Jump to content

LEica SL as an example of bad design


Einst_Stein

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The first impression of SL to every is its size of a white elephant. Not just the SL camera, but also every SL lens. Were it not due to my M9 sensor corrosion and Leica's trade-up program (that M10 is not an option, only M 240 and SL), I would hardly even thinking about this system.  

 

Surprisingly, after having the camera on my hand, I fell in love immediately. Now i can't wait to get the SL zoom, either one, 24-90mm or 90-280mm, I can't decide except that I really want both.

I have played with both zooms on my SL. They are not bug at all. In fact, I would have problem if they are smaller. 

 

I think in a way, this is one of  Leica's major failure. You would want to attract people before they buy the camera/lens. You would want to move the heart at the first glance,  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see it as Leica's fault of poor communication but rather it were customer expectations that is tricky to manage.

The most common complaint I hear about the SL are:

1 Bulk and weight of SL lenses;

2 I do not need AF.

 

There are generally 3 category of customers for any product:

1 Those who know what they want;

2 Those who know what they don't want;

3 Those who do not know what they want and don't want.

 

If you fall into the forest two group. It is straightforward to deal with.

So if you clearly belong to the last group, you only know after you try out. It can't be Leica's fault.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica have no idea on how to market a camera. The ads target Prada wielding ladies and street shooting metrosexuals. The  only effective marketing comes from the users and fans of the Leica brand. Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe they don't want to be more than a niche within a niche? They could advertise that the SL has the best EVF on the market. They could advertise the great handling or that they're the brand with class leading menu layouts. How about the shutter? They could go out on a limb and market the lens quality and design. They could go on about how the size of the SL matches the lenses you strap on the front of it. Nope. None of that.....

 

Instead we get press releases about how many strokes it takes to hand sand the body or a photo at the airport on some guy who, has never seen or held a camera and who, has forgotten to shave for a few days, holding a nearly unrecognisable TL.

 

Gordon

Edited by FlashGordonPhotography
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the last time you saw an ad for a Ferrari or a McClaren? I agree in the main with what you say but maybe it is deliberate, to maintain the mystique. Unfortunately, the SL and the S have been such departures for Leica that awareness cannot be taken for granted. For the SL, at least there is the potential for a reasonably sizeable market so the poor advertising suggests that, for all the recent innovation, the senior Leica management remains conservative and complacent. However, I do wish that they would dispense with the absurd, limited "collector" editions which diminish the product. It is not a Swiss watch company which needs such flippancy to distinguish its products and competes to sell gaudy trinkets to the bored rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Leica have no idea on how to market a camera

 

I think that's partly true but only partly. They clearly know how to market the M range as there's no other explanation for how 100 year old technology can a) still be sold and B) be sold for a 400% premium over the next best thing (a Fuji X-Pro 2)

 

 

The  only effective marketing comes from the users and fans of the Leica brand.

 

That's still a valid marketing strategy; the use of ambassadors either formally or informally, is used by other camera manufacturers as well. I would add though that in some instances, the fan base for Leica products actually puts people off' 'Prada wielding ladies and street shooting metrosexuals' might not be an aspirational social group for most photographers but then neither is the 'middle aged, all the gear no idea' crowd so keen on shooting their country club, car or child bride in her most come hither lingerie.

 

 

Maybe they don't want to be more than a niche within a niche

 

I think you're right, I think that's precisely where they want to be. The moment they are not is the moment they can no longer charge twice, three or four times more for an equivalent product.

 

 

They could advertise that the SL has the best EVF on the market. They could advertise the great handling or that they're the brand with class leading menu layouts. How about the shutter? They could go out on a limb and market the lens quality and design.

 

The EVF is a clear differentiating feature but no one is going to buy an SL at a 65% premium over a D850 just for that feature unfortunately. And this is where the real problem lies; an SL with an SL lens is going to cost you three to six times more than a D850 (which has far better AF and dynamic range) with an equivalent lens. Why on earth would you pay that kind of premium? The SL lenses are what let the SL system down; they're just too damn expensive compared to a Nikon equivalent and they just don't have that special look that M lenses offer.

