L-system - Why poor sales?

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, Peters said:

This is why I really think Leica needs to breath its M ethos into the L line... What made Leica stand out from the rest was its ability to deliver not just craftsmanship but high image quality in the smallest package possible.

Sadly, this isn't going to happen.  The only significant consequence of a size/mass reduction to the SL body would be, IMO, to make it more awkward to hand hold.  The brief for any new camera system is defined by the goals for lens design.  The trend toward larger mount diameters might have improved image quality, but it has meant that the optics have undergone a growth spurt.  Canon's new APC-S offerings, for example, strike me as good for the company in terms of spreading the new FF lenses to lower priced bodies, but bad for any of their clients that wanted a more diminutive system.  An extra 1/2 pound in the body is no big deal AFAIC, but add pound or more to each optic you're carrying and things very rapidly can get untenable. I concluded quite a while ago that SL system, as a carry around, really only makes sense with the zoom.  What seems to have been lost on the industry in the quest for ever greater levels of lens fidelity is that you actually have to be able to carry this crap around or its largely useless.  Despite my love for the L optics, I find myself being forced to contemplate replacing the SL with a return to Fuji APS-C for concert and theater photography where I simply don't require either the pixel count nor the highest levels of optical excellence.

Karbe, for better or worse, choose to emphasize optical excellence at the expense of portability.  I can't help but think that this act influenced the follow-ons from CaNikon and altered the trajectory for every mirrorless camera that has followed the L-mount. Large lens size is baked into all these systems and unless you're willing to compromise on build materials or lens speed, the die is cast.  The good news in all that is that it helps keep the M relevant. 

[Advertisement]

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

[BernardC]

23 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Karbe, for better or worse, choose to emphasize optical excellence at the expense of portability.  I can't help but think that this act influenced the follow-ons from CaNikon and altered the trajectory for every mirrorless camera that has followed the L-mount.

The SL isn't any bigger than most mainstream SLRs since the 1950s. I guess you could mention the OM1, Nikon EM, and Pentax MX as being somewhat smaller, but they are the exceptions, and they didn't sell as well as larger contemporary SLRs. It's a size that seems to fit well in the hands of their target audience.

That's not to say that there won't eventually be a smaller body in the SL line, just that I don't find the SL's size to be unusual in any way. Some of the lenses are larger, of course, but you also get a selection of medium-size lenses from Leica (APO-Summicron), and some smaller lenses from L-Mount partners. Those who want tiny lenses can pick from a huge selection of M lenses, as you mention.

[Peters]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head there. While we can anticipate that others will cite the summicron L line as an example of smaller and more manageable sizes, when you compare it against today's other systems, it is still too large and too slow for that extra ounce of image quality which is not always attainable under real world shooting conditions, and when the increase in output is rarely perceptible to most people when viewed at sensible distances to the screen / picture. 

Example: 50mm Summicron-L F1.4 ---1065g --- USD 6.6k

                 50mm Summicron-L  F2     --- 740g --- USD 5.2k

                 50mm Sony GM          F1.2 ---770g-- USD 1.9k

 

I cited the 50mm line since Leica doesn't even have a 35mm 1.4 yet, and I am scared to find out how large it will be. Note that Sony's and Sigma's have two excellent 35mm's weighing in at 524g and 665g respectively. If Leica was to follow the same design philosophy as its 50mm summilux, we are looking at another 1kg+ beast of a lens. 

The image quality of the Sony GM and Sigma art's are absolutely fantastic - clearly in the same league as Leica's offerings - only in a much faster and comparatively smaller (and not to mention, cheaper) package. 

If Leica wants to compete in the mirrorless ICL category, it will need to find a different distinguishing factor other than ultimate image quality which has already reached a point of saturation in 2022. The SL's build quality and interface are already excellent, but I do feel that size and weight would help give Leica a leg up. This requires a change in optical design philosophy, or perhaps to more accurately put it, a return to the design philosophy that made Leica great in the first place...

 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Peters

[John Smith]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

I concluded quite a while ago that SL system, as a carry around, really only makes sense with the zoom.  What seems to have been lost on the industry in the quest for ever greater levels of lens fidelity is that you actually have to be able to carry this crap around or its largely useless.  Despite my love for the L optics, I find myself being forced to contemplate replacing the SL with a return to Fuji APS-C for concert and theater photography where I simply don't require either the pixel count nor the highest levels of optical excellence.

