Leica APS-C -- No more!

[Louis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Foxtwo said:

Is this the same guy that you talked into dropping the CL from the product line? 😉

No comment from him about why they can’t compete in the APSC market?

Again, looking at the worldwide economic situation, I’m not sure that the low to medium end consumer camera market is going to be profitable for quite awhile.

They say, they were not selling the APSC system well! I believe if Leica was more organized,  had a better marketing strategy;  and if these cameras were sold with more reasonable price,  they could be sold much better; Leica could make more profits  and people at Leica would still be working;  and, users would be much happier with a popular system!

But they believe APSC system is going to be replaced by FF everywhere and they are working on a small FF camera!… 

Well, what can I say…..

Edited May 25, 2022 by Louis

[Advertisement]

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

[Louis]

6 hours ago, Kim Dahl said:

Hi Louis, do you think Leica means both the Leica CL / TL2 camera AND the TL lenses.  The lenses will have a much longer "life" because they can be used on SL?  
 

Thank you 🤗for you can tell something for - Leica obviously does not think we should know. Leica should be ashamed of themselves

They just say the time for APSC is over and everyone is going to move to FF, but they will service the system as long as they have remaining parts that you should pay for. From my understanding, the new system they are working for would have a L mount!

But you never know with Leica; they don’t seem very organized!… I, personally, don’t trust them much anymore…. 

 

[nicci78]

20 hours ago, rob_w said:

Ha, ha!  I don't care what the camera looks like but what the photos look like.

Really ? Don’t care about how you house looks like ? Your computer ? Your car ? Your neighbourhood? Your watch ? Etc…

Can appreciate photos aesthetic but not camera one ? 
 

You should pay attention. We are surrounded by ugly things because some greedy guys put into the mind of the majority that beauty don’t count. It should. We can make pretty stuff at reasonable price. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by nicci78

[nicci78]

19 minutes ago, Louis said:

But they believe APSC system is going to be replaced by FF everywhere and they are working on a small FF camera!… 

Weirdly every other manufacturers thinks the contrary. 
They tried the 100% full frame.  But 24x36 lenses size will prevent such future to happen. 
 

In video world their “full frame” is Super 35. Which is APS-C. 
And their half size is Super 16 which is m4/3  

 

[lct]

27 minutes ago, Louis said:

they are working on a small FF camera!

May i ask if your Wetzlar contact confirmed this to you?

[Louis]

1 minute ago, lct said:

May i ask if your Wetzlar contact confirmed this to you?

Yes; smaller than SL, with L mount!

But frankly, I don’t know what to believe from Leica anymore!…. 

[rob_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

59 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Really ? Don’t care about how you house looks like ?

Really.  It's not as if the competition is ugly - although the Nikon advertisement posted earlier shows a camera I would not want to own.  Today's Nikon, Canon and Sony all design quite attractive and functional cameras, easy to hold and operate, with various pros and cons.  In some ways more attractive to my eye than the slab sided SL design.  And some of Leica's elegance comes from using unlabelled multi-modal controls which look nice but are not that practical to use.

As I said, I am not in the luxury market.  I don't want a Rolex;  I know that people pay huge premiums for those brands but I cannot relate to it.

Edited May 25, 2022 by rob_w

[Louis]

BTW, with all the bad news we hear from Leica in regard to APSC system, I wonder how long the CL/T/TL2 forums and galleries in LUF would last!…

[nicci78]

Really. If everybody care and want beautiful objects. Everything will be well designed. 
That’s why I care and refuse to buy ugly stuff. Life is too short to be surrounded by them. 

[wlaidlaw]

Part of Leica's history is built on their original beautiful Barnack cameras, particularly the early short body models. When I am out with my Great Uncle's 1934 Model 3 in its gleaming original gloss black enamel, lots of folk comment: "What a lovely looking little camera. "  Usually followed by - "How many megapixels does it have?"  I had a very brisk discussion with an airport security monkey, about my inability to "switch on" my M4. 

Wilson

[raadoo]

47 minutes ago, Louis said:

Yes; smaller than SL, with L mount!

But frankly, I don’t know what to believe from Leica anymore!…. 

Would be funny if they did and called it a CL2. 😂

[charlesphoto99]

19 hours ago, adan said:

Hah! A little ad/marketing campaign I came up with, for my Commercial Photography class 45 years ago (the instructor insisted we produce finished work, not just photos).

Le Chef is in marketing. He may recognize the inspiration: Doyle Dane Bernbach's campaign selling the VW Beetle to the U.S.

(Leica content - photo of layout made with M10/75 APO-Summicron)

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!

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I never thought of pre-F4 Nikon's to be ugly at all. Picture below taken with that exact body and lens in your 'ad.' (actually it was an all black F2AS). 

[rob_w]

QED re the Nikon.  And maybe that is the whole point. 

I guess I am saying the appearance of the camera is not my first concern.  I like the design of the CL or I would not have purchased it.  I like the M, the R4-7 and the R8-9.  I don't much like the SL.  The competition is much of a muchness.  I think the Canon R5 and R6 are nicer designs than the SL and a bit more elegant than the Sony.  Sony have a commitment to 'small and light' which matters a lot to me, and there's not enough difference in their camera designs to influence my choice.  I would not continue using a camera that did not meet my needs, just because I like the design.  Though I can imagine there are people who do that.

