Fullframe Pana-SL coming....

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't care to speculate about Leica's business and ideological analysis of their options.  I can wait to see what comes along next, and will be interested to chatter on about it then.

 

But in thinking back over the changes in image resolution, I don't think that less than a 50% increase in resolution has ever made a difference to me in image qualities.  5MP to 10MP (Olympus E-1 and Epson RD moving up to the M8) made a difference.  Going from 10 to 16-18 MPx made3 a difference and 24 MPx is really a sweet spot since the highest resolution environment that I target is a 6K screen.  For a variety of reasons I haven't been tempted by the 48MPx Sonys, and I have been very pleased with the dynamic range that Leica achieves with smaller pixels in the CL at 24 MPx, compared with the more limited files I got from M43 at 16MPx.  (Is it 20 MPx now?  My latest M43 gear is an E-M1.2.)  With the CL I can really dig detail and nice tones out of the shadows and wouldn't want to lose that.

 

So I suspect a 36 MPx SL descendent with the same DR as the present pixels coming from newer, smaller ones, would get my interest, but I wouldn't sell everything for it.

Edited September 2, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[LocalHero1953]

Like everyone else here, guesses is all I have to go on for the moment. My guess is that the value of bodies to Leica is becoming less in relation to lenses; or perhaps the value of lenses has always been much higher than that of bodies. Once you have a platform (the M or L mount), the bodies become a tool to sell lenses: 3-4 per body to new users? The difference these days is that advanced machine manufacturing techniques cut the cost of making bodies, compared to humans, so the cost of making a new body reduces even further.

 

The consequence is that the problem of cannibalisation of sales of one body by another within the same system fades away: it is more important to sell bodies as a way of selling lenses. The CL has clearly cannibalised sales of the TL2, but I'm sure the CL has led to more sales of L-mount lenses as a result.

 

The logical development of this is that, if it was possible to develop a new L mount body that sits between the the CL and the SL, then I suspect Leica would do it in a heartbeat. The question would then be: would they also develop smaller full-frame L-mount lenses, yet further expanding the appeal of the L system, or would they rely on the current lenses, which would be a bit awkward on a full frame body smaller than the SL: the primes might be OK, but not the zooms. And what compromises would have to be made in such lenses to make them smaller: no IS, for a start; slower AF?; lesser optical quality? (difficult to envisage this happening).

Edited September 2, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

Although I have a light preference for the MFT 20 MP sensor, you are right that the difference to the 16 MP one is not huge. (GX7 vs. GX8 in my case)

[jaapv]

Like everyone else here, guesses is all I have to go on for the moment. My guess is that the value of bodies to Leica is becoming less in relation to lenses; or perhaps the value of lenses has always been much higher than that of bodies. Once you have a platform (the M or L mount), the bodies become a tool to sell lenses: 3-4 per body to new users? The difference these days is that advanced machine manufacturing techniques cut the cost of making bodies, compared to humans, so the cost of making a new body reduces even further.

 

The consequence is that the problem of cannibalisation of sales of one body by another within the same system fades away: it is more important to sell bodies as a way of selling lenses. The CL has clearly cannibalised sales of the TL2, but I'm sure the CL has led to more sales of L-mount lenses as a result.

 

The logical development of this is that, if it was possible to develop a new L mount body that sits between the the CL and the SL, then I suspect Leica would do it in a heartbeat. The question would then be: would they also develop smaller full-frame L-mount lenses, yet further expanding the appeal of the L system, or would they rely on the current lenses, which would be a bit awkward on a full frame body smaller than the SL: the primes might be OK, but not the zooms. And what compromises would have to be made in such lenses to make them smaller: no IS, for a start; slower AF?; lesser optical quality? (difficult to envisage this happening).

I think the drive for Leica is more to expand their L-mount lens palette, both in SL and TL, and to incorporate some kind of image stabilization, which might be easier in the form of O.I.S. than IBIS. The Panaleica DG 100-400 is fairly compact, for instance.

[thighslapper]

The problem with the sensor game is that we all expect more, even if we don't need more ....... 

 

Doubling to D850/A7Riii resolution only increases linear resolution by 1/3, from 6000 to 8000+ ...... but needs double the sensitivity to get the same light gathering power. Adding on fancy AF and all the other on sensor gizmos needed for mirrorless and still improving DR makes you realise just what an achievement these sensor are. They show what can be done if you can back it up with the power to process fast enough to run a high Mpx EVF, LCD, fast AF and frame rate. You need all of these things to work really well together .... otherwise you will have another X1D ...... Leica managed it with the SL and I can't see them dropping the ball with the SL2. 

