BernardC Posted March 27 Share #41 Posted March 27 Advertisement (gone after registration) 5 minutes ago, LBJ2 said: Native Sony sports lenses to go along with their speed-demon bodies: I know you know 😉 The 400 and 600 qualify, but that's all. The 300 is a lot less useful than Canon's 100-300/2.8 zoom. Everything else is generic, offered in all mounts (including L mount). Frankly, if I was a high-end sports shooter, I would skip Sony because of lens selection. Canon is the real deal, followed closely by Nikon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27 Posted March 27 Hi BernardC, Take a look here New interview with Stefan Daniel about the SL3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LBJ2 Posted March 27 Share #42 Posted March 27 8 minutes ago, BernardC said: The 400 and 600 qualify, but that's all. The 300 is a lot less useful than Canon's 100-300/2.8 zoom. Everything else is generic, offered in all mounts (including L mount). Frankly, if I was a high-end sports shooter, I would skip Sony because of lens selection. Canon is the real deal, followed closely by Nikon. Many long-timer sports photographers feel the long awaited Sony GM 300 F2.8 completes the traditional sports-trinity 300, 400, 600 for the Sony system. I agree the Canon 100-300/2.8 is a very nice sports lens with as always zoom flexibility. Personally, I also use the Sony GM 24-70 f2.8 ver II for on-track Motocross regularly and the Sony GM 70-200 f2.8 II and the SonyGM 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for drag racing, but the GM 100-400 also doubles as a very lightweight wildlife lens...aka as some might consider BIF a sport. Regardless, the Sony system is a very SOLID sports system, both camera and lenses. Very solid. But this does not take away the long held Sports leader titles from Canon, by a mile. Not yet anyway. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
la1402 Posted March 27 Share #43 Posted March 27 1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said: 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. Fully agree and I believe you can remove the "also" from the last sentence. But that does not mean competing based on capabilities, more creating a belief system. This requires a pretty affluent group of followers which long term is risky. So far it seemed to work, but we have +10 years behind us where luxury boomed. As economies get tighter and people evaluate value for money more diligently, I wonder how this market will change and what it will mean for Leicas willingness to also compete on measurable capabilities. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted March 27 Share #44 Posted March 27 Well, the company was founded in 1869 and had its most profitable year in history last year, so I think they are probably good for the next few years at least. Not that I am asking for things to be more expensive, I certainly don't want them to be, but it seems like Leica currently has a good handle on the market for their products. I think we are at a point in history where companies have leveraged information technology to such a degree that they understand their markets better than ever before, and unfortunately, just how hard they can squeeze and cost cut before people get too restless. Unless they do something colossally stupid like the Hasselblad Stellar/Lunar fiasco, I feel like they will do fine. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted March 27 Author Share #45 Posted March 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said: Well, the company was founded in 1869 and had its most profitable year in history last year, But that’s mainly thanks to the Q and M, not the SL Edited March 27 by Simone_DF Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knipsknecht Posted March 27 Share #46 Posted March 27 (edited) vor 3 Stunden schrieb BernardC: […] 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. Well, while I would follow your thoughts here, we two know that especially for videography the weapon of choice would be a Lumix camera - not a Leica. And the “highest possible ‘full frame’ IQ” is a highly subjective matter in which Canon, Nikon and Sony have a word, too. And to make my point clear, I am not arguing against Leica, the L-Mount Alliance or whatever. All I want to say is that the SL line faces the hardest competition of any Leica lineup, and at the same time the SL line is kind of a niche product given it’s price and it’s specs. Edited March 27 by Knipsknecht 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted March 27 Share #47 Posted March 27 Advertisement (gone after registration) 11 minutes ago, Knipsknecht said: Well, while I would follow your thoughts here, we two know that especially for videography the weapon of choice would be a Lumix camera - not a Leica. And the “highest possible ‘full frame’ IQ” is a highly subjective matter in which Canon, Nikon and Sony have a word, too. For video, the Sigma fp and Blackmagic 6K are strong contenders, as is the SL2-s. I can't wait to see what the SL3-s brings, surely they didn't add a timecode port for no reason? For full-frame IQ, every brand has a contender, but the SL3 has arguably the best lenses, the most resolution, no low-pass filter, and the best dynamic range. That's a hard combination to beat, none of the other brands can fully match it. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 27 Share #48 Posted March 27 2 hours ago, Simone_DF said: But that’s mainly thanks to the Q and M, not the SL Still, without the SL range the bottomline would be smaller. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksrhee Posted March 27 Share #49 Posted March 27 21 minutes ago, SrMi said: Still, without the SL range the bottomline would be smaller. Well, there is a difference between revenue and profit. Leica also has to recoup the cost of R&D, manufacturing, and other investments to produce the SL line. So, the more units they sell, the better the margin. Reading between the lines, I sensed that the SL line might not be highly profitable for Leica, but as stated, they need to be in the game in order to play . . . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 27 Share #50 Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, ksrhee said: Well, there is a difference between revenue and profit. Leica also has to recoup the cost of R&D, manufacturing, and other investments to produce the SL line. So, the more units they sell, the better the margin. Reading between the lines, I sensed that the SL line might not be highly profitable for Leica, but as stated, they need to be in the game in order to play . . . I assume that the SL line is profitable for Leica. Therefore, it contributes positively both to revenue and profit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksrhee Posted March 27 Share #51 Posted March 27 2 minutes ago, SrMi said: I assume that the SL line is profitable for Leica. Therefore, it contributes positively both to revenue and profit. I am not saying one or the other, but just raising a possibility. One can never be sure unless you know the internal finances Many companies produce certain products or decide to engage in certain market/product lines even though they are not very profitable. There is even the term loss leader. So, one can never tell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted March 27 Share #52 Posted March 27 3 minutes ago, ksrhee said: I am not saying one or the other, but just raising a possibility. One can never be sure unless you know the internal finances Many companies produce certain products or decide to engage in certain market/product lines even though they are not very profitable. There is even the term loss leader. So, one can never tell. The same is true for Q and M model lines , or do we have more insight into the financials of those lines than the SL line? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 27 Share #53 Posted March 27 The interview makes it clear there is more direct competition in the market for the SL (so lower margins), and yet "This is by far the biggest market in the camera industry, and the fastest growing". They may make less money per camera, but if it's a bigger market than for rangefinders......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 27 Share #54 Posted March 27 3 hours ago, Simone_DF said: But that’s mainly thanks to the Q and M, not the SL Do you have a source? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksrhee Posted March 27 Share #55 Posted March 27 Unfortunately, I believe Leica Camera is a privately owned company. So, unless you are an insider, you won't get the information. However, reading between the lines, I think there are plenty of indications: " An executive at Leica has admitted that selling its L-mount SL series of cameras is more challenging, at least compared to its other offerings, but argues its important to be a part of the conversation nonetheless. Speaking to Amateur Photographer, Leica’s Vice President of Photo and Technology Stefan Daniel explains that the company could have chosen to sit out on making a full-frame mirrorless camera, but decided it was important to take part." 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 27 Share #56 Posted March 27 4 minutes ago, ksrhee said: Unfortunately, I believe Leica Camera is a privately owned company. So, unless you are an insider, you won't get the information. However, reading between the lines, I think there are plenty of indications: " An executive at Leica has admitted that selling its L-mount SL series of cameras is more challenging, at least compared to its other offerings, but argues its important to be a part of the conversation nonetheless. Speaking to Amateur Photographer, Leica’s Vice President of Photo and Technology Stefan Daniel explains that the company could have chosen to sit out on making a full-frame mirrorless camera, but decided it was important to take part." Which is where this thread started ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted March 27 Share #57 Posted March 27 29 minutes ago, ksrhee said: Reading between the lines, I sensed that the SL line might not be highly profitable for Leica, but as stated, they need to be in the game in order to play . . . They have the SL line to offer their longstanding and demanding customers who predominantly shoot with the M system a pro-level mirrorless system, so they don't need to invest into an M lenses incompatible third-party system. Naturally, the SL line won't sell as much as the M or Q line. But it’s an essential product for Leica’s more advanced clientele. And that's precisely me. Any modern hybrid camera could do the job for me because I don't do sports journalism nor am I a birder (love them very much, though). However, the look and feel and the colour reproduction of my camera and lens play an important, motivating role for me. Leica’s products, brand, heritage and history resonate with me better than any other camera brand. And M lenses work well with the SL. My clients and team partners care too. Not in terms of IQ but regarding the anticipated artistic results. Plus, it’s a different thing when lugging around a Leica or a Sony camera on a business dinner, especially when you are not the event-covering hired gun but part of the guests. There are many facets to why one buys a particular camera, but in my case specs are the least-deciding factor. There are many more out there like me (essentially any M user looking for a mirrorless camera) and that's the SL’s customer base. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted March 27 Share #58 Posted March 27 8 hours ago, Tjazz said: 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. So is mine. She's been a full time artist (oils) and a good one for over a decade and has taken up photography since we met. Even been on a few Leica Academei trips. She's got an incredible eye. Vastly different to me and cares not for any of the settings other than the basics of exposure. But since she lives with a gear slut some things rub off. I started her off with an very good and portable Olympus system. She loves thos cameras. But two things happened. She's progressed to the point where she's going to start exhibiting large prints and secondly I showed here a Leica Q2M. The Q2M immediately felt like home to her and after I added a Q3 she's *almost* dropped the Olympus gear. And it's all about the handling. But she needs a ILC system so last night (literally) I laid out 4 near identical systems for her to choose from. They were an SL3, A7R5, Z7II and Canon R5. She's used the R5 but not the others. So basically I contradicted myself and put the SL3 as direct competition against the big 3's current equivalents. Lenses were essentially identical. A 14-24 (35 in Canons case), 24-105 and a 100-400 (500 for the Canon) plus a couple of smaller primes. Her first words were, *well, I'm not really considering the Leica because of the price*..... Gordon p.s. She preferred the Sony by some margin. The SL3 was just too big for her hands to be comfortable although she really tried to like it because it was the best match to her Q's. In comparison, I've done a couple of big trips with the Sony and it's really great but the SL3 was an immediate improvement for me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted March 28 Author Share #59 Posted March 28 9 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: Do you have a source? Yes, the interview linked in post 1, where S. Daniels says that the SL is harder to sell Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 28 Share #60 Posted March 28 18 minutes ago, Simone_DF said: Yes, the interview linked in post 1, where S. Daniels says that the SL is harder to sell Thank you - though I wondered if there was a source on Leica's sales figures that I was missing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.