 

The reason I bought into the SL is because you can mount M lenses to it and they work perfectly. At that point you have a lens that is both extremely special and very small and which allows you to focus it accurately with ease. That's the game changing feature of the SL.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What advertising? Maybe I don't read the FT on Saturday or other loaded mags, but I can't remember the last time I saw a media advert, as opposed to Leica's own website and sales leaflets.

 

Edit: I disagree with the title of this thread. I don't have a problem with Leica's design. They are not the foremost salespeople though. Perhaps that remains an inheritance from the survival mode of a few years ago, when advertising was a luxury spend, and they had to rely on word of mouth among the hard core of Leica aficionados. The next step, of selling to the brand-conscious rich, was natural.

But, come to think of it, has Leica ever been big in advertising?

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you trace back some of my earlier post before June 2015, I've expected Leica to develop a line of AF FF cameras and lenses. Initially thinking it would be incorporated into the M camera series. Reason is straight forward simple, Leica needed to sell more camera and lens to survive. With the success of the M camera, Leica will not sustain as a camera maker in financial terms. M users are predominantly old man who would only resist change and not buy more lenses and camera. So Leica needs to break into new market. Younger users who could stay loyal to the brand once they become satisfied with the products and brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What advertising? Maybe I don't read the FT on Saturday or other loaded mags, but I can't remember the last time I saw a media advert, as opposed to Leica's own website and sales leaflets.

 

Edit: I disagree with the title of this thread. I don't have a problem with Leica's design. They are not the foremost salespeople though. Perhaps that remains an inheritance from the survival mode of a few years ago, when advertising was a luxury spend, and they had to rely on word of mouth among the hard core of Leica aficionados. The next step, of selling to the brand-conscious rich, was natural.

But, come to think of it, has Leica ever been big in advertising?

Normally I would agree with the comments about Leica's marketing department. Remember the Mini-M fiasco?  In this case, however, I feel that they know exactly what they are doing. The potential customer for a Leica system is somebody who has no problem plonking down anything upwards from 12500 Euro for his/her hobby (disregarding the occasional professional who works to quite different economic considerations )

These customers will certainly not be bothered by a person they can relate to in the advertisement, and who fits into the publication. Don't forget that this is nothing new- the Barnacks benefited from small series of gold-plated "Luxus" cameras as flagship models ninety years ago, and Leica ambassadors like Paul Wolff were at least "Herr Doktor".

I remember, when I remarked to my Jaguar dealer that it was not very busy, the reply was (albeit meant jokingly): " Oh, we lock the door from time to time to keep it exclusive".

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I remember, when I remarked to my Jaguar dealer that it was not very busy, the reply was (albeit meant jokingly): " Oh, we lock the door from time to time to keep it exclusive"....

 

:p same argument I got when (2006) thought seriously to the XJ Station... the local dealer had just ONE Sedan on display and told me that, being an exclusive brand,  "was not on the basis of a direct sight & touch that a customer decides...".

Well... I WANTED a direct "sight and touch"... :huh: ... switched to Alfa 159 Sportwagon... :D

 

About the size of SL... indeed ,when happened to me to handle one with 24/90 on (dealer) , I was surprised of how good was the Handling... the apparent bulkyness from sight disppeared... not that I consider to have one, but imho is globally a good design (maybe... about "exclusivity"... it just lacks some well studied and implemented detail in the design that make people say "wow, that's a DIIFFERENT camera..."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anybody buy a Leica SL? For much less money, you can get a Sony A7 or A9, and enjoy a superior sensor, in body image stabilization, and a larger ecosystem. And if you were willing to carry around the absurd weight of the SL lenses, you could be carrying around Carl Zeiss lenses instead, which are just as large, are slightly cheaper, and arguably just as good when it comes to image quality. 

For me to be remotely interested in the SL system, the lenses would have to be cheaper and smaller. I am not interested in paying so much money to carry something that heavy around when it arguably offers less than the competition. 

 

The M system is a different matter. There is nothing else in the market that offers so much quality in such a small package. You can not make the same argument for the SL system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica SL has been my professional tool for a year and a half now. I have yet to meet a photographer who would not want to handle the SL after seeing it. The looks of the camera is so unexpected and so un-leica-like that it makes anyone curious. Naturally, most M shooters (me included) are not super happy with its weight and bulk, but compared to any professional SLR system it is just as big, but handles better.