[Jon Warwick]

For the M, I agree, playing the megapixel “game” is less necessary given the Leica rangefinder is unique - if you want a rangefinder, you accept whatever mexapixels Leica gives to you.

 

I think this scenario is different for their cameras that face much more obvious competition (such as the SL or S) .....given on paper, a low megapixel camera that faces competition will look superseded by the competition.

 

The S line has only 38mp, and I often see them sitting on shelves with no bid. Has the “on paper spec” of only 38mp partly been a cause for this?

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The S line has only 38mp, and I often see them sitting on shelves with no bid. Has the “on paper spec” of only 38mp partly been a cause for this?

Only?  I doubt it.  I think the obstacle to more people buying the S is the cost of all the lenses you would need, and of the body itself.

[LD_50]

Only? I doubt it. I think the obstacle to more people buying the S is the cost of all the lenses you would need, and of the body itself.

Agreed. Price is the biggest obstacle for sales volume of Leica gear. Availability is another. You can’t walk in many non-Leica stores and try out any of their cameras in the US.

 

I’ve considered the S system many times over the years and always come back to the price being too high.

[sdw]

Agreed. Price is the biggest obstacle for sales volume of Leica gear. Availability is another. You can’t walk in many non-Leica stores and try out any of their cameras in the US.

 

I’ve considered the S system many times over the years and always come back to the price being too high.

 

 

Price is one thing, it's also just utterly uncompetitive in the current market. Fuji, Hasselblad and others have vastly technically superior solutions at this point. The next S needs to go up in MP, and Leica needs to stop worrying about encroaching on its territory by upping the resolution of M / SL and other FF sensors. If they don't cannibalize their own, their competitors will draw them into an entire competing system. 

[Richardgb]

One point which hasn't so far been mentioned, at least in this thread, is the change in manufacturing philosophy that largely electronics-dependent cameras have brought with them.

 

Leica's forté is optical-mechanical, as exemplified by the M. Electronics, on the other hand, they've largely bought in (from Panasonic and the sensor manufacturers) and combined them with their lenses. However, the rate of developments in electronics is much faster than in optical-mechanical technology. Whether we like it or not, today's electronics may largely be regarded as obsolete 5 years hence.

 

Thus the turnover in (electronic) camera bodies is bound to be higher than in lenses, and the general rule is that the price of the electronics falls (or you get more performance for the same price).

 

Now, Sony has released new bodies not so many years apart as this fits in with an 'electronics' philosophy. I imagine Leica, on the other hand, has had to come to terms with their cameras not having an indefinite service life (as with the Ms of yore) and having to plan for much more frequent 'real' upgrades (by which I don't mean a few extra megapixels) yet keeping the price affordable. Whether the bulk of this work can continue to be done in Germany is another matter (yes, Leica already use Portugal for metal-cutting). Does it matter that the body may be branded (for, let's be honest, that's what we're talking about) 'Panasonic' or 'Leica' if it can take L-mount lenses?

[jrp]

But new sensors and processors don’t need a completely redesigned body. Leica have chosen to make the SL2 a bit more rounded.

[Jeff S]

But new sensors and processors don’t need a completely redesigned body. Leica have chosen to make the SL2 a bit more rounded.

Less brutal, more elegant, per Dr. K

 

But we’re also still waiting for his June L-mount reveal.

 

Jeff

[BernardC]

Price is one thing, it's also just utterly uncompetitive in the current market. 

The S may not be price-competitive, but the S is still the fastest medium format camera around, with the best lenses. The sensor is fully competitive with Sony's sensor used by Pentax, Fuji and Hasselblad.

[miro]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-L1

[miro]

Even though Panasonic will be using a new , non-L mount , there will probably still be Leica designed lenses .

Also , I think  the rumored Panasonic designed sensor might be like the one used in the M 10 .

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/the-new-panasonic-full-frame-mirrorless-system-camera-will-have-a-new-mount-and-a-panasonic-designed-sensor/

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by miro

[jaapv]

The sensor might well come from the same sensor factory, but it would certainly have a different microlens and filter array.

[pico]

On 9/2/2018 at 2:21 PM, Richardgb said:

Leica's forté is optical-mechanical, as exemplified by the M. Electronics, on the other hand, they've largely bought in (from Panasonic and the sensor manufacturers) and combined them with their lenses. However, the rate of developments in electronics is much faster than in optical-mechanical technology. Whether we like it or not, today's electronics may largely be regarded as obsolete 5 years hence.

So there remains the issue of quality optics independent of electronics - so far. No? It seems that the susceptibility of electronic advancement is easier, less expensive and more disposable than the very hard part of glass configuration/design  and manufacturing which is Leica.

[jaapv]

But even Leica is producing hybrid lenses - except for the M  (and partly S) line, for obvious technical reasons.