Leica APS-C -- No more!

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

It's an extension of the thought that they are retrenching to focus on what has been successful, the M and Q. 

Perhaps the future of the L mount for Leica is the rumour of a Q-L

Ah yes the rumor of the Q-L. It is not the first time i hear of this but i find it a bit strange. The Q is not an interchangeable lens camera but a fixed lens camera so if Leica wanted to design a new camera with interchangeable lenses, it would use either the M mount or the L mount since the Q mount does not exist. Would be another M-mount (EVF-M?) or another L-mount (compact SL?) camera then. Makes sense?

[Le Chef]

What might make sense would be to phase out the current SL2/S as it appears not to be selling well, hence all the promotions Leica is having to run. This kind of pattern is usually a big clue that any company doing this has problems with over production and limited demand. A significant price drop might help but the camera is still overweight and short on performance vs rivals.

Perhaps Leica could build an SL2 with a much more powerful processor that would give better autofocus, and a better sensor to at least catch up.

A new SL2/S would ideally put the current SL2 into a much smaller, lighter package that would have broader appeal and help transfer TL/CL owners to FF while allowing them to continue using TL lenses if they wished..

[lct]

Why not but the future of TL lenses can only be a full frame camera with crop mode to me. APS-only cameras are behind us.

[nicci78]

Fun facts/history hiccups : 

- analog CL was the only one of his kind. 
- digital CL is also a loner. 
- analog SL2 was the last Leicaflex. 
- will digital SL2 suffer the same fate ?  

We may need a reboot of L-mount with a middle ground between CL and SL2. 
 

After stopping TL/CL line up, Leica cannot continue with a huge SL3. It needs something smaller, lighter and cheaper. 
Just like Panasonic revived its Lumix S line up with S5. Without the latter, Panasonic would had certainly dropped out of full frame mirrorless business. 
 

NB : anything with an L in its name seems doomed at Wetzlar. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by nicci78

[IkarusJohn]

A bit off topic, but what is the main driver for future development?

I get the disappointment over the demise of APS-C.  I have a TL2, and like the form factor.  It seems, though, that Leica has decided its future (a niche at best) is not in APS-C.  If they were profitable, they’d keep making them.

So, let’s assume Leica’s future is full frame.  For those who own APS-C Leicas, what future Leica camera would interest you?  The SL cameras have had a pretty clear philosophy - the best lenses without the compromises of the M system - no size limitation, larger mount, AF, software corrections in camera.  The camera is its size for a reason. 

The M system is all about being compact and manual.

So, within those current options, and accepting that Leica is only interested in full frame (probably a fair assumption), what would be the drivers for a new system which meets your needs?  (Assuming that Leica will make a new camera for either M or L mount).  I’m assuming the interest is in a system, rather than a fixed lens camera (the X series effectively became the Q, moving from APS-C to full frame - rather than offering different focal lengths, Leica stuck with the one, purpose designed lens and offers cropping, a feature which has appeared in the M11, strangely).

Is size the driver? Or L mount?  If Leica made a compact SL, would that mean a new line of compact SL lenses to go with the smaller camera?  Why would Leica make a small SL just so people with TL lenses had a camera to go with them?  Permanently in crop mode, or with oversized lenses on a small body?

There won’t be an M camera which takes TL lenses.

So, apart from dumping your Leica gear in rage and frustration, what would interest CL owners here?  I can say for myself that there is no crossover for me between what I use my TL2 for and the SL system.  I originally bought the T camera to use my M lenses on an EVF body, and to have one AF lens.

[nicci78]

Since day one : launch of the Q. 
What I want is a kind of QL. Same size, full frame, compact lenses (even though not fast) and reasonably priced. 
Nobody asked for SL size stuff. Especially when used to use tiny M lenses. 
 

Instead we got CL and SL. The middle ground would have been perfect. Too perfect maybe for M sakes

Edited April 7, 2022 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am pretty sure that Leica stopped the CL just to protect the M. 

Just like they did with the analog version. 
 

Too good and too cheap. 
Eating alive M5 sales.

Ironically, M5 were just too big and ugly. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Interestingly, Leica never admit mistake. They rather giving up a whole system instead of fixing it. 
 

What killed the X ? The X typ 113 : too big and no EVF. 
No EVF were ok for compact size X2 , not for Q size X or X Vario. 
 

What killed the TL2 and CL : the lack of exciting lenses. Only slow zooms, subpar small primes and huge fixed 35mm or 60mm lenses. 
 

What killed the R ? No AF, a technology stupidly sold to the competition. 
 

[lct]

14 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

- analog SL2 was the last Leicaflex. 
- will digital SL2 suffer the same fate ?  

The big analog SL2 was followed by the big analog R3 which was followed by compact analog R4 to R7 cameras.
The big digital SL2 will be followed by the SL3 i guess but i just hope it will be as compact as my dear old R4s.

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!

 

[IkarusJohn]

8 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Since day one : launch of the Q. 
What I want is a kind of QL. Same size, full frame, compact lenses (even though not fast) and reasonably priced. 
Nobody asked for SL size stuff. Especially when used to use tiny M lenses. 
 

