Does SL need more megapixels?

[Brian C in Az]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The new Sigma may offer the best sensor for landscape and astrophotography.

[wildlightphoto]

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

I've said it before. This is the most valid argument for increasing the MP count.

I am not sure how many MP one would need to eliminate this problem entirely. Shouldn't the sensor resolution exceed the lens resolution in that case? Or at least the frequency of the detail?

The alternative solution would obviously be to use an AA filter that can be switched off like the Pentax K3. An electronic low-pass filter is quite common in acoustics.

 

The 42MP of the Sony (when using the 280/4 APO) doesn't quite eliminate the artifacts but it makes them much more manageable.

[Advertisement]

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

[saxo]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Brian C in Az:

The new Sigma may offer the best sensor for landscape and astrophotography.

for astrophotography high ISO performance should be improved.

[saxo]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

I've said it before. This is the most valid argument for increasing the MP count.

 

 

or x-trans sensor, which is unlikely,

or foveon sensor, which is announced.

[sillbeers15]

With L mount alliance.

Leica users can easily select another L mount camera body (likely S1R) if Leica’s priority is to let the SL2 serve the M lenses. While Leica will also continue to upgrade the M camera. Do you think Leica will shoot itself in the foot by letting the SL2 cannibalize the M camera?

Leica marketed the SL with the compatibility of M & R lenses onto the SL through adapter because it knows the SL lenses take time to come on the market. Now 3 years later with several SL lenses and the L mount alliance.  Not forgetting Nikon & Canon has entered the mirrorless market to heat up competition. Business dynamics have changed. It is obvious that it is to Leica’s advantage to have partners in L- mount with the intention of getting more users into the L- mount and stay on with more choices of camera and lenses for choice. It is pretty crrtain the SL will eventually become a mature platform for Leica’s range of AF FF camera/lenses instead of just another camera body to peggy back the M & R lenses.

You can draw your own conclusions with my 2 pointers above. Being emotional will surely not sync with any businesses or and product development aimed at maximising profit.

Edited December 2, 2018 by sillbeers15

[jaapv]

21 minutes ago, sillbeers15 said:

Leica marketed the SL with the compatibility of M & R lenses onto the SL through adapter because it knows the SL lenses take time to come on the market. Now 3 years later with several SL lenses and the L mount alliance.  Not forgetting Nikon & Canon has entered the mirrorless market to heat up competition. Business dynamics have changed. It is obvious that it is to Leica’s advantage to have partners in L- mount with the intention of getting more users into the L- mount and stay on with more choices of camera and lenses for choice. It is pretty crrtain the SL will eventually become a mature platform for Leica’s range of AF FF camera/lenses instead of just another camera body to peggy back the M & R lenses.

You can draw your own conclusions with my 2 pointers above. Being emotional will surely not sync with any businesses or and product development aimed at maximising profit.

I cannot agree with this analysis.

To begin with Leica's USP is the emotional link to the past, they cannot afford to ignore it.

For that reason retrocompatability has always been a prime  design goal. The fact that they have opened up their mount to become a multi-brand standard only shows that they learned that that is a healthy marketing situation by their experience with the M and LTM mounts,

it has nothing to do with a change in their design philosophy.

There is no reason to think that future Leica cameras will lose their compatibility with M and R lenses, quite the opposite; it will be one of the ways to differentiate themselves from Panasonic and Sigma.

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

There is no reason to think that future Leica cameras will lose their compatibility with M and R lenses, quite the opposite; it will be one of the ways to differentiate themselves from Panasonic and Sigma.

Please do not put words into my mouth.

I did not say loose compatibility with M and R lenses but said priority is to develop the next SL to further optimize the SL lenses. Leica will certainly keep the SL compatible with M & R lenses.  So is Sony A7 compatible with M lenses. Let’s not forget the M camera is always optimized for M lenses.

You can disagree all you want. A business is a business aim at profitability. Else no more Leica tomorrow. Or worst to be bought over by some Chinese owner as with Volvo cars.

Edited December 2, 2018 by sillbeers15

[Chaemono]

So, the issue is, are retrocompatability and optimizing the next SL for those super SL lenses mutually exclusive. If they are, then it’s a strategic dilemma given the merit in both arguments of the previous two posts. That’s why I’ve always advocated an SL with an M mount. It should be called the SL-M and ideally come with an integrated collapsible adapter. 

