SL Price Reduction

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, but you are repeating the old stuff. Please get updated and have a look at the SL 75 that is displayed in Steffen.Skopp Instagram account since December.   This is small (and lighter than the SL body).   https://www.instagram.com/p/BNgkGPhhfkE/?taken-by=steffen.skopp

It does not matter if you regard this as not small - it is the type of small lenses we can expect for the SL. And for me the size is almost perfect.

As said a R9 plus R lens is often bigger than the SL with the Summicron lens. This is perfect for me - maybe not for M users.

 

It is likely that SL plus one of these lense is not much different in weight (only slightly more) than the SL 24-90 on its own. That makes a big difference for me.

If Sony users need even less weight - what does it matter to me. They get it at a prize.

I am no dwarf, so why would I need the smallest possible camera and lens ? I have it actually already - my iphone.

 

 

I looked and see a large lens … much larger than the equivalent M lens …  QED. 

 

dink 

[Guest VVJ]

Lightweight native SL prime lenses are unlikely  to meet Leica Camera AG's high performance and fast AF design criteria because the necessary fast AF telecentric lenses will always be larger than e.g. the manual focus M lens range. In other words, "You can't have your cake and eat it." There have to be compromises to allow the very necessary telecentricity and fast AF … and the compromise is size and thus weight.   

 

Now await the flack from the Sony users! 

 

dunk 

 

Just to set my expectations here, the entire Leica Q weighs 640g with battery...

 

I would already be very happy with a standalone version of that lens.  I refuse to believe that it is impossible for Leica to make a high quality native SL lens in the 300-500g range...

 

And me personally I would be OK with a f2 or f2.8 or slower lens. 

 

I strongly believe that Leica needs 2-3 lightweight lenses for the SL to be successful and they need them now, not in 3-5 years...

 

As always, IMO and YMMV.

[steppenw0lf]

This is a reply to Dunk:

 

That is not the question - if you like it or not.

Compare the size with the existing three lenses. Then it is obvious that the new lenses are "small" or "normal" or whatever is the name for it .......

 

The current zooms are all heavier than a kilo (1250g for the 24-90). The body is about 850g  and the new lenses will have a weight that is certainly below the weight of the body.

Comparing the volumes my guess is between 450g and 850g at most. (600-800 is maybe the most likely.)

 

So let's not fight about words for the obvious. With these lenses the SL combo is slim and flexible.

For less weight Leica has many offerings: the Q, the TL and many compact cameras - even a mobile phone.

 

And you have so many years of experience - I thought you would see the "big nose" phenomenon on the Instagram pic. (Obviously a 28mm image taken with the Q)

And you should also know that the SL body is only about half as deep as the R9 body. So it is only logic if the SL lens looks "longer".

Most of all: These lenses will have a new Image Quality (according to Karbe), even better than the zooms.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Just to set my expectations here, the entire Leica Q weighs 640g with battery...

 

I would already be very happy with a standalone version of that lens.  I refuse to believe that it is impossible for Leica to make a high quality native SL lens in the 300-500g range...

 

And me personally I would be OK with a f2 or f2.8 or slower lens. 

 

I strongly believe that Leica needs 2-3 lightweight lenses for the SL to be successful and they need them now, not in 3-5 years...

 

As always, IMO and YMMV.

 

 

We're getting a bit off topic here but fact is, the 28mm Q lens is by its very nature small … which is why the Q was launched with a 28mm in preference to a 35mm or 50mm .  If Leica made an SL 28mm prime it would have to include the SL mount and its relatively large diameter. 

 

dunk 

 

[steppenw0lf]

Do you know the Contax "Hollywood" 28mm ?  (with f 2.0)

It would quite well fit the shape of the "existing" three Summicron-SLs.

So I think the "new Summicron-SL shape" can effortlessly hold many different designs.

[Jeff S]

What if there's a new S body coming and Leica have decided to be more aggressive on pricing because of the X1D? So they've reduced the price of the SL to fit in with the new S body pricing.....

 

I can dream can't I?

 

Gordon

Then how would you account for the recent $2000 price increase for the S007, which is more in the X1D sensor size/MP category?

 

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Then how would you account for the recent $2000 price increase for the S007, which is more in the X1D sensor size/MP category?

 

Jeff

 

I refuse to let pesky things like facts get in the way of my personal fantasies. That's how..