 

Speaking of "major failures", they are not in design of the camera body and lenses, but in the fact that Leica is still re-learning how to market cameras to professionals.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anybody buy a Leica SL? For much less money, you can get a Sony A7 or A9, and enjoy a superior sensor, in body image stabilization, and a larger ecosystem. And if you were willing to carry around the absurd weight of the SL lenses, you could be carrying around Carl Zeiss lenses instead, which are just as large, are slightly cheaper, and arguably just as good when it comes to image quality. 

 

For me to be remotely interested in the SL system, the lenses would have to be cheaper and smaller. I am not interested in paying so much money to carry something that heavy around when it arguably offers less than the competition. 

 

The M system is a different matter. There is nothing else in the market that offers so much quality in such a small package. You can not make the same argument for the SL system. 

Have you tried SL lenses? It is easy to dismiss something that you have no experience with :)

Speaking of sensors, more megapixels does not mean superior. Evaluating a camera only on a basis of its sensor is a mistake, you should look at the whole, as you put it, ecosystem. Leica lenses (SL, R and M) are clearly superior to anything out there (although flare in 24-90 drives me mad sometimes), and miraculously they perform better on the SL body than  on anything else. Yes, there are inconveniences, but if aesthetic qualities of an image (or footage) matter the most, there is no other choice.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anybody buy a Leica SL? For much less money, you can get a Sony A7 or A9, and enjoy a superior sensor, in body image stabilization, and a larger ecosystem. And if you were willing to carry around the absurd weight of the SL lenses, you could be carrying around Carl Zeiss lenses instead, which are just as large, are slightly cheaper, and arguably just as good when it comes to image quality. 

 

For me to be remotely interested in the SL system, the lenses would have to be cheaper and smaller. I am not interested in paying so much money to carry something that heavy around when it arguably offers less than the competition. 

 

The M system is a different matter. There is nothing else in the market that offers so much quality in such a small package. You can not make the same argument for the SL system. 

 

Well you can if you use the M lenses on it. At that point it is more small enough to be convenient and effective enough to better the M's compromised focusing mechanism in critical situations (I'm not saying you can't focus an M critically, only that it's hard to do). But otherwise I agree with you. If you intend to use the SL with  the native AF lenses, I don't get why you wouldn't buy a Nikon or Pentax (having owned a Sony I know why you wouldn't include that in the mix).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i just want to say, That i never took a look at the SL, because of the big Sl lenses, they just don´t match with my type of shooting. But it was enaugh for me to touch this body once with the m lux 50, to start thinking about getting one.

Edited by kape06111
Link to post
Share on other sites

i just want to say, That i never took a look at the SL, because of the big Sl lenses, they just don´t match with my type of shooting. But it was enaugh for me to touch this body once with the m lux 50, to start thinking about getting one.

 

LOL, you should touch the SL-0.95/50 combo :)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anybody buy a Leica SL? For much less money, you can get a Sony A7 or A9, and enjoy a superior sensor, in body image stabilization, and a larger ecosystem. And if you were willing to carry around the absurd weight of the SL lenses, you could be carrying around Carl Zeiss lenses instead, which are just as large, are slightly cheaper, and arguably just as good when it comes to image quality.

For me to be remotely interested in the SL system, the lenses would have to be cheaper and smaller. I am not interested in paying so much money to carry something that heavy around when it arguably offers less than the competition.

 

Have you tried one out? It is actually a very nice camera to use with excellent ergonomics. The body itself is a little bigger and heavier than the Sony A7R2 but is far preferable to use in the field. Sony's menus are awful and you forget where all the little buttons are, never mind which does what. Having traded in my A7R2 against an SL I can assure you that, for me, the latter is streets ahead in the useability race. The native lenses for the Sony system are certainly more numerous but equally certainly not as good. For me, however, the real beauty of this body is that it has been designed with M and R lenses in mind. These are what I use and they are a dream to use on the SL. Edited by Waterden
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first impression of SL to every[one] is its size of a white elephant. Not just the SL camera, but also every SL lens. Were it not due to my M9 sensor corrosion and Leica's trade-up program (that M10 is not an option, only M 240 and SL), I would hardly even thinking about this system.  

