Leica APS-C -- No more!

[MJB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

The thing that worries me most is not the discussion about sensor formats. I find that fairly irrelevant for photographic results, at least in the range between 1" and ff sensors. Most enthused results are a placebo effect IMO. 
The thing is that Leica is. abandoning the basic philosophy of the brand : "small camera - great results" The CL is the camera that comes closest. to a digital version of the Barnacks. 
Now they are striving to be competitive in a. technology-driven rat race, driven by consumerism. More megapixels (why - has anybody seen a better photograph caused by an increase in megapixels?), bigger cameras, bloated lenses, surrealistic prices, all in the name of technical perfection that is only visible in review graphs, not in the intrinsic quality of the resulting photographs.

This way they are setting themselves up to be gobbled up by one of the big boys, as the prestige brand name.

Well said. 

The thing is, at this point, digital cameras are all so good that sensor size and resolution have become more about bragging rights than actual performance.  I've gotten very good results from APS-C sensors, M4/3 sensors, 1" sensors, and even smaller! But I think that you're spot on that somewhere around 1" seems to be the cut-off where diminishing returns start to set in. What sold me on the CL, and the reason that it remains my personal all time favorite digital camera (so far), is not the image quality so much as the user experience and ergonomics - of course the output is very good, too, but you can get similar performance from Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, and others.

What bugs me personally is that, to me, the CL represented the only "Real Leica" (whatever that even means) that was remotely affordable. I bought a very nice secondhand copy for just south of $2K - still pretty expensive for an APS-C camera, but not insane. But I look at the cost of the M cameras, and even the Q cameras, and I start to think you have to be a Saudi prince to afford this stuff. I'm sure they're good cameras, but let's be honest - the average M11 owner is not producing better images than the average Fujifilm X-E4 owner (at around 1/10th the cost!). I guess what I'm saying is that I was willing to overpay a little for the Red Dot, and the accompanying very real (IMO) superior user experience, but if Leica is determined to be the kind of company that prioritizes special edition collector's models and frankly kind of weird celebrity endorsements (e.g., Daniel Craig, Lenny Kravitz, etc.) over just building a brilliant-at-the-basics camera that some regular people can actually afford, well, I guess that's their choice to make. Thankfully I still have my CL, and have no plans to get rid of it, but it is kind of a bummer to see Leica jump ship on the L-Mount (at least the TL-variant) after such a short time.

[Advertisement]

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

[MJB]

4 minutes ago, frame-it said:

which explains dumping APS-C and possibly the S Line.

im guessing Leica will make a 60mp Q-L FF camera with a 30mp APSC mode for the TL lenses, and maybe, just maybe a mirrorless S in a new body similar to an SL2 body

Another really good point. I actually think the success of the Q-line was what ultimately killed the TL/CL line. 

I don't expect that Leica has given up on the L-Mount so much as the have given up on APS-C. It would make a lot of sense to capitalize on the success of the Q-line (which is really just an evolution of the APS-C X-line) and develop a QL, or a full-frame L-mount camera. And, in a way, that could fulfill the role of a CL2, if the crop-mode resolution exceeded the CL's resolution, and you additionally got weather-sealing and IBIS, etc. That would actually be an attractive proposition, if one was already invested in TL glass.

The only thing about that is, where does it leave the M-line? I mean, if there were a Q-series ILC, you sort of wonder what the relevance of an M camera even is anymore. The brilliance of the TL/CL-line was that it solidly preserved the aspirational nature of the M cameras, as there was no other way to get a Leica full-frame ILC.

[lct]

43 minutes ago, frame-it said:

which explains dumping APS-C and possibly the S Line.

im guessing Leica will make a 60mp Q-L FF camera with a 30mp APSC mode for the TL lenses, and maybe, just maybe a mirrorless S in a new body similar to an SL2 body

S is prestige enough to stay and Q are selling well so i don't see any significant change there. Same for M cameras including possibly an EVF-M. Remain L cameras. Can only be 60 or 100mp IMHO and they should cover both FF and crop formats. Only mystery (to me) is will the SL3 be smaller enough or will Leica launch a special compact L camera. My best (or worse) bet is a smaller SL3 but i have no info whatsoever from Leica.

