New interview with Stefan Daniel about the SL3

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Twice the price, twice the battery drain

That's not what end-users have found, or what the specifications say. I know you are trying to be funny, but some people might read this out-of context.

We've all seen it before: one person exaggerates to "make a point" (a weak point given that it needs exaggeration), as if life were a tennis match. Next thing you know, people are repeating it, not realizing that it's a rhetorical artifice.

[tomasis7]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

That's not what end-users have found, or what the specifications say. I know you are trying to be funny, but some people might read this out-of context.

We've all seen it before: one person exaggerates to "make a point" (a weak point given that it needs exaggeration), as if life were a tennis match. Next thing you know, people are repeating it, not realizing that it's a rhetorical artifice.

im perplexed that some people hating own stuff so much yet use them (?)

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Twice the price, twice the battery drain

twice the drain is only if you got the option where you flip true menu all the time instead of taking photos

[Stuart Richardson]

While I agree the SL cameras are a high price compared to the rest of the market, I do think it is this competition that is keeping them as "low" as they are. Leica's pricing model is rather incredible in the M cameras, for example, as it was in the S system. Both of which there was not really much direct competition. The SLs are the cheapest M digital bodies other than the all in one Q or compact cameras. I think if it were not for all the competition the price would be above the M cameras. Same goes for the lenses. The 35mm and 50mm APO Summicron SL's are technically better and about half the price of the M versions. I have a hard time believing they cost half as much to make. Maybe I am wrong? For a more directly comparison, the S lenses were more expensive than the APO Summicrons, despite also being AF lenses without size limitations.

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

While I agree the SL cameras are a high price compared to the rest of the market, I do think it is this competition that is keeping them as "low" as they are. Leica's pricing model is rather incredible in the M cameras, for example, as it was in the S system. Both of which there was not really much direct competition. The SLs are the cheapest M digital bodies other than the all in one Q or compact cameras. I think if it were not for all the competition the price would be above the M cameras. Same goes for the lenses. The 35mm and 50mm APO Summicron SL's are technically better and about half the price of the M versions. I have a hard time believing they cost half as much to make. Maybe I am wrong? For a more directly comparison, the S lenses were more expensive than the APO Summicrons, despite also being AF lenses without size limitations.

I quite agree Stuart - the SL cameras seem to be almost a 'bargain' (the SL3 is about the same price as the Sony A1 for example - and although it doesn't focus as fast it does take better pictures, nicer build quality and has a hugely better UI).

As Stefan Daniel said, it's much the biggest segment of the camera market these days, so although Leica only has a small share of it, that small share will equate to quite a lot of units. 

All the best

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

While I agree the SL cameras are a high price compared to the rest of the market, I do think it is this competition that is keeping them as "low" as they are. Leica's pricing model is rather incredible in the M cameras, for example, as it was in the S system. Both of which there was not really much direct competition. The SLs are the cheapest M digital bodies other than the all in one Q or compact cameras. I think if it were not for all the competition the price would be above the M cameras. Same goes for the lenses. The 35mm and 50mm APO Summicron SL's are technically better and about half the price of the M versions. I have a hard time believing they cost half as much to make. Maybe I am wrong? For a more directly comparison, the S lenses were more expensive than the APO Summicrons, despite also being AF lenses without size limitations.

I am getting over a cold, and missed some typos before the edit expired. I meant to say the cheapest Leica digital bodies, not the cheapest M digital bodies. And "for a more direct comparison" not directly. Anyway, the first might be a bit confusing, which is why I came back to it...

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL as such is maybe not the best option, but in combination with it’s lenses as well the possibility of using m lenses it is a great option.

I photograph horse riding, and every now and then a marathon just for fun, not professional. The AF on the 2s is more than enough for me. But then, I am prefocussing as I am doing whole my life. May be I could get 30 perfect images in a row of a horse jumping with AF on a Sony, but knowing where to focus and when to pull the tricker gets me same results with 5 shots only.

AF speed is like pixelpeeping. Fun for gearheads, but the rest of the world really doesn’t care, nor does my clients.

IQ is what matters. Lenses are a big contributor to this.

 

[jonoslack]

28 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

.

I photograph horse riding, and every now and then a marathon just for fun, not professional. The AF on the 2s is more than enough for me. But then, I am prefocussing as I am doing whole my life. May be I could get 30 perfect images in a row of a horse jumping with AF on a Sony, but knowing where to focus and when to pull the tricker gets me same results with 5 shots only.

 

Quite right. They might be 30 perfectly focused images, but probably the really good shots would be between the frames. I still prefer using single shot mode and anticipation. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Yeah, nah. I read the article a few days and I see nothing to contradict my earlier thoughts. Leica are in the mirrorless space because they see the sales potential but theey're doing it in a way that really avoids any direct competition with the big three. They're letting Panasonic take that hit.