Karbe, for better or worse, choose to emphasize optical excellence at the expense of portability.  I can't help but think that this act influenced the follow-ons from CaNikon and altered the trajectory for every mirrorless camera that has followed the L-mount. Large lens size is baked into all these systems and unless you're willing to compromise on build materials or lens speed, the die is cast.  The good news in all that is that it helps keep the M relevant. 

I don't think Karbe missed it. I think Leica has been brilliant. The SL2 is all about choices. I have several Summicrons and use them for dedicated work. But I also have M lenses and use the SL2 as a carry around with them. It is just as easy for me to swing an SL2 with the 50mm APO over my shoulder as it is with an M. I can do video if I need it, and I just bought a Sigma Macro to digitize some slides. Personally, I don't think Leica needs to change a thing with the SL2, except maybe upgrade the sensor in due time. Ironically, it rendered my Ms irrelevant.   

This Leica video with Pat Domingo, I think, shows some of that brilliance.

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by John Smith

[Tailwagger]

59 minutes ago, John Smith said:

I don't think Karbe missed it.

I didn't say he did. I said  a choice was made to go for optical excellence which resulted in a very large, near medium format mount.  They also chose to use the same shell for all primes which further exacerbated the size issue. Those choices have resulted in arguably the largest, heaviest mirrorless system, save for the new sports oriented offerings.  As for M lenses on the SLs, many are noticeably compromised when compared to native.  Some are willing to make such trade offs others are not.

[LBJ2]

1 hour ago, Peters said:

Yes, you hit the nail on the head there. While we can anticipate that others will cite the summicron L line as an example of smaller and more manageable sizes, when you compare it against today's other systems, it is still too large and too slow for that extra ounce of image quality which is not always attainable under real world shooting conditions, and when the increase in output is rarely perceptible to most people when viewed at sensible distances to the screen / picture. 

Example: 50mm Summicron-L F1.4 ---1065g --- USD 6.6k

                 50mm Summicron-L  F2     --- 740g --- USD 5.2k

                 50mm Sony GM          F1.2 ---770g-- USD 1.9k

 

I cited the 50mm line since Leica doesn't even have a 35mm 1.4 yet, and I am scared to find out how large it will be. Note that Sony's and Sigma's have two excellent 35mm's weighing in at 524g and 665g respectively. If Leica was to follow the same design philosophy as its 50mm summilux, we are looking at another 1kg+ beast of a lens. 

The image quality of the Sony GM and Sigma art's are absolutely fantastic - clearly in the same league as Leica's offerings - only in a much faster and comparatively smaller (and not to mention, cheaper) package. 

If Leica wants to compete in the mirrorless ICL category, it will need to find a different distinguishing factor other than ultimate image quality which has already reached a point of saturation in 2022. The SL's build quality and interface are already excellent, but I do feel that size and weight would help give Leica a leg up. This requires a change in optical design philosophy, or perhaps to more accurately put it, a return to the design philosophy that made Leica great in the first place...

 

 

Peters,

Have you had a chance to use either the SL2 or SL2-S with any of the SL APO primes for any substantial real-world photography?  

Edited June 14, 2022 by LBJ2

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

The SL isn't any bigger than most mainstream SLRs since the 1950s.

Its not an SLR, it's an MILC. Compared to those of that ilk that preceded it, it is significantly heavier and bulkier.  Thankfully, it's not a Z9, but having just come off two days of shooting primarily with it and the 70-200F2.8 among other lenses, this is not a system I particularly enjoy working with for hours on end, at least not at my age. 

[Peters]

58 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Peters,

Have you had a chance to use either the SL2 or SL2-S with any of the SL APO primes for any substantial real-world photography?  

Yes, I have the SL2 and I did have the 90-L but sold it when the Sigma 85mm 1.4 came out. If I am outside, shooting untamed subjects or landscapes handheld, I really cannot notice any difference in image quality between the 90-L at F2 and the Sigma 85 at 1.4. I stress the Sigma comparison at 1.4 - a stop faster and still extremely high image quality, and in an ironically lighter and cheaper package. In the studio with the camera on a tripod then yes, I can see a subtle difference between the SL and the Sigma, but only when I'm zooming in at 200% on a 4k display. This difference is lost if you're viewing the picture at regular size online, or if you're printing a 30x40 image that is framed behind a piece of glass. 

