A plea for simplicity

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean Reid’s latest article compares highlight clipping with the SL, SL2 & SL2-S, all in controlled conditions.  Not surprisingly, the SL2-S comes out best, but the SL also performs well.  Granted there are other “improvements” to the SL2, but when it comes down to it, what do you really gain?  

It seems to me that many of the gains in Leica cameras are incremental, and of marginal benefit.  While you may see differences with cropped images, side by side, taken in controlled conditions, I do not believe anyone can look at any image and say which camera it was taken with. Perhaps with lenses, there are some you can say with confidence which lens was used, but in the majority, I doubt this very much.  I’d rather watch paint dry than look at endless croppings of images taken with different versions of the same lens; and the images of “steel rim” lenses … give me a break!

It’s the image that counts, and well over 90% of image quality has little to do with the equipment used.  But the equipment does have a huge impact on how we take pictures.

So, where am I going with this?  Well, I like Leica equipment for the quality of its manufacture (QA issues aside, and yes many Zeiss and other lenses are made just as well, if not better) and for the priority given to photography rather than technology.  But, I do wonder where it is going.

The M11 pushes the limits of handheld photography without IBIS (apparently) and it offers a lot which, to my mind, is just unnecessary - 60MP, cropping, variable resolution and its live metering being part of my concern.  The APS-C systems appear to be for the chop.  The SL system also seems to be chasing its technology tail.  To what end?  Is all this “bettering” really necessary?  I have some fine M lenses between 21mm and 75mm - each gives a different field of view, different depth of field, different out of focus treatment and in many cases a very different finger print.  All that adds to the image I try to capture, and it all adds to the process.  The camera?  It’s part of the process - has the controls and hopefully reliably captures the image I want.  I don’t need more MP; cropping rather defeats the lens selection; and I really don’t want the camera making choices for me.

I appreciate that many here do want/like all this technology.  But I hope the next SL and M11 cameras (or versions of them) have less, and just do that better at just taking pictures, with maximum photographer control; the M-A of digital cameras, if you will.  No more than 40MP, and right back to basics.  A smaller SL might also appease the angry CL users …. In the meantime, the SL does what it was always meant to do, and meets my needs very nicely.

[LeicaR10]

IkarusJohn,  Your post above IMO is spot on.  I believe Leica should have M and SL cameras that are mininalist for those like us that do not need nor want all the technology packed into the cameras.  While there are users that want the latest and greatest in photographic technology that is fine for them.  Those that use the camera and lenses as tools to both capture our visionary impressions know most of the time, it gets down to the basics of shutter speed, aperture and ISO.  The "need" for 60 MP camera is both driven by marketing and perception by photographers who think they need more MPs. In reality they don't, much less use the 60 MPs to print very large prints  As I have always told my workshop clients, if you want to make large prints 4'X6' or larger, Leica and other brands cameras are out there for that purpose.  One aspect that I find that always amazes my students, is the idea of creating photographs that are based on content where their creative minds made photographs that cause the viewer to: Stop, Look, Think and Feel something about that moment in time.  Many never looked at their photography in that aspect, but when they concentrated on mastering their camera/lens as tools, composition and lighting, it became something that went from making mere photos to creating masterpiece photographs worthy of exhibition.  They also expereinced a sense of pride and confidence in creating their photographic works.  IMO, Leica should consider developing simplistic photographic cameras that meet a market for such products.  I think Leica would be surprised if they did so and many photographers would welcome it as well.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  r/ Mark 

Edited June 3, 2022 by LeicaR10

[Advertisement]

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

[cheekz4dayz]

I think Leica is very aware that there are different preferences for folks in the market. So yes I think they'll follow the sl2/s model going forward for their main camera systems especially considering their recent mention of focusing on full frame. I personally see all the options as a good thing. People get to choose the Leica adventure that works best for their taste. They've also shown to embrace minimalism in the recent last with the m10-D so I'm confident there'll be plenty of variants for the latest m for example 

[adan]

Simplicity is good.

But here's one point - Sony currently sells four different FF Alpha 7 cameras at four different resolutions (plus an A1 with its own resolution):

A7S III (12 Mpixels)
A7 IV (33 Mpixels)
A7R IIIA (42 Mpixels)
A7R IVA (60 Mpixels)
A1 (50 Mpixels)

Which is simpler? Sony making five different cameras, or Leica making one M11 that covers most of those bases?