Edited May 23, 2022 by lct

[charlesphoto99]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

 The CL is the camera that comes closest. to a digital version of the Barnacks. 
 

Until one puts a lens on it, that is (excepting the 18mm and perhaps the 23). Then it becomes a digital version of a dslr that isn't even full frame. Sure it weighs less than an M, and has AF, but that's about it. The lenses are just too damn big and expensive. That's the true lasting legacy and popularity of the M system - small lenses. Many years ago I sold a Canon 35 1.4 lens to another local well known photographer as I abandoned that system. He asked me why I shoot with M's. I showed him my 35 1.4 for the Leica and explained how I could carry four M lenses for every one of those Canon lenses. 

Anyway, my CL will probably be up for sale soon. I just find myself grabbing an M heading out the door instead of it. The CL is nicer for skiing though.....

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

No idea.  

Surely, the more relevant question is,  why would Leica compete in that market?  Those makers will have their own reasons for what they make and try to sell, but their pricing is quite different from Leica’s - Leica has never been cheap.  If every other camera maker is pushing APS-C, that leaves little room for Leica, and m4/3 really has nowhere to go.

Your comment doesn't make sense. Why would Leica compete in ANY market, except the M where it's the only player?

Other camera makers are also aggressively pushing other products like full frame. Should Leica also drop the SL line? Stick with just the M and the Q?

M4/3 has a strong foot in the video segment that APS-C doesn't really cater to, and I don't see that changing in the near future, the Panasonic GH5 is a popular camera if you are into video

[Le Chef]

One of the things that works well with the CL is the TL line of lenses which are compact and not heavy with good optical performance (11-23, 35, 60, and 55-135 being excellent). It gives the setup a nice easily manageable balance.

Regardless of sensor size it would be nice to see Leica refocus on compactness as Barnack did. I’m a huge fan of Lotus and Colin Chapman’s philosophy of “Just add lightness”. I imagine for a number of people compactness and lightness are quite appealing and worth paying a premium for.

In addition the controls of the T/TL/TL2/CL are clever in how you can configure them to suit your functional needs without the carbuncled appearance of mainstream cameras which make a bag of M&M’s look minimalist.

These are some really good potential legacy aspects to the CL/TL system that I hope Leica don’t forget in whatever the deliver next.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

 

 

Regardless of sensor size it would be nice to see Leica refocus on compactness as Barnack did. I’m a huge fan of Lotus and Colin Chapman’s philosophy of “Just add lightness”. I imagine for a number of people compactness and lightness are quite appealing and worth paying a premium for.

I

I am not a fan of Lotus "just add lightness". It very nearly killed me when a brand new 62B had a rear suspension failure at around 180 MPH. Three months in hospital followed by 6 months in rehab. A similar failure killed poor Jimmy Clark.

Wilson

[FrozenInTime]

I will keep my TL2 , CL and 35/1.4 , 18-56 lenses ; they will continue to be top performers.

The TL APS-C system however did seem just one more lens or body away from perfection.

The SL full frame system is just too large and heavy for me , and thats before using SL AF primes let alone zooms; a two body carry is unimaginable.

I think now that Fuji wins the game:

Weather sealed system lenses and Voigtlander providing compact fast native lenses like the 23/1.2 fill that gap that M and TL lenses could not.

Fuji also stuck the course iterating the X100 into the X100V ( weather sealing , back button AF, built in close focus and optical viewfinder ). If it gets 40 Mpixels and IBIS at the next turn it's lead will be unassailable.

[adan]

2 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Regardless of sensor size it would be nice to see Leica refocus on compactness as Barnack did. I’m a huge fan of Lotus and Colin Chapman’s philosophy of “Just add lightness”. I imagine for a number of people compactness and lightness are quite appealing and worth paying a premium for.

