Leica APS-C -- No more!

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, having decided to discontinue the APS-C format, do you see Leica developing a new line with a small SL camera and small SL lenses?  Or will they develop a small SL for people to use with Sigma lenses?  That would seem strange to me.  But then, leaving the M and SL as the only full frame systems might be odd too - no idea what’s going on in their minds.  Perhaps the SL needs to be more accessible to fill the gap?

[lct]

36 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, having decided to discontinue the APS-C format, do you see Leica developing a new line with a small SL camera and small SL lenses?  Or will they develop a small SL for people to use with Sigma lenses?  That would seem strange to me.  But then, leaving the M and SL as the only full frame systems might be odd too - no idea what’s going on in their minds.  Perhaps the SL needs to be more accessible to fill the gap?

I see nothing strange happening, only the SL3 being more compact than the SL2 the same way as Leica did in the past (smaller R4 to R7 compared to bigger Leicaflex, SL, SL2 and R3) but i have no infos about that.

[Le Chef]

I don’t know how much smaller Leica could make an SL3. If sensor sizes keep increasing and the desire for more technical aids like focus tracking, eye tracking and facial recognition keeps increasing, then you will need larger batteries and better cooling to function effectively.

In addition the current L range lenses, that all appeared to have been inspired by sumo wrestlers and tanks, would unbalance a smaller lighter SL. Unless Leica has a major lightening program underway for the L lenses it may be best for XL sized camera bodies and lenses to continue balanced and in harmony with each other.

There appears to be no other obvious option. The Q family has no lens mount because the lens and shutter mechanism are integrated and not detachable. 
 

Could Leica partner with another manufacturer?

[lct]

12 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I don’t know how much smaller Leica could make an SL3. If sensor sizes keep increasing and the desire for more technical aids like focus tracking, eye tracking and facial recognition keeps increasing, then you will need larger batteries and better cooling to function effectively.

You mean the same way as Sony?

[Le Chef]

35 minutes ago, lct said:

You mean the same way as Sony?

The same way as Canon, Nikon and Sony.

[GFW2-SCUSA]

Reading the 30 pages of this thread has been an education, to say the least.  I would love to think that Leica was reading it and taking some of it to heart. I have a CL which I was talked into at the Leica Store Miami. And I am happy I listened to David's enthusiasm for the camera. I think it is a wonderful camera over all. I also have an M-10,, and SL2, an M monochrome type 246, and a D-Lux.  My wife uses a V-Lux.  I have been using Leica since 1964.  My father used then before me., So my comfort with the brand is deep.  So what about the CL?

I use M lenses and SL lenses as well as the tiny pancake CL.  Add to that a couple of L mount Sigmas and a just acquired TTArtisan 28mm f5.6 .  I can use every lens on the CL and get excellent quality images on a finely built, rugged, small camera. So why didn't this camera sell like hot cakes?  Even the price was reasonable (for a Leica).The camera should have sold itself. And I wonder if Leica thought it would. I don't remember any big excitement from Leica about this camera. I think they failed miserably in their marketing. They put huge effort into the M and the Q and SL2, but not the CL. So sales were not astounding, I assume and now it is discontinued.  Porsche 911 is like the Leica M, the CL should have been like the Boxter. I had a Boxter, it was fun and a very fine car. I bought it because it was well marketed and the promotions excited me with the idea that I could afford a good, though smaller Porsche.  

Leica allowed the CL to die and In my opinion that was simply a dumb thing. Enough of my rant.  I, like many others have said will enjoy my CL until it falls apart.

George

Charter Sustaining Member LHSA

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, GFW2-SCUSA said:

So why didn't this camera sell like hot cakes?

This is a great question.

I think two things happened -

(1) it was the T Leica wanted to succeed - they released three versions of it (granted, one was only a facelift), and the CL was released last (effectively, a TL2 with a built in EVF and M look-a-like body).  I’m not sure that the CL was where Leica wanted to go and the TL2 didn’t capture people’s attention (it might have if the original T was as good as the TL2); and

(2) Leica occupies a very particular place in the market.  Either, like you, a parent or grandparent owned a Leica, in which case you were already familiar with the brand values, or you came to it later.  For those who came later, generally they need a passion for photography and they need money (I’m ignoring the bling factor). In my own case, I have been immersed in photography my entire life - first with a bellows rangefinder and playing with my father’s Retina and Voigtlander cameras, later with my first camera, a Canonet, then with Nikons.  My father graduated to his OM1 system.

I only came to Leica when my beloved Nikon film cameras died and, in the case of my F5, were stolen.  I decided the time was right for digital.  I looked at a digital back for my Hasselblad and was put off by the price.  I had insurance money, and looked at the Canon 5D II (a baffling computer quite remote from photography as I knew it) and was told Nikon wasn’t in the game at that time.  Then I heard about the M9.