The M11's complexity in that regard is "under the hood" and can generally be ignored (pick one's preferred resolution once - then ignore that menu choice forever), rather than taking up extra space in our camera bags, requiring 5x as many firmwares to keep track of, and so on.

I find the approach to the M11 ("Dial-a-Resolution") elegant (and for the moment, ground-breaking) engineering - and better suited to Leica's limited means.

The high-ISO noise (my own "felt need" for improvement) does not (yet) improve as much as I hoped for at the lower resolutions. But some experiments have shown me the "downsampled" output deletes a significant amount of moiré that would be present in a dedicated, un-resampled, 18 Mpixel sensor. "Oversampling" at 60 Mp and downrezzing does mean the sensor "outresolves" many Leica lenses - in a good way. And the M11 noise at ISO 16000-plus is qualitatively better (cleaner, less banding) if not quantitatively better (finer-grained) than my vanilla M10. (I was able to borrow an M11 to test exactly that).

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

I may have been partly responsible for the change in metering. Several years ago I pointed out that the M10 shutter chamber was getting squeezed down rather small (as a result of trying to pack everything into the thinner ~M7-sized body shell). And that that was producing some internal flare with lenses that had not flared as much on the M9.

I suggested that Leica look into making the electronics smaller where possible in their next model, to restore some elbow room (lower the chamber floor where the traditional meter was, and move out the side walls).

Instead, Leica took it a further step, and eliminated the dedicated metering electronics altogether. But again, I consider that simplification - use one space-consuming part (the sensor) to do two jobs, which used to require more parts.

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

I guess the ultimate question is - should Leica have stopped at the M3; or at the M2; or at the M4; or at the M6; or at the M9; or at the M typ 240; or at the 24-Mpixel original M10? All of those met (and still meet) some many people's needs.

The U.S. commentator William F. Buckley described a conservative as "Someone standing athwart History, yelling STOP!" But whenever I'm reminded of that quote, the image that comes to my mind is - the body of that conservative laying crushed and crumpled athwart the tracks of history. Because history stops for no-one.

I'm not sure we'll see an "M11-A," because some of that engineering toothpaste cannot realistically be put back in the tube - except by complicating Leica's supply chains and catalog.

But if Leica can simplify even further, I am all for it.

Edited June 3, 2022 by adan

[tom0511]

In regards of SL system I must say that I did prefer the 4 button layout of the original SL. Anyways. I now have the SL2, IBIS is a nice to have thing, I sometimes crop later, so the resolution doesnt hurt. Frienkly, without having GAS I coud have just stayed with the SL and be happy too.

In regards of the M11 - the new exposure metering is a big plus for me. Over the years I found the center weighted metering of previous models somewhat difficult for contrasty subjects, specially for landscape in contrasty light conditions. I had often to take image, check exposure, correct, take another image, or shoot exp variation. This was even an argument for me no not buy a Leica M without display, because I couldnt check exposure. Now with the M11 I feel much more confident with the exp metering. I never understood why one gets an M-A over a MP. Sunny f8? I dont it works with digital sensors.

The 60MP - nice to have, I dont see any disadvantages.

The new battery - this is also a practical thing which makes life easier. The new viewfinder is also improved.

I dont see why any of this new features would make the camera less simple. And if you dont like 60MP, set it to 36 once and never touch this function again.

I also think its great that M and SL now share nearly the same menue-system and logics.

It is different when I look at some of the m43 gear. I have used Olympus EM-1 and it was overloaded with buttons and functions for my taste. I believe Leica has a good balance - not too many, and not too few.

Do we have to jump on any new product? No. But sometimes its just hard to resist. At least its only every 3-4 years in case of Leica, and not every year like Sony and some others. 

[Chris W]

I have often chosen to buy Leica based on simplicity.

I'm considering an SL. IBIS would have been nice, also good low light performance.

I have looked at Panasonic and Sony, but the trying to be all things to all men just puts me off.

I used to love my Fuji X100T, so I bought the XT3 to be able to change lens, but all the extra options I never needed and deep menus I never wanted to go through were annoying, so I sold it.

I like Leica simplicity and I wouldn't mind if they dumped video options altogether, or offered bodies that were photo centric and didn't include video options in the menu.

I can understand the pressure to add more megapixels with every new camera.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am also a fan of simplicity.

But

I also want my cameras to have video!

[tom0511]

vor 48 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

I am also a fan of simplicity.

But

I also want my cameras to have video!

