Bad news for the SL.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sony recently passed Nikon to become #2 in the US in the FF interchangeable lens camera market. Without their significant growth, this market segment has declined. As Gordon noted, pro support is coming worldwide after starting in Japan in 2014. It's no coincidence that their G Master pro lenses already mirror Canon offerings... even down to the white barrel in some cases. The rest of the lenses?....just a matter of time...bank on sooner than later.

 

Jeff

[Martin B]

whats the benefit of putting a smallish body on large lenses?

whats the benefit of a small body if it gets more difficult to reach buttons?

by the way I dont own neither Canon or Nikon any more.

 

As A7R user I can ensure you that I never even once had a hard time finding buttons on the camera - in fact it was much easier to keep the camera on eye level and use finders to control ISO (on the wheel), over/underexposure, magnification, and shutter release. Going back to my DSLR is now more like a hassle for me regarding the controls. So the smaller size of this camera body is IMO even  beneficial to have better control over functions - and my hands are fairly large, too. I cannot agree with all the complaints regarding ergonomics - the thing which I dislike is that Sony decided to increase the camera body going from A7R to A7R II for example. 

 

For large lenses like tele lenses your center of gravity is always on the lens and not on the camera! The size of the camera body does not matter at all here. I use my 100-400 EF lens fully extended in the same way with my DSLR as I do with my A7R and little adapter piece. For normal focal length lenses and wide angle lenses smaller ones in E-mount are now available, too, for example the Loxia or Batis lenses. 

[Advertisement]

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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The lenses need to shrink as well. Catchword: portability.

 

You need to stop thinking about mirrorless as being small. That's how it got traction. That's not where it's going. Sony's cameras are growing slowly. Eventually there will be small, large and in between.

 

You can't have a silent shutter on a DSLR. You can't have live exposure preview on a DSLR. You can't have a live histogram on a DSLR. For these things you need an EVF.

 

Once a true global shutter comes out you'll be able to reach 60fps, silently, with flash (if it can keep up) and with no viewfinder blackout. To remove the mechanical shutter you also need to remove the mirror. Or go pelicle.

 

Gordon

[almoore]

The lenses need to shrink as well. Catchword: portability.

Sony already has some of the most compact full frame lenses on the market.

 

The SonyZeiss 35mm f2.8 is tiny, the 55 f1.8 is small, the 24-70 f4 is less bulky and lighter than the Canon equivalent, the Zeiss Loxia lenses are very compact, and, while the Zeiss Batis lenses are a bit bulkier, they're also light in weight. It's the SL lenses that need to shrink, not the Sonys.

Edited April 26, 2017 by almoore

[IkarusJohn]

Lenses can only get smaller if you shrink the format. Line up equivalent focal lengths (adjusted for register distance) in 35mm format, and the sizes are remarkably similar (for equivalent f-stops).

 

You want small? Go APS-C or micro 4/3.

 

For the performance these systems are offering, there's little variation in lens size.

[helged]

Lenses can only get smaller if you shrink the format. Line up equivalent focal lengths (adjusted for register distance) in 35mm format, and the sizes are remarkably similar (for equivalent f-stops).

 

You want small? Go APS-C or micro 4/3.

 

...or fully manual (a la M-mount lenses) or use Fresnel-type of optics (eg Nikon 300mm f4E PF).

 

But yes, for technical 'perfection' and a given aperture, the size of the lenses is pretty much set.

 

Coming from the M-system, the native SL lenses are, obviously, large. Only larger f-stop lenses will shrink the size of SL optics (the Fresnel technology is possibly not acceptable for Leica). Or, of course, continue to use the many M-mount lenses out there - most of which works perfectly well on the SL.

 

I find the latter point very attractive; there is an almost endless list of lenses that can be put on the SL, new and old, ranging from optical 'perfection' to optical 'artistic'/'interesting'. It's likely not a central interest for other vendors to offer such a degree of backward compatibility. For Leica it is, and this is a very, very strong selling point for the SL-system.

 

And for the sake of completeness regarding size: I find the SL body more comfortable/in balance with larger M-lenses like 50Noct, the larger Lux-es and 90Cron, than the M-bodies. You can of course add grips or similar to the M, but then you end up with a body not too different from the SL sizewise. So the SL is a fine and balancing compromise between backward compatibility and (close to) state-of-the-art technology.

 

With a higher res sensor and improved/updated yechnology in the next iteration of the body (obviously influenced by the A9 and other sysyems out thrre), I would imagine that the SL will remain a very interesting system for many.

