Nikon Z6, Z7 and Leica SL ..... (merged)

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I made a prediction in 2011 on a forum (possibly here, possibly another) that in another decade DSLRs would be dead in the water.

 

The dSLR is still the most versatile precision instrument in the photographer's toolbox. I'm far from convinced that dSLRs are dead or anything like dead. They have plenty of scope relative to evf cameras. In a world which increasingly virtual, and evf may seem appealing, but so too do more direct viewing system cameras.

[BernardC]

Anyone care to take a counter view on the market share of the DSLR in 2021?

You need both, DSLR and mirrorless. And a rangefinder! And a view camera...

 

Market shares will stabilize. Right now mirrorless is still growing in the full-frame market, because of all the new releases.

If you look at the APS-C market, SLR sales are still quite high, in spite of having even more competition from mirrorless cameras.

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

I made a prediction in 2011 on a forum (possibly here, possibly another) that in another decade DSLRs would be dead in the water.

I still hold to that now, because both Nikon and Canon have now bitten the bullet and chosen to cannibalise their own DSLR sales. I suspect this is one reason (fear for their own DSLRs) they have both taken so long to produce a competitive mirrorless product, and it may be declining DSLR sales that has prompted them both to do it now. The (genuine) charms of the OVF will, I think, fall in the most important market (that of the amateur buyer) before the charms of the smaller, quieter Nikons and Canons (and Sonys).

 

Anyone care to take a counter view on the significance of the DSLR in 2021?

I don’t see a large advantage to mirrorless today without a great EVF. Until recently (other than the SL) I wouldn’t include many cameras in that category.

 

DSLRs still have better autofocus at the high end (A9 may be the closest). I can’t see any reason to choose a Z7 over a D850 other than the advantages offered by the EVF. If Nikon could not source a quality EVF a few years ago, they did the right thing not to.

 

The bodies are not much smaller on full frame mirrorless cameras other than depth, and the DSLR ergonomics have been honed over a long time. SLRs used to be about the size as today’s smaller mirrorless FF cameras but grew as demand for better handling grew. Most mirrorless are following the same progression in size in each format. They are all growing at the high end.

 

It may be exciting to go mirrorless from a marketing perspective (and for production cost) but to the typical end user I don’t see much advantage yet. Many people seem to equate mirrorless with small size and weight and apparently have no recognition that lenses dominate the size and weight of a camera system. Lens size and weight increases as quality does. The sensor resolution race is pushing for quality and the lenses are growing along with this. At the low end (price and quality) there will be small bodies and small lenses. At the high end it will be larger bodies and large lenses. This goes for DSLR and mirrorless.

 

I think the DSLR will go away because mirrorless requires less parts and the EVFs are finally good enough to replace OVFs. They will only get better. Nikon and Canon waited until the technology matured and now they’re jumping in. It makes sense.

[mmradman]

I’m pretty similar. Two M lenses have kept me pretty happy, a 35 and a 50. I have four lenses for the SL but I typically only take one or two with me at a time.

 

I bet this is typical of most ILC users so the constant changing of systems and the surrounding discussion is more baffling. It reminds me a bit of allegiance to automobile companies.. People I know argue over the halo products and drive the entry level or mid range.

 

I don't know about typical others but i am firmly into the camera camp that supports my M and R lens collection, also several F mount, Nikon & Zeiss, manual focus lenses.  

At the moment SL601 is that very camera but i keep open mind over Nikon Z7 developments.  I also use M246 with M lenses from 21 to 90mm.

[LocalHero1953]

.........................................

 

I think the DSLR will go away because mirrorless requires less parts and the EVFs are finally good enough to replace OVFs. They will only get better. Nikon and Canon waited until the technology matured and now they’re jumping in. It makes sense.

Leica and Sony both showed it was possible to build a top class full frame mirrorless years ago. I doubt it was Nikon's and Canon's inability to match that technology that has held them back. It was either that they were blind to the market for mirrorless systems or more likely (IMO) it was because they were too heavily invested in DSLRs to want to risk cannibalising sales - which they will now do.

[LD_50]

Leica and Sony both showed it was possible to build a top class full frame mirrorless years ago. I doubt it was Nikon's and Canon's inability to match that technology that has held them back. It was either that they were blind to the market for mirrorless systems or more likely (IMO) it was because they were too heavily invested in DSLRs to want to risk cannibalising sales - which they will now do.

I don’t agree that Sony proved anything years ago regarding mirrorless. I enjoy the RX1 but the UI is not good. I think the A series has good specifications and produces amazing IQ. I don’t like the ergonomics, build quality, or UI. The EVFs are not good enough for me either (A9 I have not used).