Instead we got CL and SL. The middle ground would have been perfect. Too perfect maybe for M sakes

Well, for obvious reasons repeated by @lct a Q camera with an interchangeable lens is a non-starter.  The Q cameras don’t have mounts. The starting point has to be a mount - that gives three choices, M mount, L mount or something new.  M mount means manual; L mount means big SL lenses, and I seriously doubt Leica will develop a new mount.

So, that logically leaves the M mount if size is the issue.  The latest M camera, the M11, looks a bit odd in that context …

[nicci78]

I know over the top SL3 replaced by mundane R3 

[nicci78]

1 minute ago, IkarusJohn said:

 The Q cameras don’t have mounts. The starting point has to be a mount - that gives three choices, M mount, L mount or something new.  M mount means manual; L mount means big SL lenses, and I seriously doubt Leica will develop a new mount

I am talking about body size : Q one is perfect.
L-mount is ok. 
M lenses work well with M-adaptor-L

 

[IkarusJohn]

1 minute ago, nicci78 said:

I am talking about body size : Q one is perfect.
L-mount is ok. 
M lenses work well with M-adaptor-L

 

I understand that size is the issue. So what mount would such a Q sized camera use, and for which lenses?  If Leica has discontinued the APS-C cameras, it is hardly like to continue making TL mount lenses - that would mean either permanent crop mode on a full frame body using your TL lenses or a tiny body on huge lenses.  Have you ever tried your CL on SL lenses?  If size is important, that is a non-starter.

So, you’d like new high quality, small  full frame lenses for this new camera … preferably cheap.

[Le Chef]

Replacement for CL would need to have a similar sized and weight body to the CL. Would preserve a 24MP output from TL lenses from a FF sensor.

[IkarusJohn]

The obvious solution would be to make such a camera in M mount - there are load of secondhand M lenses available - all compact.  There would be zero point in making a new  compact camera in L mount without new small full frame AF lenses to go with it..

[Le Chef]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The obvious solution would be to make such a camera in M mount - there are load of secondhand M lenses available - all compact.  There would be zero point in making a new  compact camera in L mount without new small full frame AF lenses to go with it..

And Leica are unlikely to have the money to develop new smaller, lighter FF L-mount lenses. M lenses only appeal to a small subset of buyers when you can have most autofocus lenses be used in manual focus mode.

[lct]

13 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The obvious solution would be to make such a camera in M mount - there are load of secondhand M lenses available - all compact.  There would be zero point in making a new  compact camera in L mount without new small full frame AF lenses to go with it..

The M mount would not help TL users i fear but the SL3 could just be more compact than the SL2. It could fit TL lenses in crop mode and smaller L lenses would not be necessary on such a body. I've been using bulky R lenses like 280/4 on my R4s with no problem at all. I could have used the Apo-Telyt 800/6.3 too but it was not pocketable enough (7 kg) .

 

[IkarusJohn]

9 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

And Leica are unlikely to have the money to develop new smaller, lighter FF L-mount lenses. M lenses only appeal to a small subset of buyers when you can have most autofocus lenses be used in manual focus mode.

Oh, I doubt that is the case - if there were the buyers for smaller, lighter full frame L mount lenses, I have no doubt Leica would make them.  But, if you look across Leica’s entire range, small, light, cheaper lenses have never been profitable for them … smaller, well made, expensive lenses haven’t been a problem.

I appreciate there is a desire among some here to paint Leica as losing money, lacking capital and in financial crisis.  I don’t share the inside knowledge of those prophets of doom.  What I see is a company narrowing its products to excellence, with minimal regard for cost - okay, that’s an over-statement, but Leica has rarely  made concessions to cost.  Even its re-badged compact cameras have been significantly more expensive than the alternatives.

I don’t believe that Leica is suffering financially - no one, apart from Andreas Kaufmann, really knows.  What is apparent is that Leica sees its market as being photographers who want high quality camera equipment, made with the Leica approach to minimalism..

[IkarusJohn]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

The M mount would not help TL users i fear but the SL3 could just be more compact than the SL2. It could fit TL lenses in crop mode and smaller L lenses would not be necessary on such a body. I've been using bulky R lenses like 280/4 on my R4s with no problem at all. I could have used the Apo-Telyt 800/6.3 too but it was not pocketable enough (7 kg) .

The TL lenses will last as long as the APS-C cameras they were made for.  I don’t see Leica making a new camera to suit TL lenses - they can be used on existing CL and TL cameras, and SL cameras in crop mode.

Leica may well make a smaller SL (SL3 or SLc, for compact), but I don’t see them making an SL camera which doesn’t handle and work perfectly with SL lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Le Chef]

You’re making an assumption that smaller and lighter = cheaper. If you look at the car industry that’s the reverse. Want to take out 20kgs from your Porsche? Well the carbon fiber, lightweight glass and use of titanium will cost you a fortune. But there are people who will pay a premium for lightness. Bugatti scoffed at Bentleys as overweight lorries and argued that they were poorly engineered because the were overweight. The skill was making something both light and strong. Colin “Just add lightness” Chapman was mostly on the right path.