 

Gordon

 

p.s. I think there's a place for two S cameras. One mirrorless and one with an OVF. Mirrorless can be cheaper and lighter. The OVF version being a more niche and limited run product would be more expensive.

[almoore]

Or, perhaps if everyone here waits and sales really lag the adjustment may come much sooner!

 

That's assuming an SL2 ever comes - if SL sales are as sluggish as the price cut suggests, it might be the beginning and end of the line.

 

Without a more compelling and realistically proportioned range of native lenses, the SL is going to struggle to find buyers. 

[MRJohn]

I don't think that this price cut will make a difference to many potential SL buyers; along the lines "if it only was 1000 USD cheaper I would get it". There is usually much more involved than just the camera body. If anything one might be concerned/suspicious that this camera body might soon be replaced by something more desirable and hold back a purchase. - If this however would be a general price cut, also rolled-over to an SL2, then thats a different story.

 

Makes me wonder how they would improve on the SL in a meaningful way as I don't think they have maximised its potential yet with firmware upgrades.

[Chaemono]

Sony a7r II introduced in August 2015 at $3,200, now retails for 15.6 percent less. Leica SL introduced in October 2015 at $7,445, now retails for 19.5 percent less. What’s the fuzz all about? Electronic components drop in price over time and competitors introduce newer products. Dropping the price to remain competitive on two year old products while passing on component savings to end users is good business practice.

 

@almoore, just repeating sh!t on this forum doesn’t make it so.

 

@MRJohn, greater dynamic range and better low light capabilities in the SL2 sensor, please. It’s easier not to blow highlights and to recover details in the shadows with the Sony a7r II. Forget about more MP. Sony has shown with the a9 that 24 MP is the sweet spot.

[thighslapper]

 Forget about more MP. Sony has shown with the a9 that 24 MP is the sweet spot.

 

 ..... at the current state of processor, sensor and battery technology ...... but that will change ...... it's just a matter of when and at what cost ....

[geetee1972]

The problem with the SL is not that it's a bit more expensive than the alterantives, it's that it's a whole order of magnitude more expensive that the alternatives, all of which are, on paper at least, 'superior' to the SL. The Nikon equivalent has more pixels and better AF, the Fuji has a bigger sensor, the Sony is smaller and has more pixels etc etc.

 

But the SL does offer something that the others don't, namely the extraordinary EVF, the ability to use M lenses to all intents and purposes natively, and the packaging, which is quite different and never fails to get people asking me (when I'm using mine) if it's an 'old fashioned camera'.

 

But these things, while very important to those of us that have opted for an SL are nothing like enough to justify the price premium to the vast majority of buyers. This is a simple marketing case study; consider the M10 or other M cameras. If you want a full frame range finder what are your options? There aren't any, hence why the M cameras can and always will command such a huge price premium. They are different enough to justify that premium and they have 100% of the market for digital, full frame range finders as a result.

 

The SL is nothing like different enough. It's very nice but is it really nice enough to justify being almost three times the price of a Nikon D810 or the same price as a GFX?

 

It's a great product and it's one that Leica needs to have and needs to continue to develop if it wants to expand, but it's priced wrong for the majority of potential customers.

[thighslapper]

 

 

The SL is nothing like different enough. It's very nice but is it really nice enough to justify being almost three times the price of a Nikon D810 or the same price as a GFX?

 

It's a great product and it's one that Leica needs to have and needs to continue to develop if it wants to expand, but it's priced wrong for the majority of potential customers.

 

I doubt Leica want ..... or frankly could cope with the sort of demand that might ensue of the SL was priced 'competitively' ..... 

 

They will adjust the price to sell what they can make ...... no more and no less. 

[geetee1972]

I doubt Leica want ..... or frankly could cope with the sort of demand that might ensue of the SL was priced 'competitively' ..... 

 

They will adjust the price to sell what they can make ...... no more and no less. 

That's a very good point actually that I hadn't considered. Price to sell just your capacity/inventory.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The problem with the SL is not that it's a bit more expensive than the alterantives, it's that it's a whole order of magnitude more expensive that the alternatives, all of which are, on paper at least, 'superior' to the SL. The Nikon equivalent has more pixels and better AF, the Fuji has a bigger sensor, the Sony is smaller and has more pixels etc etc.

 

But the SL does offer something that the others don't, namely the extraordinary EVF, the ability to use M lenses to all intents and purposes natively, and the packaging, which is quite different and never fails to get people asking me (when I'm using mine) if it's an 'old fashioned camera'.