 

If I had no SL available I would have stuck with a DSLR rather than go to Sony. I also considered M43 and Fuji but did not like the EVFs on the cameras I tried.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don’t agree that Sony proved anything years ago regarding mirrorless. I enjoy the RX1 but the UI is not good. I think the A series has good specifications and produces amazing IQ. I don’t like the ergonomics, build quality, or UI. The EVFs are not good enough for me either (A9 I have not used).

 

If I had no SL available I would have stuck with a DSLR rather than go to Sony. I also considered M43 and Fuji but did not like the EVFs on the cameras I tried.

I don't like the Sony either, but I don't think it can be argued that the A7 series is anything other than an excellent camera that has been a market success and that takes excellent pictures. Sony undoubtedly proved that it is possible to build such a camera, even if you or I don't like its UI. My point is that the technology to build a good FF mirrorless has been around for several years; it would not be the absence of such technology that would have held Nikon and Canon back.

[pgk]

I don't like the Sony either, but I don't think it can be argued that the A7 series is anything other than an excellent camera that has been a market success and that takes excellent pictures.

 

Success it may have been and in many situations the A7 series no doubt perform well. Their awful UI and frustratingly poor operation mean that they also lose lots of images (my experience for sure). I'm not too heavily invested in the system which needs to show some forethought soon or it may simply become a stepping stone to others.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Nikon's and Canon's late entry into the FF mirrorless market has not only been due to their lack of EVFs … it's also been due to lengthy design/development time required for the new lens mounts … and efficient adapters for their existing DSLR lenses.  Efficient adapters being prerequisites to introduction of new mirrorless mounts … thus able to utilise their existing pro quality DSLR lenses. Without efficient adapters the new FF mirrorless cameras would also require a whole new range of lenses which require years more development. 

 

Leica's task in developing the L mount was easier as regards adapters because Leica only had to cater for Leica manual focus lenses. 

 

Given the decline in DSLR sales it remains to be seen if there will be a sufficiently healthy market to justify production of both DSLR and mirrorless systems. If Canon's and Nikon's latest FF mirrorless systems gain market share at the expense of declining DSLR sales then future development of their existing DSLR systems would not be worthwhile.

 

Canon's RE mount FF mirrorless system is officially announced this morning ... complete with THREE Canon RE to EF mount adapters including a  Drop-in Filter Mount Adapter with a variable ND filter. 

 

dunk 

Edited September 5, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[ynp]

Panasonic has announced a proprietary mount, they are clearly not aiming to integrate into the L system.

Given their persistence with MFT, from which Leica withdrew, that would be in character.

But nothing would prevent them from positioning a system below the SL and above the CL. .

Given that 3/4 micro and Leica T mounts have pretty similar flange distance and Panasonic will most probably wants to let the people use their current 3/4m lenses for video, I think that the new Panasonic redister distance shall be even shorter than on the SL/TL mount Leicas. Than, hypothetically, the SL lenses could be adapted to the FF Panasonic. Or not...

[jrp]

When I got my M9, there was not a great deal of choice, if you wanted full frame mirrorless.  (I think that there was, just, a Sony alternative, from memory.)

 

Now we have a nearly full roster of full frame mirrorless cameras.  (Both Canon and, perhaps, Nikon, have yet to introduce professional mirrorless models, as distinct from enthusiast ones and Fuji has skipped straight to medium format.) 

 

Both Canon and Nikon say, more or less explicitly, that they are aimed at existing users of their brand and expect their mirrorless models to supplement their existing camera ranges for such users.  

 

This makes you wonder what the source of growth for the likes of the SL line might be.  As well as stemming the leakage from Canon/Nikon to Sony, the latest releases will abate leaks to Leica.  This means that Leica will need to devote more energy to their feeder lines (as they seem to have been doing) and, to keep up with, never mind stand out from, the crowd, they will need to keep up with technology (not a given; and they have shown with the M10 that they are capable of removing useful features, only to reinstate them in the P variant).  In particular, IBIS would appear to be an important feature for the SL line since most SL-compatible lenses don't have OIS.  This will be even more important as resolution increases.

[pgk]

Canon seem to understand the potential for their new camera system - to quote from their blurb "With a breakthrough design that optimises quality and resolving power, the mount features a shallow body depth and large diameter lens mount, enabling faster and smaller lenses to be created." Its the 'smaller' and 'faster' that are relevant to any discussion on the Leica forum perhaps?

[ynp]

Deleted.

Edited September 5, 2018 by ynp

[LD_50]

Are photographers really getting excited about the mount diameter on a camera?

 

I think that really cements the idea that camera systems have matured and really are not all that different in specs.