I do not mind paying a premium for M glass because it's high quality, tiny, and has a unique look. I do mind paying a premium for L glass when they are relatively big, heavy, slow, and has an imperceptible advantage in image quality compared to the lighter, faster, and far more affordable competition. 

[LBJ2]

3 minutes ago, Peters said:

Yes, I have the SL2 and I did have the 90-L but sold it when the Sigma 85mm 1.4 came out. If I am outside, shooting untamed subjects or landscapes handheld, I really cannot notice any difference in image quality between the 90-L at F2 and the Sigma 85 at 1.4. I stress the Sigma comparison at 1.4 - a stop faster and still extremely high image quality, and in an ironically lighter and cheaper package. In the studio with the camera on a tripod then yes, I can see a subtle difference between the SL and the Sigma, but only when I'm zooming in at 200% on a 4k display. This difference is lost if you're viewing the picture at regular size online, or if you're printing a 30x40 image that is framed behind a piece of glass. 

I do not mind paying a premium for M glass because it's high quality, tiny, and has a unique look. I do mind paying a premium for L glass when they are relatively big, heavy, slow, and has an imperceptible advantage in image quality compared to the lighter, faster, and far more affordable competition. 

Thank you. Good to know your comments/opinions are based upon real-world experience. 

[LBJ2]

8 hours ago, BernardC said:

The SL isn't any bigger than most mainstream SLRs since the 1950s. I guess you could mention the OM1, Nikon EM, and Pentax MX as being somewhat smaller, but they are the exceptions, and they didn't sell as well as larger contemporary SLRs. It's a size that seems to fit well in the hands of their target audience.

That's not to say that there won't eventually be a smaller body in the SL line, just that I don't find the SL's size to be unusual in any way. Some of the lenses are larger, of course, but you also get a selection of medium-size lenses from Leica (APO-Summicron), and some smaller lenses from L-Mount partners. Those who want tiny lenses can pick from a huge selection of M lenses, as you mention.

The SL2s plus prime APO lens will probably feel large and heavy to some accustomed to Leica M and other small mirrorless cameras. Took me a few outings to adjust my muscle memory to the SL2, but now it all just makes sense. I find the SL2 + SL APO primes a very good balance. No problem taken them out as needed. The SL APO primes really are not larger/heavier than many other high end mirrorless lenses on the market and yes there could be an argument against "only" F2. 

OTOH, the Nikon customer base who from what I see, probably shares a similar age demographic to many Leica M customers, and from what I read, the Nikon customer base can't wait to get their hands on the largest and heaviest mirrorless camera I think ever made. And that's before attaching a Nikon lens. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

[IkarusJohn]

9 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Sadly, this isn't going to happen.  The only significant consequence of a size/mass reduction to the SL body would be, IMO, to make it more awkward to hand hold.  The brief for any new camera system is defined by the goals for lens design.  The trend toward larger mount diameters might have improved image quality, but it has meant that the optics have undergone a growth spurt.  Canon's new APC-S offerings, for example, strike me as good for the company in terms of spreading the new FF lenses to lower priced bodies, but bad for any of their clients that wanted a more diminutive system.  An extra 1/2 pound in the body is no big deal AFAIC, but add pound or more to each optic you're carrying and things very rapidly can get untenable. I concluded quite a while ago that SL system, as a carry around, really only makes sense with the zoom.  What seems to have been lost on the industry in the quest for ever greater levels of lens fidelity is that you actually have to be able to carry this crap around or its largely useless.  Despite my love for the L optics, I find myself being forced to contemplate replacing the SL with a return to Fuji APS-C for concert and theater photography where I simply don't require either the pixel count nor the highest levels of optical excellence.

Karbe, for better or worse, choose to emphasize optical excellence at the expense of portability.  I can't help but think that this act influenced the follow-ons from CaNikon and altered the trajectory for every mirrorless camera that has followed the L-mount. Large lens size is baked into all these systems and unless you're willing to compromise on build materials or lens speed, the die is cast.  The good news in all that is that it helps keep the M relevant. 

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that Leica made large, excellent lenses for years with the R system.  And zooms. I see the SL system as a return to that approach. It was the R10(?) camera which killed the R system, along with digital. They already had a legacy of excellent lenses, and they weren’t small. 

But, I do agree.  I had the three zooms, the 50 Summilux-SL and the 75 Summicron-SL, and was eagerly awaiting the 28 and 21, and would have liked a 100 macro … I then looked at my M lenses and realised I had all these lenses already in M mount, and saw no point in the duplication. Sure, there were marginal image quality gains, weather sealing and AF (which I loath in any system), but those gains were really dancing on the head of a pin.