Leica seems to be working on that, overall. Or at least aware of the need.

- the M10, of course, finally managed to squeeze the digital Leicas down to very close to the size of the film Ms, or at least the M6ttl/M7.

- the M11(black) retains that size, and knocks 100-130g off the body-weight (aluminum top plate).

- in a Zoom! seminar last summer, Peter Karbe said the next direction for M lenses was size/weight reduction, using (unspecified) new optical technologies.

To some extent, as digital sensors revealed the weaknesses of lenses what did just fine on the Jello-coating of 35mm film, Leica and other lens makers fell into the Zeiss philosophy - "We will make the optics as good as possible, regardless of size." Case in point - Zeiss 21mm f/2.8.

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-2821-en.pdf

Superb, but huge compared even to comparable SLR lenses from others (90mm long - plus 45mm distance to film plane), and 85mm external diameter, compared to Nikon and Canon 20mm f/2.8s (64mm/74mm diameter) or the Leica M-RF 21mm f/2.8 equivalents (62mm/58mm diameter).

Now, I don't know what that means regarding an even smaller "Barnack-sized" digital Leica - especially if the L-mount is required. Recall that the Barnacks' size did have their own - inconveniences. "Any viewfinder you want - so long as it's 50mm," lens mount only 39mm diameter, and so on. They also were discontinued - it just took longer, at the pace of mid-20th-century technology.

I certainly wouldn't argue with an R4-sized "SL3." Especially if it deletes the "prism" hump on top. Maybe dump video also (requires larger heat sink, speakers, microphones), as Leica has done since the M10.

...............

Personally, I don't like modal controls ("turn this generic wheel while pressing that generic button"). At least for the primary picture-taking tools (shutter speed, aperture, probably ISO). I want marked, dedicated dials for those - another of the many reasons I walked away from the SLRs of 2001, to a Leica M.

And I don't seem to be alone in that regard - Fuji gets it, and so does Nikon (intermittently) with their Df and Z fc.

Modal controls are not a universal good - just one preference. And probably not necessary for a "Barnack-sized" Leica - just label the two existing (CL) dials with dedicated numbers, and add a 3rd dial (or touchscreen) for "everything else."

Edited May 23, 2022 by adan

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, frame-it said:

which explains dumping APS-C and possibly the S Line.

im guessing Leica will make a 60mp Q-L FF camera with a 30mp APSC mode for the TL lenses, and maybe, just maybe a mirrorless S in a new body similar to an SL2 body

I guess the size of the Q camera is appealing, but otherwise it has little relevance to this discussion.  It isn’t a a system camera with interchangeable lenses, the lens and sensor are dedicated, and the lens has a leaf shutter.

[Le Chef]

3 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I am not a fan of Lotus "just add lightness". It very nearly killed me when a brand new 62B had a rear suspension failure at around 180 MPH. Three months in hospital followed by 6 months in rehab. A similar failure killed poor Jimmy Clark.

Wilson

Understood. That in the days of slide-rules went too far. These days with all the analytical tools you can get close to the line without crossing it. Race car manufacturers are still obsessed with removing weight and some of that thinking might be applicable to camera design.

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Your comment doesn't make sense. Why would Leica compete in ANY market, except the M where it's the only player?

Other camera makers are also aggressively pushing other products like full frame. Should Leica also drop the SL line? Stick with just the M and the Q?

M4/3 has a strong foot in the video segment that APS-C doesn't really cater to, and I don't see that changing in the near future, the Panasonic GH5 is a popular camera if you are into video

It competes where people are prepared to pay the premium for Leica products.

[Le Chef]

2 hours ago, adan said:

Modal controls are not a universal good - just one preference. And probably not necessary for a "Barnack-sized" Leica - just label the two existing (CL) dials with dedicated numbers, and add a 3rd dial (or touchscreen) for "everything else."