1. The pricess of the A1 etc are a relatively new phenomenon and likely made because the SL was so expensive they thought they could also get away with it. Mostly though in 2015-2020 they were double that of their competitors. Also the SL3 is equivalent to a cheaper A7R5, not an A1. R5, not R3. Nikon Z7II not Z8/9.

2. Leica have 2 models in an identical body (SL2 and 2S) or will do if they release a 3S. Canon has how many?

3. The flagship Leica lenses are f2.0. Sony etc's are 1.2.. Leica's flagship zooms are varios.The others are 2.8 (or even 2.0) constant.

4. In every category (body, lens etc) Leica has the most expensive option.

5 The complete lack of rugged on camera flash support.

6. No primes longer than 90mm.

7. No macro.

8. No tilt shift lenses.

Don't get me wrong. I've ordered my 2nd SL3. I've shot as much paid work on Leica as much as anybody, including the SL's. But saying Leica competes directly with Canon is like saying a Porsche Cayenne competes directly with a Kia Sorrento.

I agree there will be comparisons but ultimately Leica mostly ignores them as they develop the SL system. Unlike some I have significant experience with the big three's current offerings. It's fanciful to think Leica are competing here. Canikony are chasing the same pie. Which is basically the sports and action pie, at the top end. Leica very much appear to be ignoring that and chasing after the current miniMF market (ie: IQ). They have the best build quality. Best UI and best user experience in the small format market. And that's fine. It's the market I'm personally interested in.

Gordon

[sebben]

All good points. I would argue though that the Nikon Z8 is trying to target the market of being the best all round photo and video camera. Much like the SL2-S kind of was initially. 

I think the SL3-S will need to use the same sensor as the Z8 to be able to remain competitive or they might just lose their niche as well. 

[LocalHero1953]

Given the number of threads and posts in this forum that directly compare Leica's offerings to those of Sony, Canon, Nikon and Fuji, that are from those coming from or about to move to those brands, that are from someone with a Sony considering moving to Leica, or advising someone (with whom they are having a spat) "perhaps you'd be better off with a Sony"............

Conclusion: Leica is in competition with all those brands. How can it be otherwise? 

Whether Leica's offerings are better or worse than those brands, on multiple different criteria (price, weight, looks, resolution, DR, prestige, noise, aperture, reliability, buttons, menus.......how long should I go on for?) is another matter. And has been debated for decades.

The challenge for the marketing department (any marketing department) is how to sell to a sufficiently large group of potential buyers by making the product distinct from other brands. Leica is making money, so I guess they are fairly successful in their marketing. As someone who is not experienced with Nikon and Canon, I don't know how they distinguish themselves from each other; from my ignorant perspective they look identical apart from the name.

Edited March 27 by LocalHero1953

[Simone_DF]

21 hours ago, tomasis7 said:

im perplexed that some people hating own stuff so much yet use them (?)

You just described every single Microsoft Windows user out there. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, sebben said:

All good points. I would argue though that the Nikon Z8 is trying to target the market of being the best all round photo and video camera. Much like the SL2-S kind of was initially. 

I think the SL3-S will need to use the same sensor as the Z8 to be able to remain competitive or they might just lose their niche as well. 

Z8 uses a Nikon proprietary sensor that is not available for others. 
Maybe Leica will be able to design a stacked sensor, or maybe Sony’s sensor division will offer stacked sensors.

[Knipsknecht]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb LocalHero1953:

[...] Conclusion: Leica is in competition with all those brands. How can it be otherwise? [...]

Well, I would say, yes and no😅. Yes, they are competing to a certain degree with the big three - given the type of camera (SLR-derived design with big grip, broad range of lenses available and aiming at more or less any photographic genre). If I look at a Nikon Z6/7, a Canon R6 or R5, a Sony a7IV or RV and a Leica SL 2 or 3 it becomes obvious they are all following the stereotypical image of a "camera" in 2024.

But given the broader range of models from CaSoNikon and - except their absolute top models - their generally much lower prices, Leica doesn't compete with them pricewise. Most "normal" hobbyists wouldn't take a Leica SL into consideration. Especially if a average Canon or Sony fullframe camera is so much cheaper and (!) offers much better critical specs (which is - for quite a lot of people - the autofocus).

 

Zitat

As someone who is not experienced with Nikon and Canon, I don't know how they distinguish themselves from each other; from my ignorant perspective they look identical apart from the name.

... the same could be said if one would take a Leica SL into this equation:

Nikon Z6II vs. Canon R6II vs. Leica SL2

Edited March 27 by Knipsknecht

[LocalHero1953]

They are all competing against each other to sell cameras to photographers or wannabe photographers. And they all choose their own ground on which to make themselves attractive to that market. The fact that Leica chooses not to compete on price does not mean that they are not in competition.