The choice became keep one system - SL or M.  Looking at the two side by side, the M won out - compact, excellent choices of lenses and somehow more comfortable in the hand. So, I kept the 24-90 zoom, the SL and sold the rest.  I do miss the 16-35 zoom, and may replace that, but otherwise the 90-280 was just too big. I have the Elmarit-R 180/2.8 and 2x converter, so the long zoom isn’t missed. Everything else, I have with M primes.   The two SL primes I had were excellent, but not so much better than the 75 Summilux-M and the M 50s I have to warrant keeping them.

However, if I was not so committed to the M system (Monochrom, M10-D & M-A, with 10 M mount lenses), I would have stayed with the SL and would have expanded my SL lenses.  It’s an excellent system.  The benefits of the Fuji,  Canon, Sony & Nikon systems and their awful body designs, bewildering menus and switches on lenses etc are outweighted by the beautiful simplicity of the SL system and its lenses.

The M system has the benefit of 60 years of lenses …
 

[hamey]

35 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that Leica made large, excellent lenses for years with the R system.  And zooms. I see the SL system as a return to that approach. It was the R10(?) camera which killed the R system, along with digital. They already had a legacy of excellent lenses, and they weren’t small. 

But, I do agree.  I had the three zooms, the 50 Summilux-SL and the 75 Summicron-SL, and was eagerly awaiting the 28 and 21, and would have liked a 100 macro … I then looked at my M lenses and realised I had all these lenses already in M mount, and saw no point in the duplication. Sure, there were marginal image quality gains, weather sealing and AF (which I loath in any system), but those gains were really dancing on the head of a pin.

The choice became keep one system - SL or M.  Looking at the two side by side, the M won out - compact, excellent choices of lenses and somehow more comfortable in the hand. So, I kept the 24-90 zoom, the SL and sold the rest.  I do miss the 16-35 zoom, and may replace that, but otherwise the 90-280 was just too big. I have the Elmarit-R 180/2.8 and 2x converter, so the long zoom isn’t missed. Everything else, I have with M primes.   The two SL primes I had were excellent, but not so much better than the 75 Summilux-M and the M 50s I have to warrant keeping them.

However, if I was not so committed to the M system (Monochrom, M10-D & M-A, with 10 M mount lenses), I would have stayed with the SL and would have expanded my SL lenses.  It’s an excellent system.  The benefits of the Fuji,  Canon, Sony & Nikon systems and their awful body designs, bewildering menus and switches on lenses etc are outweighted by the beautiful simplicity of the SL system and its lenses.

The M system has the benefit of 60 years of lenses …
 

Thats what made me switch, just love my Fuji's, Especially the dails, I can go straight into my selection without looking into the Manu.

I don't miss the M240 what's so ever, and will NEVER buy another M camera, and at the ripe old age of 73 I don't need to have a status symbol  around my neck.

Thankfully I am in a very good financial position to buy what ever Leica has, but the reality is I want a photograph tool that a can enjoy, and at this time, Fuji delivers.

But must agree,  currently the Leica SL system is the best that Leica makes and if I had to crawl back to Leica the SL system  would be my first choice.

Cheers.

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that Leica made large, excellent lenses for years with the R system.  And zooms. I see the SL system as a return to that approach. It was the R10(?) camera which killed the R system, along with digital. They already had a legacy of excellent lenses, and they weren’t small. 

But, I do agree.  I had the three zooms, the 50 Summilux-SL and the 75 Summicron-SL, and was eagerly awaiting the 28 and 21, and would have liked a 100 macro … I then looked at my M lenses and realised I had all these lenses already in M mount, and saw no point in the duplication. Sure, there were marginal image quality gains, weather sealing and AF (which I loath in any system), but those gains were really dancing on the head of a pin.

The choice became keep one system - SL or M.  Looking at the two side by side, the M won out - compact, excellent choices of lenses and somehow more comfortable in the hand. So, I kept the 24-90 zoom, the SL and sold the rest.  I do miss the 16-35 zoom, and may replace that, but otherwise the 90-280 was just too big. I have the Elmarit-R 180/2.8 and 2x converter, so the long zoom isn’t missed. Everything else, I have with M primes.   The two SL primes I had were excellent, but not so much better than the 75 Summilux-M and the M 50s I have to warrant keeping them.