 

It’s certainly brilliant marketing for Nikon to abandon a legacy mount and get everyone talking about how great the lenses MIGHT be based upon a spec no one ever talked about before. Canon is following suit. It’s like Mirrorless Marketing V2. Never mind that Mirrorless Marketing V1 was all about small high quality systems and that has not really happened. All the systems end up about the same size with similar quality lenses.

 

Imagine if Leica spent the effort on the SL2 revolutionizing the USE of the camera rather than spec sheets. They could fix the sharing element (great mobile phone interface). Incorporate an Arca Swiss type plate. Incorporate a Raw histogram. Incorporate a way to set up the menus through the mobile phone app (This could eliminate complexity and allow the user to quickly set up the camera without using the camera UI). Incorporate auto focus stacking. Include onboard flash storage with the card slot as a backup. There are so many features that could be simpler and better than the other camera systems.

 

Basically make and market the SL2 as the ultimate photographer’s camera rather than a spec sheet clone of others. I feel like the SL was a good step in this direction but they could go farther.

 

It’s telling that every article goes on about mount specs but most have accepted that EVFs are good enough without having used the very best on the market. The EVF is my most important feature on a mirrorless camera but I have not read any in depth comparisons between them, nothing about eye point or blackout time, or low light clarity. Contrast that with the constant comparisons of spec sheets and now lens mounts.

[pgk]

Incorporate an Arca Swiss type plate. Incorporate a Raw histogram.

 

Contrast that with the constant comparisons of spec sheets and now lens mounts.

 

An Arca baseplate and RAW histogram would sit very well with the M system.

 

Whilst I have great reservations about EVF cameras, both the lens mount diameter and sensor to mount distance are critical for future developments - which might just see smaller lenses. This would be a departure from how things currently are and could get us back into smaller FF camera systems. Mounts with a wide throat and short sensor to mount distance are not simply specs, they are a statement of potential intent.

[Jeff S]

The viewfinder experience on ANY camera is at the top of my priority list, and yes it is interesting how reviews typically gloss over distinctions. Fortunately, though, Leica seems to understand the priority, having among the very best VFs in the SL, the S and the M10.

 

Jeff

Edited September 5, 2018 by Jeff S

[pgk]

The viewfinder experience on ANY camera is st the top of my priority list, and yes it is interesting how reviews typically gloss over distinctions.

 

I find 'virtual' electronic images never really work for me as well as 'real' direct visual viewfinders (dSLR or dRF). The SL is the best EVF camera I've seen as yet for its viewfinder image but all are compromises. Perhaps the next generation of photographers will think the same of 'real' direct vision viewfinders though.

[LD_50]

An Arca baseplate and RAW histogram would sit very well with the M system.

 

Whilst I have great reservations about EVF cameras, both the lens mount diameter and sensor to mount distance are critical for future developments - which might just see smaller lenses. This would be a departure from how things currently are and could get us back into smaller FF camera systems. Mounts with a wide throat and short sensor to mount distance are not simply specs, they are a statement of potential intent.

If the large lens mount and short flange distance is really such a critical feature to facilitate small lenses.. where are they? Are SL lenses supposed to be smaller than SLR lenses because of the bigger mount and shorter flange distance?

 

Nikon went with smaller aperture lenses and they are not small. Canon’s are as big as I would expect for large aperture, high quality FF lenses with AF.

 

It looks as if many are reading from the marketing bullet points and not looking at the actual products. The same thing exists with the older mirrorless systems. They are not small when high quality lenses are used. M43, Fuji APSC, FF- they are all getting bigger, not smaller.

Edited September 5, 2018 by LD_50

[Jeff S]

I find 'virtual' electronic images never really work for me as well as 'real' direct visual viewfinders (dSLR or dRF). The SL is the best EVF camera I've seen as yet for its viewfinder image but all are compromises. Perhaps the next generation of photographers will think the same of 'real' direct vision viewfinders though.

Yep, even the fine SL EVF is too much like a TV screen for me; just odd given my history and comfort with optical VFs. But I fully understand the benefits of eliminating the mirror assembly (for both the user... focus aids, no calibration concerns, etc... as well as the company...cost reduction, manufacturing ease, etc). Trade offs with any type of VF.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pgk]

If the large lens mount and short flange distance is really such a critical feature to facilitate small lenses.. where are they?

 

Back a good number of posts ago I said that they did not exist and will undoubtedly provide a substantial optical challenge. Canon's statement suggests that their lens designers are working on this. Whether they will appear is a good question, but the desire for such lenses is clearly now in manufacturer's minds and we can but hope that some (potentially radical) way of producing them is found. To date Leica's microlenses/sensors seem to be the only workable solution but who knows? My point is that Canon are stating the potential for smaller, faster lenses which can only be hopeful.