Is the Leica SL doomed?

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting piece of analysis:

 

http://thephotofundamentalist.com/leica/leica-sl-doomed/

 

Are the M and SL lines going to merge, the writer speculates?

[LD_50]

What good would "merging" the lines do with different lens mounts? The article doesn't really make any case for this merger. It basically describes the current state, the M is a small and simple camera, the SL is an all-rounder that can shoot M lenses with adapter. The 10 point list doesn't describe anything different.

 

I missed the point of the article other than another complaint about lens size and sensor resolution.

Edited November 24, 2016 by LD_50

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

errr...... all cameras are doomed ....... you could argue that the DSLR with a mirror is using antiquated technology and has had its time. 

 

you have to make something new to progress ...... and by definition it will then be overtaken by something else which is 'better' in some way.

 

all you can do is get what suits you at any moment in time and just get on with using it. 

 

if the SL in a few years is hopelessly behind the next quantum leap in technology that is mature, tested and reliable then no doubt I will 'upgrade' like everyone else. 

[earleygallery]

I won't waste time reading the link, I can imagine what it says. 

 

The SL will be doomed if no one buys it. Same for any consumer product. 

[meerec]

This article does make a lot of sense to me, most of it at least makes sense to me and agrees with me. I especially agree about the size of the native SL lenses we've seen to date in relation to the size of the SL body and sensor, and I couldn't agree more questioning why 50/1.4 is being the next prime after the two zooms. I own the 90-280 zoom as it allowed me to remove canon and the 70-200 lens. I would never buy the 24-90 zoom, or the 50 summilux because of their size. There is more to it all of course and the post by Thomas makes a lot of good points.

[Guest VVJ]

I personally also find that the author raises a lot of good points, especially about the SL being constrained by the S, the T being constrained by the SL, etc.

 

He is certainly not the only one asking those questions.  There is a whole thread along the same lines on GetDPI:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/60235-leica-s-sensor-strategy.html

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree that I would like to have an entry range of "slow" lenses. It should only cover the classic focal lengths like 28, 50 and 90 and maybe something around 20mm.  

It should be low cost (for Leica) not top notch, but just as good as M or R with aperture 2.8 or 2.5 . And smallish (SLR size). A Summitar range.

And it should be put in place in the next months. (no rocket science)

This should be a great way to hold itself against the X1D.  (for Leica S and SL). 

Edited November 24, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[steppenw0lf]

And yes, with users like this author, Leica is definitely doomed. He uses only very old M Leicas and will not invest in any new product. (Sold the electronic Leicas and is not going to replace them). This way any company is doomed - this is obvious, but not to him.

 

Instead he buys the newest cameras from his fave seller - probably one or two every year. But he calls himself a Leica user ....

When I was 3 months I used to eat a lot of "baby food"/"baby pap" in small glasses. So am I a user of Milupa products ? Rather not and probably will never be again, until I have lost all my teeth.

Edited November 25, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jaapv]

I won't waste time reading the link, I can imagine what it says. 

You were right. Apart from somewhat nonsensical content, the grammar is so atrocious that the article ranges from unreadable to laughable.

[jaapv]

This article does make a lot of sense to me, most of it at least makes sense to me and agrees with me. I especially agree about the size of the native SL lenses we've seen to date in relation to the size of the SL body and sensor, and I couldn't agree more questioning why 50/1.4 is being the next prime after the two zooms. I own the 90-280 zoom as it allowed me to remove canon and the 70-200 lens. I would never buy the 24-90 zoom, or the 50 summilux because of their size. There is more to it all of course and the post by Thomas makes a lot of good points.

A fast 50 mm lens being the anchor of a camera system? How weird...

The author falls fully into the trap that sensor resolution and lens resolution are supposed to be mutually exclusive.  Wrong, a higher resolving lens will make a lower resolution sensor better, a higher resolving sensor will make a lesser lens perform better. This is not a weakest link type of system.

[Guest jvansmit]

You were right. Apart from somewhat nonsensical content, the grammar is so atrocious that the article ranges from unreadable to laughable.

 

Your persistently negative comments are one of the reasons I rarely bother with this forum any more.

[jaapv]

I personally also find that the author raises a lot of good points, especially about the SL being constrained by the S, the T being constrained by the SL, etc.

 

He is certainly not the only one asking those questions.  There is a whole thread along the same lines on GetDPI:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/leica/60235-leica-s-sensor-strategy.html

That thread is about the S sensors?? All these type of threads seem to miss the point that there is a relationship between sensor size and image quality. The keyword is pixel size.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

When I was considering purchasing a Pentax 645Z, I spent some time reading TPF as Thomas' reviews were the most reasonable and comprehensive out there. My experience with that camera closely matches what he said. I don't think he's uneducated in these things.