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You want small? Go APS-C or micro 4/3.

 

Why, when there are full frame options that are little or no larger than those for smaller formats?

 

What makes Sony attractive as an EVF option is the existence of very compact lenses in addition to the faster alternatives. The collective weight of their 28 f2, 35 f2.8 and 55 f1.8 is around 600g, meaning that if you team them with an A7 series camera you pay no real weight penalty over smaller formats.

[ramarren]

You're all arguing in circles, chasing smoke. 

 

It's just another Sony. If you miss buying one now, in 10 months there'll be another. Yawn.

[tom0511]

As A7R user I can ensure you that I never even once had a hard time finding buttons on the camera - in fact it was much easier to keep the camera on eye level and use finders to control ISO (on the wheel), over/underexposure, magnification, and shutter release. Going back to my DSLR is now more like a hassle for me regarding the controls. So the smaller size of this camera body is IMO even  beneficial to have better control over functions - and my hands are fairly large, too. I cannot agree with all the complaints regarding ergonomics - the thing which I dislike is that Sony decided to increase the camera body going from A7R to A7R II for example. 

 

For large lenses like tele lenses your center of gravity is always on the lens and not on the camera! The size of the camera body does not matter at all here. I use my 100-400 EF lens fully extended in the same way with my DSLR as I do with my A7R and little adapter piece. For normal focal length lenses and wide angle lenses smaller ones in E-mount are now available, too, for example the Loxia or Batis lenses. 

When I had a A7II I found it handelded well with the 24-70/4.0 Zeiss or with the 70-200/4.0 Sony G. But if I imagine even bigger lenses I think I would prefer something like a Nikon D5 camera. Also something with a display where I could see ISO f-top etc. all the time from the top of the camera.

I find even the Leica SL which I use to be on the small side when putting the 90-280 on it. Yes, Tthe weight is allways more on the lens when using larger Tele, but a safe grip is also important. I am not saying I found the A7 bad in this regard, but I really do not see any advantage if bodies get too small as soon as one uses large lenses. In the end it is certainly a question what feels good in the hands of the user, and this can be different for each person.

I would probably prefer a A99II - sized body if I was a sportsshooter and had to use Sony.

[Martin B]

When I had a A7II I found it handelded well with the 24-70/4.0 Zeiss or with the 70-200/4.0 Sony G. But if I imagine even bigger lenses I think I would prefer something like a Nikon D5 camera. Also something with a display where I could see ISO f-top etc. all the time from the top of the camera.

I find even the Leica SL which I use to be on the small side when putting the 90-280 on it. Yes, Tthe weight is allways more on the lens when using larger Tele, but a safe grip is also important. I am not saying I found the A7 bad in this regard, but I really do not see any advantage if bodies get too small as soon as one uses large lenses. In the end it is certainly a question what feels good in the hands of the user, and this can be different for each person.

I would probably prefer a A99II - sized body if I was a sportsshooter and had to use Sony.

 

I agree that this is more a personal preference thing and what we are used to than it has to do with logic. You mention a safety grip on the camera - I never used a grip on any of my cameras. Never even once felt I needed one - I also never vested in additional battery packs which would also increase the bulk of the camera. I never felt too comfortable with the more increasing size of DSLR cameras - mirrorless was a relief for me for better portability, lower weight, and more adaptability of glass in general. Even Sony still insists that they will keep the A-mount going, I have some doubts here. I see the future for Sony set with the E-mount mirrorless cameras (I never saw many shooting with an A-mount DSLR in the first place) - some of these cameras are now on the way to increase in size (like the A7 II series and the A9), but I hope that they will maintain a line with smaller sized mirrorless FF cameras, too. 

[caissa]

The bad news is that this thread turns into mud .......

No discussing "technical" topics - only "I like this and that" (mainly cameras that have nothing to do with the SL).

Many personal confessions, nobody is really interested in.

I came here to read about the SL. I feel in the tiny minority. I wonder why this is called a SL forum ....

[YellowBelly]

The bad news is that this thread turns into mud .......

No discussing "technical" topics - only "I like this and that" (mainly cameras that have nothing to do with the SL).

Many personal confessions, nobody is really interested in.

I came here to read about the SL. I feel in the tiny minority. I wonder why this is called a SL forum ....

Too right!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mgrayson3]

You should see the S forum!

[Martin B]

The bad news is that this thread turns into mud .......

No discussing "technical" topics - only "I like this and that" (mainly cameras that have nothing to do with the SL).