Same for me. Easier than carrying a video and a photo camera  Its clear it depends on needs. My priority is photo, but here and then there are occasions where I like to be able to shoot short video sequence.

[trickness]

I kind of agree, however;

I moved from the SL to the SL2, and although I took a lot of great pictures with my original SL & loved that camera, I do think for me the SL2 produces images that I am more satisfied with. I prefer the color of the newer camera, and I have been in situations where the image stabilization has been of benefit. I think the subtle changes they made in the body shape and with the button layout were intelligent and appreciated. So, progress.

 But I am a bit surprised at how much noise there is in this camera at 3200 ISO, and I really would never use it at anything above 6500. I’m not at all looking for crazy resolution or super high ISO capability and whatever comes after this… improvements in dynamic range and noise will always be appreciated, along with an reduction in weight for the SL. All the other geewhiz stuff I can do without. Image quality and a tool that does an improved job at getting out of my way are really the only improvements I’m ever excited about. The SL2 for me is as close to perfect camera as I’ve ever owned… but it’s not perfect, yet.

Edited June 3, 2022 by trickness

[Chris W]

Maybe they can market an additional version of a body without video.

IMO, Leica video isn't great anyway.

When I am shooting video I need extras, like tripods, gimbals, sound, often lights.

So when I'm going on a trip and I'm only taking the camera, a few SD cards etc, I don't need all that video confusion in the menu system. 

My pet peeve is two shutter buttons - one for stills, one for video.

 

[Chris W]

45 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Same for me. Easier than carrying a video and a photo camera  Its clear it depends on needs. My priority is photo, but here and then there are occasions where I like to be able to shoot short video sequence.

If you aren't set up for stable video - use your phone. 😉

[LocalHero1953]

8 minutes ago, Chris W said:

My pet peeve is two shutter buttons - one for stills, one for video

That was just the SL. It's not on the SL2 or SL2-S.

Video improved dramatically with the SL2/SL2-S - there are plenty of fans.

The M is for the purists - the ethos around it limits its development. The SL series is the jack of all trades, the Swiss Army Knife. I'd be sorry to see it treated the same way as the M.

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

The SL system also seems to be chasing its technology tail.

Can you say what you mean by this? 

I found the SL2 and SL2-S a big step up in usable technology: IBIS in both, superb low light colour in the SL2-S and excellent video for those who are making simple videos* - there are plenty of fans using it for professional or semi-professional work at the simple, lightweight end. I exploit all these technical improvements (as an amateur).

I support some of your comments in the OP. I value Leica cameras for their simple intuitive interfaces, and because they do seem to concentrate on getting out of the way of the photographer. That does not mean that I want functions removed - hidable, by all means, as long as they remain accessible. Personally, as I commented in my previous post, I find the purist cult of the M detrimental to its development. Taking the same approach with the SL series and other Leicas would drive me away - I would have to spend my money on other brands to get the tools that I want.

 

* I have used it for promo videos, for drama and concert recordings, for recording events in lockdown for youtube etc.

[tom0511]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Chris W:

If you aren't set up for stable video - use your phone. 😉

1) boring 2) only 1 focal length 3) I dont like the superprocessed looking iphone look

[John Smith]

10 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Sean Reid’s latest article compares highlight clipping with the SL, SL2 & SL2-S, all in controlled conditions.  Not surprisingly, the SL2-S comes out best, but the SL also performs well.  Granted there are other “improvements” to the SL2, but when it comes down to it, what do you really gain?  

It seems to me that many of the gains in Leica cameras are incremental, and of marginal benefit.  While you may see differences with cropped images, side by side, taken in controlled conditions, I do not believe anyone can look at any image and say which camera it was taken with. Perhaps with lenses, there are some you can say with confidence which lens was used, but in the majority, I doubt this very much.  I’d rather watch paint dry than look at endless croppings of images taken with different versions of the same lens; and the images of “steel rim” lenses … give me a break!

It’s the image that counts, and well over 90% of image quality has little to do with the equipment used.  But the equipment does have a huge impact on how we take pictures.

So, where am I going with this?  Well, I like Leica equipment for the quality of its manufacture (QA issues aside, and yes many Zeiss and other lenses are made just as well, if not better) and for the priority given to photography rather than technology.  But, I do wonder where it is going.