[Brian C in Az]

I think that the ROI for Leica on the camera bodies is much lower than the ROI on the lenses. The costs associated with developing a new sensor and the necessary computer hardware and software is much higher than the costs incurred designing a new lens and bringing it to market. A consumer will buy a camera body or two, but that consumer will typically buy many lenses. Lenses do not require regular firmware updates as do the cameras. Firmware updates increase the costs associated for a camera body. The costs for each camera body continues to increase after the sale which is a unique business scenario. One that Leica probably underestimated when first "going digital". Software/ firmware updates don't occur automatically and certainly are not free. It is logical for a small camera manufacturer to decide that it is too costly to compete in the high technology market against the likes of Panasonic, Sony, Canon, and so on.

The purpose of the L alliance is to help Leica sell more lenses. If 10% of the other brands' camera consumers buy Leica lenses, then Leica will benefit more than most people currently consider.

Lenses are more easily designed and manufactured. The manufacturing costs for lenses goes down as production volume increases. They do not have new costs after the sale. Quite the opposite, they generate service revenue a few years after the sale. All lenses eventually need CLA. 

[Brian C in Az]

1 minute ago, Chaemono said:

So, the issue is, are retrocompatability and optimizing the next SL for those super SL lenses mutually exclusive. If they are, then it’s a strategic dilemma given the merit in both arguments of the previous two posts. That’s why I’ve always advocated an SL with an M mount. It should be called the SL-M and ideally come with an integrated collapsible adapter. 

Why not an R mount since there is already an M mount body?

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

Lenses do not require regular firmware updates as do the cameras. 

SL lenses do. The process might be simplified, but costs to develop remain.

Jeff

Edited December 2, 2018 by Jeff S

[Brian C in Az]

I realize that AF lenses do, but not as frequently nor as costly.

The main point is the higher ongoing costs of a highly technical body vs the much lower costs of lenses from the manufacturers' viewpoint.

Leica invested a lot of money in new lens production capabilities a couple years ago. The L alliance can help them maximize the productivity of that investment and thus increase profitability. Camera bodies don't generate the same type of revenue due to the lower number of units sold and the increase costs after the sale.

Lenses outsell bodies by 3 or 4 to one with almost no after the sales costs compared to bodies.

[bags27]

at Photokina a Leica rep said the L lenses were designed for appropriate resolution with sensors > 100 MPS.  

Edited December 2, 2018 by bags27

[Jeff S]

32 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

I realize that AF lenses do, but not as frequently nor as costly.

The main point is the higher ongoing costs of a highly technical body vs the much lower costs of lenses from the manufacturers' viewpoint.

Leica invested a lot of money in new lens production capabilities a couple years ago. The L alliance can help them maximize the productivity of that investment and thus increase profitability. Camera bodies don't generate the same type of revenue due to the lower number of units sold and the increase costs after the sale.

Lenses outsell bodies by 3 or 4 to one with almost no after the sales costs compared to bodies.

That’s assuming Leica gets the lens design right from the start.  The APO Summicron 50 M proved a costly launch.....and reset.  Or the S lens AF motor disaster.  So far, SL lenses have proved stable and reliable, knock on wood.

And if you think lens design difficulties can’t take years to solve, read this Karbe interview regarding the 50 Summilux M ASPH and the need to basically reinvent a glass element (costing more than ALL the elements combined in the prior version)...

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/leica-lens-saga-interview-peter-karbe-page-2

And, even with all that, I needed to send my lens to Leica to correct for the often reported sticky focus action (that incidentally they couldn’t fix, but DAG did).

Jeff

Edited December 2, 2018 by Jeff S

[Brian C in Az]

From the article you linked:

Quote

Establishing a balance between factors, including performance, size, choice of the appropriate glasses, and production tolerances, required lots of patient development work and numerous experiments and trials. For example, the glass I chose for lens element 3 is of crucial importance in minimizing the secondary color aberration. This glass, formerly made at the Leitz glass laboratory, was for a long time offered by another supplier who had taken over its production. But they had stopped making it, so I had to “encourage” another German glassmaker to literally reinvent this glass type. Today this glass is extremely expensive. Indeed, the material for this lens element alone costs as much as the glass used in all the other lens elements of the Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH! In short, optical design software, as useful as it can be, will not help in choosing the appropriate glass types, especially those used to minimize secondary chromatic aberration.
Read more at https://www.shutterbug.com/content/leica-lens-saga-interview-peter-karbe-page-2#BgAfkVCZZhLgbLDi.99

Considering the previous lens was made 40 years ago with glass made in house, it is not surprising that the one element would cost more. Asking a supplier to custom make a new to them material is not cheap. I don't see how that diminishes any of my previous statements.

Lenses are more profitable with less after sales costs than camera bodies is still a valid statement and reason for their new L alliance. 

I think Leica will concentrate more on selling lenses and let the L alliance members do the hard work of designing the next newest greatest thing in regards to camera bodies.

