M3 are long gone, yet the M survives.

[R3D-D0T]

I think the Q will/should be the standard system for Leica. It is more specialized than the SL and there is nothing else in the competition like it (similar to the Rangefinder systems).

[screwmount]

"SL" is german and is the abbreviation of "Standard Linie",

so YES! It will be (or is already) the standard system!!!!!!

 

.....and there is more coming:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9051480205/leica-sofort-instant-camera-officially-announced-ahead-of-photokina-debut

[screwmount]

No- but the camera is a clear reference to the Leicaflex and as such starting point. I would not be surprised if it evolved over time  to a camera that bears  some similarity to the R4 series.

 

BTW, I do not agree with the cliché: "old people buy the Leica M and thus the system will die out"

Even if it were true that only oldsters buy Ms, it does not take into account that the young people who buy something else now will grow old in their turn and replace the present generation of M customers .

The original buyers of the M3 are long gone, yet the M survives.

 

R4??????

 

This is a Minolta XD7 !!!!!!!!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

It is, like the R3 was Minolta-based as well, but the series turned into a Leica icon. See the dedicated following the R still has. The R7 was far advanced from the  original concept, but still Minolta-based. Nothing wrong with that. Open up a Q and you will find Panasonic everywhere - still it is a real Leica.