 

While I disagree with him this time (and I think trite comments about spelling/grammar are pointless and unhelpful), I do think he is simply raising points that have been asked across the internet. The question really is, "Does the SL make sense, in a world filled with smaller and less expensive options that essentially do the same thing or better? What does the SL bring to the table that makes it a consideration in the current camera market?"

 

Now I think, in my personal opinion, that arguments over resolution vs sensor size are getting silly. As resolution spirals upward in a world where people print less and less the need for super high resolution prints is decreasing. A 4K monitor/TV is only in the 8MP range. If you think the only benefit to the S system is resolution then there's no real reason for the new HB and Fuji systems with the A7R2 in the world. But since not many people really get to do these comparisons for themselves they can only go off speculation and specifications. Two of the great misleading things on the internet. It's fine for me to tell people that the Leica S buries the higher resolution A7R2 in overall image quality but unless you see it it's easy to think the Sony would be equal/better. It's also easy to think the Pentax 645Z system has higher IQ. But it mostly doesn't (because of the S lenses). But on paper how do you explain that the S system is competitive with a 50MP miniMF sensor from Sony?

 

You can call his arguments silly, pointless or non-sensical. But the SL doesn't have the worlds fastest AF, regardless of what Leica says. It's a damn average sports camera. Bigger and more expensive than cameras with similar functionality. Cameras that have higher image quality for less money. I'm not so sure Leica have done the best job possible explaining where the SL fits into the market and to Leica. I think it would benefit Leica to improve on that.

 

For me, the small things that I feel the SL does really well are important enough to me to judge the SL as good value for money. For me the lenses are just fine, size wise. If I want something smaller I'll grab a Fuji and go take photos. But that's my opinion. I am a fan of the SL. I bought in expecting that it wouldn't be a small system. I know exactly where the SL fits into the range of gear I have. I'm not always sure Leica knows where the SL fits into theirs. Or if they do they're not telling us.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. And the more I play around with different lenses on the SL and other systems I have, I'm beginning to understand that the SL lenses are only as big as they need to be to get the IQ they have. I'd love little brilliant lenses but I'm seeing that the lenses that perform at this level (Otus, Sony GM, Leica S) do have something in common when it comes to size. The only real anomaly is the M50mm APO Summicron, which Leica have no issues reminding us about how difficult that was to make.

[Guest VVJ]

Your persistently negative comments are one of the reasons I rarely bother with this forum any more.

 

 

+1.

[meerec]

A fast 50 mm lens being the anchor of a camera system? How weird...

The author falls fully into the trap that sensor resolution and lens resolution are supposed to be mutually exclusive.  Wrong, a higher resolving lens will make a lower resolution sensor better, a higher resolving sensor will make a lesser lens perform better. This is not a weakest link type of system.

The first three SL mount lenses were planned and designed together: 24-90, 90-280 and 50 "the reference lens", all share the similar design, monstrosity, 82mm front element. Leica listened. Majority of users don't want the monsters. The new primes will be smaller, leaner, lighter – can't wait for the 75 summicron.

 

Before the SL was announced, there had been a lot of anticipation for a Q-like body with replaceable lenses. I was one hoping for it. Instead we were graced with a bridge body that sits >between< M and S, rather than sitting >alongside< M to rid of the troublesome RF, and offer alternative to it.

 

Jappv, you're a purist, a long life M user, I suspect. I've come to the Leica world from Canon / Fuji / Sony and I couldn't care less about the Leica religion and don't care about a 50 mm anchor. I want a system that makes sense to me. Give me those smaller lighter Summicrons now!!

[meerec]

Your persistently negative comments are one of the reasons I rarely bother with this forum any more.

There is a 'block' function ...

But I would agree with you, I often feel hostility at this forum.

[LocalHero1953]

This is a rehash of all the pros and cons of the SL system that have been aired on this forum over the past year, and contains no new analysis. All it does is reinforce the opinions of those who agree with him. Those who don't have heard it all before and won't be influenced differently.

This is what most blog writers do.

[-Lss-]

An interesting piece of analysis:

 

http://thephotofundamentalist.com/leica/leica-sl-doomed/

"The Titanic: a ship made famous by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet" pretty much sums it up for me. Things may appear one way on the surface, but there is more to the iceberg.

[JeffWright]

That thread is about the S sensors?? All these type of threads seem to miss the point that there is a relationship between sensor size and image quality. The keyword is pixel size.

 

 

Actually, no, read the thread. The apostrophe 's' was dropped apparently, or the originator is daft. The thread is about "Leica's" sensor resolution strategy, and contains the usual mish-mash of real and imagined benefits and problems with higher resolution sensors. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"