The M11 pushes the limits of handheld photography without IBIS (apparently) and it offers a lot which, to my mind, is just unnecessary - 60MP, cropping, variable resolution and its live metering being part of my concern.  The APS-C systems appear to be for the chop.  The SL system also seems to be chasing its technology tail.  To what end?  Is all this “bettering” really necessary?  I have some fine M lenses between 21mm and 75mm - each gives a different field of view, different depth of field, different out of focus treatment and in many cases a very different finger print.  All that adds to the image I try to capture, and it all adds to the process.  The camera?  It’s part of the process - has the controls and hopefully reliably captures the image I want.  I don’t need more MP; cropping rather defeats the lens selection; and I really don’t want the camera making choices for me.

I appreciate that many here do want/like all this technology.  But I hope the next SL and M11 cameras (or versions of them) have less, and just do that better at just taking pictures, with maximum photographer control; the M-A of digital cameras, if you will.  No more than 40MP, and right back to basics.  A smaller SL might also appease the angry CL users …. In the meantime, the SL does what it was always meant to do, and meets my needs very nicely.

I don't really understand. You can make the SL2 as simple as you want it to be. You could make it a point-and-shoot if you wanted to.

I hear that people want a smaller SL body, but I don't see the point. The L-Mount is larger than the M mount and the lenses are going to be the size they are. You can make it smaller by using M lenses. It really isn't that much bigger than an M11 with a Visoflex aside from the grip. Personally, that is why I have parted with my Ms. I think the SL2s are great the way they are.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by John Smith

[Chris W]

44 minutes ago, John Smith said:

The L-Mount is larger than the M mount and the lenses are going to be the size they are. 

The FP is L Mount and tiny, including the lenses.

[Photoworks]

3 minutes ago, Chris W said:

The FP is L Mount and tiny, including the lenses.

and it a crapy camera. 

the only glory is the size without accessories.

[Chris W]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Personally, as I commented in my previous post, I find the purist cult of the M detrimental to its development. Taking the same approach with the SL series and other Leicas would drive me away -

My video comment was somewhat flippant, in that I knew it would be unpopular. But at the same time a photo camera can be a camera and a video camera a video camera.

I have the FP for video. They are only £1200 to £1500 now and use the same lenses as the SL. It is a superior camera for video IMHO.

Most of the time video involves stabilisation (tripods, gimbals) external sound recording.

I'm not AT ALL a Leica purist. It just seems to me the first thing you want to do if keeping cameras clean and simple is separate video from stills. Maybe have a stills version, then a version (more expensive) that does both stills and video. For example, I don't see any point in shooting video on a fixed 28mm lens. Why have video features on the Q and Q2?

[Chris W]

1 minute ago, Photoworks said:

and it a crapy camera. 

 

That's a pretty radical opinion.

It's actually excellent at both video and stills. It is particularly great for video and is being championed on many video centric forums now.

It was originally criticised by people who are 1) vloggers and 2) want to edit LOG quickly in FCPX

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

2 minutes ago, Chris W said:

My video comment was somewhat flippant, in that I knew it would be unpopular. But at the same time a photo camera can be a camera and a video camera a video camera.

I have the FP for video. They are only £1200 to £1500 now and use the same lenses as the SL. It is a superior camera for video IMHO.

Most of the time video involves stabilisation (tripods, gimbals) external sound recording.

I'm not AT ALL a Leica purist. It just seems to me the first thing you want to do if keeping cameras clean and simple is separate video from stills. Maybe have a stills version, then a version (more expensive) that does both stills and video. For example, I don't see any point in shooting video on a fixed 28mm lens. Why have video features on the Q and Q2?

I also have the fp, which I use only for video. But there are times when I want two cameras for video. I have recorded a drama performance with the fp fixed on a tripod showing the whole stage, and the SL2-S showing close-ups. I have done something similar with a video interview, with the SL fixed on the interviewer and the fp fixed on the interviewee. I use an external (Zoom) sound recorder when needed. None of this is cinema quality, but good enough for its purpose. And I really don't want to have to buy a separate video camera, fp or ANO, just because Leica has chosen to omit a functionality which can easily be hidden.

Why have video on the Q2? If I'd had my Q2 with me I would have used it instead of my phone for this. At small screen size it would not have made any difference. But it would probably have given me a clip that I could have edited with more flexibility.

I know you are not a purist, so I'm sorry to have implied that! It's just that, as someone who feels as if he was pushed away by purists from the M series after the M240 (no video, no electronic shutter), I am sensitised to the risk of the same thing happening with the SL series.