 

But these things, while very important to those of us that have opted for an SL are nothing like enough to justify the price premium to the vast majority of buyers. This is a simple marketing case study; consider the M10 or other M cameras. If you want a full frame range finder what are your options? There aren't any, hence why the M cameras can and always will command such a huge price premium. They are different enough to justify that premium and they have 100% of the market for digital, full frame range finders as a result.

 

The SL is nothing like different enough. It's very nice but is it really nice enough to justify being almost three times the price of a Nikon D810 or the same price as a GFX?

 

It's a great product and it's one that Leica needs to have and needs to continue to develop if it wants to expand, but it's priced wrong for the majority of potential customers.

 

Ooooh. I can think of a dozen things the SL does better than any of the competition. It's not just the EVF. The issue is Leica's ability to market those differences effectively.

 

Gordon

[antigallican]

This price drop doesn't surprise me. I bought my SL a couple of months ago 'second hand' at £4800. It didn't appear to me to be very second hand - it seemed new in every sense. The Lightroom token was unused and in the following weeks I noticed the dealer had other 'second hand' copies at the same price. It did make me wonder if Leica were using the second hand market to try to move some stock. Now I would be very happy if they'd start doing that with the 24-90 . At the moment I only use M lenses.

[antigallican]

' The Nikon equivalent has more pixels and better AF"

what's the Nikon equiv GeeTee? I have a D810 but it's just not like my SL. A D750? One of the many things an SL can do (and I guess a Sony too) better than an SLR  is let you look at the pictures you took on a bright day in the viewfinder. You can take a picture and check in sunlight. I can never see what the hell I've shot in the back of the Nikon, so when the light's bright I use it like a film camera. Realistically, using both, I would say the 'more pixels' on the Nikon aren't much of an advantage too. 24mp works fine for most circumstances. But probably I'm a crap judge - I'm happy with my M9 too.

[LocalHero1953]

I am totally OK with the body.  I don't find it heavy at all.  It is a little bit heavier than the M but not that much...

 

I am actually OK with the 24-90mm as well because of its versatility.

 

What I am not OK with is the total absence of lightweight native lenses.  From a commercial point of view an extremely dumb move IMHO...

Lightweight with AF and IS would be what I want, but I suspect that is not likely. 

I'm another one who doesn't see the SL as a lightweight body for travel and carry-around - I have the M for that. The SL is for events, photo sessions and any planned photographic activity, for which two lenses covering 24-280 are great. 

 

In a triumph of hope over experience, I intend to get the Summicron 90SL as an optically fast lens that should be quicker to use than, say, the manual M equivalent - vital for portraits. But at the back of mind I'm prepared to find I keep using the 24-90 for simplicity!

[mmradman]

This price drop doesn't surprise me. I bought my SL a couple of months ago 'second hand' at £4800. It didn't appear to me to be very second hand - it seemed new in every sense. The Lightroom token was unused and in the following weeks I noticed the dealer had other 'second hand' copies at the same price. It did make me wonder if Leica were using the second hand market to try to move some stock. Now I would be very happy if they'd start doing that with the 24-90 . At the moment I only use M lenses.

I would say SL601 is a bit of unknown quantity for typical Leica (M / R) consumer, people buy to see whats it all about and sometime sell at substantial loss as can't figure it out, not traditional enough for some. Since New Year there are always several second hand SL601 available in the UK, often with spare batteries thrown in the deal.  

 

I got mine s/h with spare battery as good as new below £4K (3995 or 3999, don't remember) in early March 2017, according to file sequence probably 460 shots in total - original owner name in original Exif.  I checked with Leica UK, warranty is good till August 2018, so camera was bought back in 2016 and sat mostly unused. When i asked dealer he expanded that original owner sold due to failing eyesight, he was struggling with the EVF, well, you heard it here!  If you frequent LUF and happen to sell it to well known dealer near British Museum let me know, it is well looked after.

 

For me SL601 with ISO 50-50,000, 1/16000sec shutter speed and 24Mp is good for a long time, i even find Nikon D700 with 12Mp good in 2017.  All of my M and R lenses work just fine, if only i have more time to enjoy it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[panoreserve]

Ooooh. I can think of a dozen things the SL does better than any of the competition. It's not just the EVF. The issue is Leica's ability to market those differences effectively.

 

Gordon

 

Exactly!