PS fab photo by the way!

Edited May 25, 2022 by rob_w

[lx1713]

I sympathise with those who feel abandoned by Leica but personally I don’t think that’s their position.

I think they are saying: For now, Leica will concentrate on the full frame sensor products. There may be future APS-C CL/TL cameras. Just not for the foreseeable future.

1. So all the current TL lenses and bodies will be discontinued until the market turns positive for an APS-C sensor line because keeping them updated takes up precious resources.

2. It remains an L mount so future developments can easily bring about a fresh APS-C line with a mature FF L mount range of lenses that work well with it. Leica isn't delivering FF lenses fast enough against Sony, Canon and Nikon for example.

That line could be a cine centric line of cameras or something else. So to me, Leica's doing away with niches that doesn't make sense to them. The SL line can do both full frame and APS-C  stills for example. It could be they want to re-develop the APS-C(TL lenses) into a AF cine-centric lens line. That line would be a fundamentally different way of working with AF and manual focusing compared to stills AF and manual focus capture. Canon has specialised AF video lenses so why not Leica. Its just easier to do precision AF with APSC compared to FF.

Don't forget Leica is fighting a lot of big boys and their Cine line of lens might just get obsolete overnight by better AF that doesn't need a focus puller.

[lct]

I would not hold my breath. Expensive APS only cameras are a thing of the past.

Edited May 25, 2022 by lct

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, Louis said:

Yes; smaller than SL, with L mount!

That makes perfect sense: a Q with an L-Mount. Give it 60MP and it will out-resolve the TL2 and CL in APS-C mode.

They could release this camera right now. The problem is lenses. They'll need to offer some compact full-frame lenses that are "real Leica", even if they aren't made in Germany.

[adan]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Really ? Don’t care about how you house looks like ? Your computer ? Your car ? Your neighbourhood? Your watch ? Etc…

Can appreciate photos aesthetic but not camera one ?

I suspect this is the difference between creators vs. consumers of beauty.

For me a camera is just a tool to create beauty (or at least art and stories, which are not always visually beautiful) - like a hammer, a saw, a paint brush, a palette-knife. My computer is another tool, and my house is just a place to use those tools. Even my neighborhood was chosen for functionality (close to work, and the other amenities and lifestyle of a city center).

I do look for "elegance" in my tools, in the engineering or scientific sense:

- An engineering solution may be considered elegant if it uses a non-obvious method to produce a solution which is highly effective and simple. (I got high marks for the elegance of my computer code, in high-school math classes. )

- Elegance is a prized quality in science that is associated with simplicity and explanatory power.

If you want to know what working artists surround themselves with, it is not usually beauty (although there may be a certain intellectual elegance in their messy madness):

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/marco-anelli-artist-studios-new-york-1874775

https://www.keithtaylorphoto.com/here-we-go-again/w-eugene-smiths-darkroom/

I have a 1600-page encyclopedia of the history of motion pictures. It lists hundreds of important and influential actors, directors, cinematographers, art directors, producers, writers, inventors, and other creators. And their tools, techniques and processes, where especially noteworthy or useful (beauty is not a factor, except in the results).

There is only one (1) entry for a consumer of motion pictures (beautiful or otherwise) - the professional, influential, paid critic Pauline Kael. Any other consumers of movies are just "the box office" - and there is not even an entry for that. The entertainers make history and are remembered - the entertained, I'm afraid, are mostly forgettable, except in the mass.

BTW - what is a "watch?" My digital Leicas have clocks in them. Haven't encumbered myself with a watch for decades.

[nicci78]

Elegant, beautiful, well designed etc… everything that are pleasant to the eye or the hand is what we need. 
 

Nowadays we are making ugly pipelines, so we want to hide them underground. 
In Roman times, aqueducs were beautiful and part of the scenery. Aren’t there millions of tourist going to visit the pont du Gard ?  
Amsterdam has a unique and beautiful architectures. But they are mostly made of warehouses !!! But attractive ones. 
Today who wants to visit our Steel or zinc ones ?? 
We live in a time where we let bad but cheap design/architecture reigns. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[elambo]

Guy: I place function over form, but that's just me.
Others: Your personal opinion is wrong.

Who wouldn't prefer an aesthetically pleasing camera, but would anyone prefer it over a less attractive camera which takes superior photos?

With watches, aesthetics is the point. A $10 wristwatch can be more accurate than a $10,010 watch. It's a timepiece. A piece that tells time. Yet, it's not why we buy them. Everyone's phone tells dead-accurate time. So, with watches, anything past $10 is something other than telling you whether or not you're late to lunch. I've invested in some expensive watches, none of them for their accuracy.

Anyone who buys a Richard Mille isn't concerned about the spinning hands. Professional photographers are submitting photos of their subjects, not their cameras.

[elambo]

21 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

We live in a time where we let bad but cheap design/architecture reigns. 

We do, but the importance of architecture is subjective. You feel this way -- but not everyone cares about design.