[ksrhee]

Interesting conversation.  I own and have owned Cannon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, and Leica cameras.  For me, Leica brings me passion and excitement, but that is completely limited to the M line and perhaps the Q line.  Also, Leica is not really competing directly with any of the big camera companies on those areas.  As far as SL goes, it's not the same, I am afraid.  I would take my Nikon 850 (now many years old) over any of the SL cameras, but your preference might be completely different.  

[LocalHero1953]

When I was learning my trade as a technical consultant with a large (successful) company, I was told that tendering and bidding for a contract was the least preferred of all the ways of winning business. The most preferred way was repeat business, followed by word of mouth based on reputation.

When you have to tender on price against a specification i.e. 'competing directly' it was the most expensive way to win new work. At the most optimistic, tendering might have won us 1 in 4 contracts, at substantial cost of preparing the tender. Even when we were allowed to write the blurb that explained to the client exactly why we were the company to appoint, price and specs usually won the day.

Read many posts in this forum and you see exactly the same from some: "Leica is too expensive and it is 50mp behind the other brands". TBH I doubt if Leica is particularly interested in explaining why those people should buy Leica. They want those who, having used a Leica, want to buy another one because they see all the unquantifiable benefits. And yes, they also want those who will buy it regardless of price because they have just heard it is the best and the one to have.

Direct competition is for losers. That doesn't mean you aren't still in competition. 

Edited March 27 by LocalHero1953

[Tjazz]

And while I'm reading and parsing these analyses and opinions of Leica's hits and misses, my talented and laid-back photographer wife is out shooting artful images with her humble Nikon Z7II/Nikkor 24-200 that I could only dream of shooting. She quietly shakes her head at my gear obsessions and often says "why don't you just go out and take some pictures?" I doubt she could even tell you the tech specs of her camera. She just likes it and is gifted in matters of composition, light, subject selection, and other things that photographers are good at. Really, sometimes we all need to calm down and just get busy shooting with the fine Leica gear we have and not worry about whose silicon was used for whose sensor.

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Knipsknecht said:

But given the broader range of models from CaSoNikon and - except their absolute top models - their generally much lower prices, Leica doesn't compete with them pricewise. Most "normal" hobbyists wouldn't take a Leica SL into consideration. Especially if a average Canon or Sony fullframe camera is so much cheaper and (!) offers much better critical specs (which is - for quite a lot of people - the autofocus).

That's the brilliant thing about the L-Mount alliance. Leica doesn't have to compete at the entry level, they can leave that to Panasonic and Sigma.

In terms of specifications, there's always a tendency to pick one feature and claim that the brand that has it is "ahead," but the L mount is "ahead" in all things video. Canon has the super-telephoto sports lenses, Sony has the speed-demon bodies (but lacks sports lenses), Nikon must have something (I haven't followed their lineup), but none of them have what L-mount has in video, and they don't have anything close to the APO Summicrons-SLs.

None of these systems are perfect, but the L mount makes a strong case for itself if you are interested in video, or in the highest possible "full frame" IQ. Those are arguably more relevant to new photographers choosing a system, compared to pro sports.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LBJ2]

14 minutes ago, BernardC said:

That's the brilliant thing about the L-Mount alliance. Leica doesn't have to compete at the entry level, they can leave that to Panasonic and Sigma.

In terms of specifications, there's always a tendency to pick one feature and claim that the brand that has it is "ahead," but the L mount is "ahead" in all things video. Canon has the super-telephoto sports lenses, Sony has the speed-demon bodies (but lacks sports lenses), Nikon must have something (I haven't followed their lineup), but none of them have what L-mount has in video, and they don't have anything close to the APO Summicrons-SLs.

None of these systems are perfect, but the L mount makes a strong case for itself if you are interested in video, or in the highest possible "full frame" IQ. Those are arguably more relevant to new photographers choosing a system, compared to pro sports.

Sony sports lenses to go along with their speed-demon bodies: I know you know 😉

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Sony-Lenses/Sony-Outdoor-Sports-Lens.aspx

"What is the ultimate Sony sports lens?

1. Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS Lens
2. Sony FE 600mm F4 GM OSS Lens
3. Sony FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS Lens
4. Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens
5. Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens
6. Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens
7. Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens
8. Tamron 150-500mm F5-6.7 Di III VC VXD Lens
9. Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary Lens
10. Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens
11. Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN OS Sports Lens

As a generalization, the above list is sorted in performance and price descending sequence, but other factors, including the focal length or focal length range, must be considered."

Edited March 27 by LBJ2