However, if I was not so committed to the M system (Monochrom, M10-D & M-A, with 10 M mount lenses), I would have stayed with the SL and would have expanded my SL lenses.  It’s an excellent system.  The benefits of the Fuji,  Canon, Sony & Nikon systems and their awful body designs, bewildering menus and switches on lenses etc are outweighted by the beautiful simplicity of the SL system and its lenses.

The M system has the benefit of 60 years of lenses …
 

I was in a similar position and I chose to sell my digital M and keep the SL. I just found that for my work the SL makes much more sense than the M, which feels great to use, but is not as versatile for my professional work. Also the digital M's are so crazy expensive now that it is harder to keep one as a secondary camera. But I have kept the M lenses. I do use them on the SL, particularly the 90mm APO Summicron and 135mm Tele Elmar, which are still very sharp and so much smaller than the 90-280mm. So if I need compact and sharp, I still have those. But I have not used a 35mm or 50mm M lens on the SL since I got the APO Summicrons...they are simply too good to leave home.

[Archiver]

On 6/11/2022 at 5:57 AM, Slender said:

hehehe e :)))

I more specifically refered to those from the 90ies. M6 was by far the most massacred Leica for those occasions lol (yes its an actual diamond)

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!

 

Is it wrong that I find this not unattractive? 😅 Maybe if I was the King of Siam or something...

[otto.f]

On 6/6/2022 at 7:59 PM, Ivar B said:

Panasonic S5

But the S5 is also a Leopard tank…

[Simone_DF]

21 hours ago, John Smith said:

I don't think Karbe missed it. I think Leica has been brilliant. The SL2 is all about choices. I have several Summicrons and use them for dedicated work. But I also have M lenses and use the SL2 as a carry around with them. It is just as easy for me to swing an SL2 with the 50mm APO over my shoulder as it is with an M.

Except you can do this with all other mirrorless. Voigtlander and other brands even have native Sony mount lenses. You don't even need the L-M adapter.

[John Smith]

31 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Except you can do this with all other mirrorless. Voigtlander and other brands even have native Sony mount lenses. You don't even need the L-M adapter.

I don't get your point. The thread is about the SL2 and purported poor sales. If you want a Sony, get a Sony. You don't have the choice of SL lenses with a Sony.

[Simone_DF]

4 minutes ago, John Smith said:

I don't get your point. The thread is about the SL2 and purported poor sales. If you want a Sony, get a Sony. You don't have the choice of SL lenses with a Sony.

My point is claiming that the SL2 is "better" because it's "all about choices. I have several Summicrons and use them for dedicated work. But I also have M lenses and use the SL2 as a carry around with them." is moot. You have this option to use native glass + M mount lenses with all other cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Simone_DF]

13 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

The SL APO primes really are not larger/heavier than many other high end mirrorless lenses on the market and yes there could be an argument against "only" F2. 

This is somewhat true, but the difference with other brands is that they also offer lighter first party option at the same time.

The Sony 1.2 GM is 778g, but it's a f1.2 lens, not f2. You can also get the Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8, which is only 281g (and the only lens I truly miss from my Sony days)

The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is 415g and it's an excellent lens. Or you can get the heavier 1.2 version.

Canon has a 1.2 at 950g and the cheaply made, mediocre 1.8 version. I guess we have to wait for something inbetween to judge.

 

But also the weight of the SL2 is way above the rest. 930g vs the Canon R5 (738g), the Nikon Z7II (615g) or the Sony A1 (737g)

It's the combo that is deadly.

[BernardC]

2 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

You have this option to use native glass + M mount lenses with all other cameras.

Except for the fact that many M lenses barely work on other systems, or even on Sigma and Panasonic cameras. Granted, there are a few that don't have soft corners or weird colours on other mirrorless cameras, mostly recent ASPH lenses. If that's all you have, then those other camera systems are an option.

I'm not sure why M-mount compatibility always comes-up in these threads. The M lenses that are retrofocus (and thus compatible with other systems) tend to be newer and more expensive. Is there really a large number of photographers who have several Asph M lenses but don't own a Leica to go with them? I know it was a trend back in the day, with every blogger trying-out M lenses on the A7r, but that was because Sony's lenses weren't very good. These days you can get an SL2-S for roughly the same price as a competing high-end camera body, and you can get a used SL much cheaper than that. The market for people who spend a small fortune on M lenses but can't be bothered to buy a compatible camera must be trivial.