 

Surprisingly, after having the camera on my hand, I fell in love immediately. Now i can't wait to get the SL zoom, either one, 24-90mm or 90-280mm, I can't decide except that I really want both.

I have played with both zooms on my SL. They are not bug at all. In fact, I would have problem if they are smaller. 

 

I think in a way, this is one of  Leica's major failure. You would want to attract people before they buy the camera/lens. You would want to move the heart at the first glance,  

 

 

I have to say that that is YOUR opinion. 

 

When I first saw the SL body, it struck me as simplistic, severe, functional, Bauhaus to the limit: I loved it instantly. A fitting follow up to the now deceased R8 and Leicaflex SL (both of which I had at the time). When I first saw the SL24-90, I said to myself, "Hmm, another big pro zoom. Do I need that, or should I use my R lenses?" AF,  OIS ... Both nice-to-haves, neither a necessity. 

 

At first I ordered just the body. I called back to my dealers a day later and ordered the SL24-90 lens too: It occurred to me that it wouldn't make sense not to have at least one lens that could utilize every feature of the body. 

 

When I received the camera, I was delighted ... immediately! Super fit and finish, superb ergonomics, excellent viewfinder, etc etc. I've never been much of a zoom user: it took me a year to get comfortable using the SL24-90 because of that, not because of its size or weight. It's a big heavy lens, yes; not a big deal. Its quality and capability outstrip any reluctance to use it on weight and size considerations. Over time, I realized that the SL90-280, affectionately termed "The Bazooka", would be a better pick for my long lens needs than the collection of older R teles I owned. I effected a trade-in with my dealer to help fund it. Now having used it for half a year: absolutely. It's one superb lens too. 

 

I think the usual beefs you mention have all come from Leica M users who wanted to see the SL as some kind of super-modern Leica M. It wasn't, it isn't—it will never be. My DSLR friends are not put off by the size of the SL lenses at all ... If they have any reaction in that direction, it's because they read about it from some dumb ass review by someone who wanted to think it was a Leica M and was put off by the size of the lenses. When I hand it to them, to a one they all look at me and say, "Hey, this is REALLY nice! I wish Nikon would make a pro body this compact!" And don't even mention the lenses: they're used to big, heavy, fast zooms. 

 

I've owned and used the SL extensively since the first day it was available to the public. Using it eclipses ALL the other gear I had at that time ... I've sold off all the other digital cameras I had then, as well as most of the film cameras. I keep a Leica M-D for when I want my kit to be more compact, I keep some film cameras for the fun of it. The SL is my main camera, and will be for a long time yet to come. The R lenses I kept and its SL zooms are what I use on it.

 

And I am completely, absolutely delighted with it, every step of the way. I'm glad I spent the money on this, the most expensive single camera purchase I've made in my entire life. It will likely last the rest of my life.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried one out? It is actually a very nice camera to use with excellent ergonomics. The body itself is a little bigger and heavier than the Sony A7R2 but is far preferable to use in the field. Sony's menus are awful and you forget where all the little buttons are, never mind which does what. Having traded in my A7R2 against an SL I can assure you that, for me, the latter is streets ahead in the useability race. The native lenses for the Sony system are certainly more numerous but equally certainly not as good. For me, however, the real beauty of this body is that it has been designed with M and R lenses in mind. These are what I use and they are a dream to use on the SL.

 

Yup, I have. The SL is very nice with M lenses, but with native SL lenses it is absurd. That Summilux-SL 50 is pointless. Why would anybody want to carry that around, when the only thing you gain over a Summilux-M is autofocus, and you lose so many things? 

 

If I was going to buy a body to use exclusively with M lenses, I may as well buy an M camera. Which is what I did. If I was going to buy a mirrorless camera for use with M lenses, I could buy a Sony A7 or A9 and use an adapter. 

 

And BTW I came to Leica having sold off my Sony A7 system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...