Many personal confessions, nobody is really interested in.

I came here to read about the SL. I feel in the tiny minority. I wonder why this is called a SL forum ....

 

I didn't bring up the A9/Sony discussion which started on page 2....but then the thread developed here that I jumped in with my own Leica M glass/Sony camera experience as a response. There are a lot of Sony/Leica hybrid users which a recent survey on fredmiranda.com made clear (Leica M glass on Sony cameras). I have not read that many use a SL, even I admit that this is a specific Leica forum and should take SL-related messages into account. But outside this forum, Sony has certainly the bigger impact.......even on Leica M. 

[pgk]

If you hover over the cameras you can see the weights of the setups. In my view Leica is in a league of their own when it comes to design of control interfaces, but size and weight are on the high side.

 

Thing is that its not all about MPixels, AF speed, fps and other tech specs. I've just started using an A7II underwater to see if it can replace a 1DS3. Why? Simply because the weight of a housed 1DS3 is now prohibitive for travel. My initial reaction is that the Sony is extremely capable in the situations I've tried so far which is encouraging. Likewise the A9, SL and others will all have their advantages and disadvantages for different scenarios. The problem is actually when cameras are used in situations where they are all capable of extremely good results (which actually covers the majority of shooting if we are honest about it). Then the differences are ergonomic, intuitiveness to the user and other, less distinct nuances. So arguing over what is 'better' is really of little relevance. I'm certain that the A9 will deliver excellent images; whether you need its spec and/or want to use it is another question altogether. I certainly don't see it as bad news for the SL as the lure/appeal of the SL really does lie elsewhere than in pure technical spec. Just my opinion as an objective bystander - I desire neither.

[Jeff S]

The bad news is that this thread turns into mud .......

No discussing "technical" topics - only "I like this and that" (mainly cameras that have nothing to do with the SL).

Many personal confessions, nobody is really interested in.

I came here to read about the SL. I feel in the tiny minority. I wonder why this is called a SL forum ....

 

At least two factors....first, the premise of the thread is about threats to the SL by Sony (and others), so discussion is as much about them as about the SL.  And when any forum thread reaches 6 pages and over a hundred posts (and often much sooner), there tends to be diversions and sub-topics emerge that take on a life of their own.  Welcome to LUF.  You probably wouldn't like the Bar.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

The bad news is that this thread turns into mud .......

No discussing "technical" topics - only "I like this and that" (mainly cameras that have nothing to do with the SL).

Many personal confessions, nobody is really interested in.

I came here to read about the SL. I feel in the tiny minority. I wonder why this is called a SL forum ....

Many members on this forum have a wideranging interest in photography and multiple cameras (brands) It is unrealistic to expect them to restrict their horizon to Leica only, especially in a thread that is a comparison between a Leica camera and another brand.

[LD_50]

The bad news is that this thread turns into mud .......

No discussing "technical" topics - only "I like this and that" (mainly cameras that have nothing to do with the SL).

Many personal confessions, nobody is really interested in.

I came here to read about the SL. I feel in the tiny minority. I wonder why this is called a SL forum ....

I saw something like 10 posts from you in the thread and maybe one is really offering anything about the SL. The rest are much the same as others in the thread, comparisons and thoughts regarding Sony and others.

 

Discussion forums are what you make of them (and here you're basically 10:1 providing what you state you're not interested in). You can contribute to a thread or choose not to read what you don't like.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Many members on this forum have a wideranging interest in photography and multiple cameras (brands) It is unrealistic to expect them to restrict their horizon to Leica only, especially in a thread that is a comparison between a Leica camera and another brand.

I suggest for those who have tracked Sony A7 through its many models, and are now curious about the direction set by the A9 -- all reasonable questions -- read the articles that Kevin Raber is now writing on LuLa based on his day at the mock sports events that Sony offered 30 journalists for an introduction to the A9.  Raber's working with a pretty standard set of expectations and plenty of Sony experience, so it is easy to calibrate what he says.  He's not a nit-picker like several others who come to mind.  So far in his article I can see that full-time electronic shutter is paying off for Sony, and that usability is something that Sony is still struggling with.  It took a consultation with several people to figure out how to put raw files on chip #1 and JPEGs on chip #2.  There seems to be a close collaboration between Capture One and Sony comparable to the Leica/LightRoom collaboration, which makes good sense.  So read him and others before further speculation...

 

scott

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[R3D-D0T]

You should see the S forum!

 

Yeah! Avoid that forum!