And then redesign all the L and TL lenses to have Aperture rings.

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, Le Chef said:

One of the things that works well with the CL is the TL line of lenses which are compact and not heavy with good optical performance (11-23, 35, 60, and 55-135 being excellent). It gives the setup a nice easily manageable balance.

Regardless of sensor size it would be nice to see Leica refocus on compactness as Barnack did. I’m a huge fan of Lotus and Colin Chapman’s philosophy of “Just add lightness”. I imagine for a number of people compactness and lightness are quite appealing and worth paying a premium for.

In addition the controls of the T/TL/TL2/CL are clever in how you can configure them to suit your functional needs without the carbuncled appearance of mainstream cameras which make a bag of M&M’s look minimalist.

These are some really good potential legacy aspects to the CL/TL system that I hope Leica don’t forget in whatever the deliver next.

This is a good point, I think.

The TL2 and the SL, in my experience, differentiate themselves by having what you need available, where you need it in a logical, adaptable manner.  Put those cameras side by side with any competitor, and the Leica paradigm is immediately apparent.  Whether others see things that way is another issue.  

For those who want a lower cost camera, aren’t bothered by the advantages of a larger sensor (or don’t think there is an advantage), the Leica premium is probably a deciding factor.  I don’t know the sales figures, but I suspect that is the reason for the demise of the TL/CL line.

For those interested in full frame, AF, and maybe switching from dSLR systems, the SL cameras are limited - the Canons have faster and apparently better AF, etc etc.  For any technically minded spec reader, the SL cameras probably don’t justify the expense either judging by many comments on this forum.  But if you get what Leica is doing, the SL is a superb camera.

I think the M cameras do share the less is more philosophy.  That’s why I find the M11 so strange.

I agree that sensor size doesn’t matter only to a point - it does make a difference.

Edited May 23, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[elambo]

6 hours ago, MJB said:

What bugs me personally is that, to me, the CL represented the only "Real Leica" (whatever that even means) that was remotely affordable.

Affordability is always relative to the specific buyer, but in my case the CL was the only camera on the market that checked *all* the boxes. If I were buying today and it weren't an option I'm honestly not sure what else I'd get. I suppose I'd be making a compromise in one way or another. I was ok spending $3k because the cost merits the images and shooting experience.

Edited May 23, 2022 by elambo

[M.piras]

1 hour ago, elambo said:

Affordability is always relative to the specific buyer, but in my case the CL was the only camera on the market that checked *all* the boxes. If I were buying today and it weren't an option I'm honestly not sure what else I'd get. I suppose I'd be making a compromise in one way or another. I was ok spending $3k because the cost merits the images and shooting experience.

is this the leica of luxury and iconic images? if the new partnership is real i think will sell all my leica stuff included film cameras and move  to something else (i’ve aleeady done with hasselblad since made the partnership with Oppo) you understand what could means be on a commitment and  find some “youngster” pretending to be “professional” because of using an oppo with hasselblad engine or leica “whatever”xiaomi ? already happened to me years ago with huawei p20. Magazines, very often are more interested to free photos than good photos, hiding behind “it’s made with leica phone”…

 

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!

[lct]

Why should Leica stay away from smartphones? Not sure to see the issue.

[FrozenInTime]

Imagine what a Leica smart phone camera with a viewfinder would be like to use ; Huawei did .... but more than imagination is needed in reality.

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!

Edited May 23, 2022 by FrozenInTime

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[elambo]

So, don't buy the Leica smartphone then?

I don't know anything about Hasselblad's partnerships, but I've used their modern cameras (which, I suppose, were under that partnership) and the images were every bit as "Hasselblad" as I'd expect.

Enlighten me: down what slope has the company slid since their partnership, and why. And more relevant here, what are we expecting Leica to do when we discuss the negative risks of a partnership?

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I agree that sensor size doesn’t matter only to a point - it does make a difference.

Yes - but the relevance of that difference is highly disputable.