Back on topic, a person who understands the Leica approach to photography and can afford the premium (even for a CL2) is going to want the real thing - an M camera.  While people love their CL2 cameras, and I love my TL2, the M is the real thing and if you can afford it, that’s what you go for.  Your Leica market is well healed photographers who want something a bit different - wandering into a Leica boutique, it’s the M camera they want to look at, not another APS-C camera, and an expensive one at that.

Edited April 8, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Mr.Prime]

The marketing of the CL certainly didn’t reach me, I never heard of it.

I came to Leica for the Barnack, then when I found the rangefinder so hard to see I got an M3 and then for wider angle lenses the M4. That resulted in the purchase of m mount lenses. This was my entry point. For digital I wanted to use these lenses but the digital M was too expensive and only then, from this forum, did I find out about the CL. It was the right price, the right size and the EVF was great. I’d never have found out about the CL otherwise. Coming from the film Leica’s the CL interface was not working for me so I sold it. I had some regret but I waited for the CL2. Now we know where that story ended, so now I will be looking at Fuji, probably the X-e4

 

why didn’t they market the CL ?

[NigelG]

11 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

You mean like the superb Sigma 45mm? Doesn't look bad at all to me. Leica is not the only game in town.

.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Notwithstanding the fact that I know from this thread that the TL2/CL is dead (!) I just bought my first lenses since the 11-23 which I use for walk-around architecture photos on the TL2 with the tilting Visoflex 020.

I picked up a sigma 18-50 2.8 which seems v light and has much closer focus/wider aperture that the TL 18-56 (for about $600 / £450 new) and the new 90 f2.8 full frame I series Sigma. This is a tiny, metal bodied lens which focusses quickly even on the TL2 and gives me IMHO the smallest/lightest autofocus effective 135mm camera ever...

Just checked - apart from the hood it's the same length as the 45mm - just 62mm long but a bit fatter!

Edited April 8, 2022 by NigelG
grammar!

[Le Chef]

I think if Leica had thought more about the new buyer (affluent phone users with an interest in photography as a memory-sharing tool) for the T they would have made it with a fixed 18mm lens and would have spent more time with the UI and Bluetooth connectivity. If that had worked a T-Vario would have been an interesting step. The CL always felt like a camera that was much closer to the “tree” than the T and more appealing to traditional Leica customers wanting something smaller, lighter and more flexible/forgiving in use.

[lct]

If the Porsche Boxster can be compared to the Leica SL2-S, the CL reminds me of the Porsche 914 or the Dino Ferrari sort of. Is there simply a market for expensive crop cameras? Crop yes, expensive yes but crop + expensive whom ever succeeded in that?  Leica did it with the M8 but it was an M camera and the first digital one at that. Pixii? 

[Simone_DF]

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, having decided to discontinue the APS-C format, do you see Leica developing a new line with a small SL camera and small SL lenses?  Or will they develop a small SL for people to use with Sigma lenses?  That would seem strange to me.  But then, leaving the M and SL as the only full frame systems might be odd too - no idea what’s going on in their minds.  Perhaps the SL needs to be more accessible to fill the gap?

Maybe Leica should just admit they completely misunderstood the market big time with their "maximum performance no matter the size" strategy. If they want to keep selling the L mount I don't see like they have a choice. Big, heavy cameras don't sell. Big, heavy lenses don't sell either.

That must be one of the reasons we still haven't seen the 24 and 21mm lenses we were promised for 2020.

What do you mean by "more accessible"? Price? The SL2-s is 4500€, and they went as far as bundling it with the rebadged Sigma 24-70 AND they'll also throw in a M-L adapter for free out of desperation.

[Simone_DF]

3 hours ago, Le Chef said:

I don’t know how much smaller Leica could make an SL3. If sensor sizes keep increasing and the desire for more technical aids like focus tracking, eye tracking and facial recognition keeps increasing, then you will need larger batteries and better cooling to function effectively.

The Sony A7C is full frame. It can be done.

I don't expect the SL3 to be that small of course. I think it will be more or less like a Panasonic S5 / Sony A7V size. I wish we could get a Q sized camera with L mount, but I doubt we'll see one.

https://bit.ly/3reVPnr
 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The 

[IkarusJohn]

9 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Maybe Leica should just admit they completely misunderstood the market big time with their "maximum performance no matter the size" strategy. If they want to keep selling the L mount I don't see like they have a choice. Big, heavy cameras don't sell. Big, heavy lenses don't sell either.

That must be one of the reasons we still haven't seen the 24 and 21mm lenses we were promised for 2020.