The Sigma Fovian sensor is now in the 3rd year of development without any firm release date. That is the next big thing in sensor design. Leica would be wiser to let Sigma bear the costs and jointly produce / license the next generation of FF body

[Jeff S]

Not debating the premise of lens profitability or wisdom of alliances, but my points (there were several) were made to balance your over-simplified summary (the notion that cameras are a pain compared to lenses in development and follow up time and costs).. 

The S lens fiasco, for instance, arguably did irreparable damage (apart from other obvious market dynamics) to the reputation of the whole S system. We also haven’t seen many of the earlier expected lens additions to the S system.  We’ll see if the S3 reenergizes things. The 50 APO M was another example of a less than smooth launch, requiring significant company attention to avert issues with a marquee lens. And the Karbe article, along with my other lens examples, point to the time, expense and problems often associated with lens releases...as well as after-the-fact issues (my service example, along with others reported here).  It should have been easy to update a 30 year old design (they started in 1993), but the article shows how incredibly difficult and expensive and time consuming it was.

Balance, is all.

Jeff

Edited December 2, 2018 by Jeff S

[IkarusJohn]

It’s always seemed to me that the SL is the universal platform for Leica 35mm lenses.  Any time a manufacturer offers more than one camera in the same format and mount, the argument will be made that the manufacturer is “canniballising” itself.  It is rarely true, it seems to me - wasn’t it Steve Jobs who said if you don’t cannibalise yourself, someone else will?

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

From the article you linked:

Considering the previous lens was made 40 years ago with glass made in house, it is not surprising that the one element would cost more. Asking a supplier to custom make a new to them material is not cheap. I don't see how that diminishes any of my previous statements.

Lenses are more profitable with less after sales costs than camera bodies is still a valid statement and reason for their new L alliance. 

I think Leica will concentrate more on selling lenses and let the L alliance members do the hard work of designing the next newest greatest thing in regards to camera bodies.

The Sigma Fovian sensor is now in the 3rd year of development without any firm release date. That is the next big thing in sensor design. Leica would be wiser to let Sigma bear the costs and jointly produce / license the next generation of FF body

The Foveon sensor is an attempt to recreate a more than  century-old technology - three-layered film- in the digital age. Whether that is " the next step" is anybody's guess.

[BernardC]

A couple of points. The SL does not "cannibalize the M camera." If anything, it's a way to sell two cameras to the same customer. They are so different in practical use that it's pointless to argue which one is better.

Having two full-frame ILC lines (plus the Q) means that R&D is spread over a larger volume, cutting per-unit costs. I fully expect that the next M, Q and SL will have similar (but not identical) sensors.

What the L-Mount alliance brings to the table is that it frees Leica from the burden of catering to non-core requirements. For instance, if you absolutely need 50 megapixels, you can get those from a Panasonic body. Leica will sell you lenses, and probably an SL as a second body, but they don't need to waste resources building a camera for every taste.

Same thing with lenses. Now Leica doesn't need to cater to those who need a super-telephoto or a fisheye. Those customers can get a specialty lens from Sigma, and buy more Leica bodies and "regular" lenses with the money they save.

Back in the day, Leica would re-label some specialty lenses from Minolta, Schneider, Sigma, Kyocera, Zeiss, etc, to fill-out their lens lineup. That worked OK, but this new alliance is more transparent, and arguably better for the end-user and for the company.

As I've noted before, the real competitors for the SL will be Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Not Panasonic or Sigma. The L-Mount partners will enjoy a symbiotic relationship.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sillbeers15]

12 minutes ago, BernardC said:

A couple of points. The SL does not "cannibalize the M camera." If anything, it's a way to sell two cameras to the same customer. They are so different in practical use that it's ....

I own both the SL & M10. I almost only use SL lenses on my SL body and had never bother to attach my R lenses onto my SL. I keep my M10 for my M lenses. This arrangement fits your urgument. So I am happy that the next SL & M optimises SL & M lenses respectively.

Now if next SL were to be optimised for M lenses, some customers would switch over to other L mount bodies if those L mount bodies serve the SL lenses better. Leaving next SL favoured and used by M lens users and some may not see the need for an M camera. Now that would be what I mean by SL cannibalising M sales, which I am certain Leica would avoid. Moreover if the next generation SL body does not optimise SL lenses better than the other L bodies, it is easy for existing SL users to switch over to other L mount bodies. Just continue to buy Leica lenses, would that be in favour for Leica? Eventually Leica would collapse M& SL into one body if the scenario of loosing SL sales takes place significantly. That would be the end of SL series just like R series. Technically, Leica can continue to make R lenses today but who would buy them?