What do you mean by "more accessible"? Price? The SL2-s is 4500€, and they went as far as bundling it with the rebadged Sigma 24-70 AND they'll also throw in a M-L adapter for free out of desperation.

Big heavy lenses and cameras don’t sell?  Desperation in dumping the SL2-s?  The SL is designed for image quality, pure and simple.  Pick up a Fuji GFX …

The physics requires lenses of given focal lengths and apertures for full frame will be a given size.  If you want a 180 or 280 mm lens in full frame, it will be big, whoever makes it.  I agree that Leica has made the strategic decision that the SL lenses will be the size they need to be to achieve the image quality required.  Similarly, as I understand it, the SL is the size it is because that is what was required.  I don’t think they started out saying “this camera needs to be big”.  The Summicrons are interesting, as they have made the decision to use the same barrel size for all focal lengths.  I assume that is a cost decision.

 

[Simone_DF]

29 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Big heavy lenses and cameras don’t sell?  Desperation in dumping the SL2-s?  The SL is designed for image quality, pure and simple.  Pick up a Fuji GFX …

Apple and pears. The GFX is a medium format camera, not a full frame camera, it sells well because it's playing in the medium format field and attracting full frame users who want the bonus of a medium format sensor without the size penalty of the average medium format camera. Also size wise the GFX is about the same as the SL, with the sensor real estate bonus.

Yup, desperation in trying to sell the SL. If a camera sells well, there's no need to add incentive after incentive, that's marketing 101 and a big red flag. Panasonic had the same issue, it was resolved only when the smaller S5 was released.

You're pointing to extremes with the 180 and 280mm. Lenses in a normal range, say 21 to 135, don't have to be so big. Look at the SL APO 28 and 35, they are REALLY chunky for their focal lenght - although in this case the decision to use the same form factor for all SL lenses is to blame.

[tritentrue]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

The physics requires lenses of given focal lengths and apertures for full frame will be a given size.  If you want a 180 or 280 mm lens in full frame, it will be big, whoever makes it. 

Say what?

Lumix S 70-300mm (L-mount):  790 grams

Nikon 300mm PF:  754 grams

Nikon 70-300mm AF-P:  680 grams

Canon 70-300mm IS USM II:  759 grams

Canon RF 100-400mm:  635 grams

Leica SL 90-280mm:  1850 grams (claimed)

Edited April 9, 2022 by tritentrue
Add lens

[lct]

Hehe there is a physic life outside of Leica SL's . Just kidding but R4 to R7 cameras were compact, Olympus OM1's were even more compact, Sony A7's are compact nowadays, etc. etc. and all those cameras did and still sport 180mm and 280mm lenses up to 600mm and more. I have no experience with the latter but my Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 and 280/4 work fine on my Sony A7's as well as they did on my R4s, both compact cameras .

[IkarusJohn]

All very true - what were we discussing?

[adan]

3 hours ago, tritentrue said:

Say what?

Lumix S 70-300mm (L-mount):  790 grams

Nikon 300mm PF:  754 grams

Nikon 70-300mm AF-P:  680 grams

Canon 70-300mm IS USM II:  759 grams

Canon RF 100-400mm:  635 grams

Leica SL 90-280mm:  1850 grams (claimed)

Out of curiosity, what are the apertures of those lenses? The Leica SL 90-280 is f/2.8-f/4.0

Out of curiosity, how much of those lenses are made of light-weight composites or polycarbonate plastic?

Out of curiousity, what is the Leica SL 90-280 made of, primarily. Metal barrel? Brass? Aluminum?

What is the performance wide-open?

Canon's top-of-the-line equivalent zoom is the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM - weighs 1050g, while still being a stop slower throughout the entire zoom range than the Leica 90-280 SL. And with more color fringing.

If light weight is your only standard, you can even get a Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III that weighs 480g. Assuming you also want color fringing galore - and a plastic barrel. (I know - I sold 'em, I tried 'em, I tended to advise anyone with serious interest to get the heavier (but better) Canon IS USM or L IS.)

A cr*p lens that is lightweight is still a cr*p lens.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tritentrue]

The discussion was about size and weight, not aperture.

As for the inference that they are "crap" lenses, I've owned all but the Lumix S, currently still own the Canon 100-400mm.  Not one is a "crap" lens.  The 300mm PF, with an f/4 aperture, compares favorably with the 90-280mm in terms of image quality.

Think about it for a minute, if you can:  how many CL users do really think want to carry around a two-kilogram-plus lens (deployed weight) for extra reach?  APS-C is what this thread is about, where weight is likely to be a consideration.  And maybe Leica's reluctance to produce anything longer than the 55-135mm for APS-C is part of what has contributed to the demise of the line.

Nice try at further derailing the thread, though.  Facts, not pejoratives, please.