If an M camera with an EVF was released, would it replace your SL?

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Dr. G said:

Counter question...  If you were Leica and could make a smaller body that still took L lenses but was full frame in a smaller format to appeal to those who don't want a SL style body, would you do it?  I still contend that a Q-style, L mount body could have both a shared and a different market.   

Sony made the a7c and it seems to be doing fairly well.

Yes!

I'd add another suggestion. They use crappy detachable EVF from M Visoflex. So those small 35mm bodies won't steal customers from M and SL. Also always lower mpx than SL and M. 24mp will last a while! 

I love Barnack, Rollei 35 etc. No coupled focusing, very simple VF. I learnt to use zone focusing that way. I would attach optical VF on the body. 

Edited May 1, 2024 by tomasis7

[Simone_DF]

If you attach the Visoflex to the M11, you can’t use a flash (or a thumb support, but that’s a minor thing)

[BernardC]

7 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Let’s not forget Leica stopped marketing APSC because they didn’t know what they were doing in the first place. It’s cause and effect caused by incompetence.

To be clear, are you calling customers incompetent? They overwhelmingly chose the Q2 over the CL. If I recall, Leica was pushing the CL and TL2 quite hard at the time, even giving away a free lens (18mm) with every body sold, but customers spent their money on the Q2 instead, and on the SL lineup.

Clearly, the incompetent thing to do would be to ignore what customers were telling them.

[Markey]

14 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Yep, they love to whinge there. And here. Simply put it's a mix of untapped potential and unrealistic expectations. Half these muppets though they were going to get a Leica version of the A7R5. Was never going to happen. Having said that the firmware is definitely still *beta* in feel. There are improvements to be made. And when they are that lot will just whine endlessly about something else.

If you don't like it you shouldn't have bought it or done some research before you did.

Gordon

Yes .... I think that probably sums the situation up very well.

 

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

To be clear, are you calling customers incompetent?

No. I’m calling Leica incompetent for poor product development of the APSC line and extremely poor marketing.
When you give away anything at discount or for free then it’s clear you’re in a weakening position in the market. You’re essentially giving away margin to maintain volume, and that has a knock on effect when you look for money to develop the current or next product.

Edited May 1, 2024 by Le Chef

[jaapv]

They made a commercial decision on basis of data not available to you nor us. A bit off the mark to call it incompetent just because you don’t like it- and it violates Forum rules as well. 

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Customers have shown a clear preference for full frame over APS-C, especially at the premium end of the market. I'm sure Leica saw that in their sales numbers, and in feedback from dealers. Customers who want a small camera are willing to spend twice as much on a Q.

I don't blame them, the Q is a great camera.

[kaspart]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb 2M6TTLs:

They are probably working on a full frame CL type camera right now, we just don't know about it. They will want to make it fully effective with SL system lenses. but Ideally, it would also come with a new set of lenses about the same size as Sigma's contemporary line. In this case, they need quite a bit of time for development to get it right. I wouldn't mind seeing an affordable fixed lens but  more compact version of the Q too. A 35mm Summarit 2.4 lens with enough MP for cropping would also work nicely and would be popular with SL system owners who want something lighter to carry along.

Last Saturday at the Leica Summit in Berne Stefan Daniel showed a teaser slide with a silhouette of a new camera that will be announced in the coming weeks. The shape looked more M than Q to me but the picture didn‘t reveal too much……

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Customers have shown a clear preference for full frame over APS-C, especially at the premium end of the market. I'm sure Leica saw that in their sales numbers, and in feedback from dealers. Customers who want a small camera are willing to spend twice as much on a Q.

I don't blame them, the Q is a great camera.

In wildlife photography there is a group of professionals that use MFT, for size and weight reasons, which can be decisive for getting the shot in the field. I did so as well for awhile, even as serious amateur, but now that my worn-out knees forbid extensive hiking I am back to full frame through the intermediate step of APS-C.

[Le Chef]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

They made a commercial decision on basis of data not available to you nor us. A bit off the mark to call it incompetent just because you don’t like it- and it violates Forum rules as well. 

Then to avoid breaking the rules and offending anyone, let's use the report card vernacular and simply say "could have done better"

[jaapv]

42 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Then to avoid breaking the rules and offending anyone, let's use the report card vernacular and simply say "could have done better"

Let's avoid breaking the rules in the first place.

[Simone_DF]

5 hours ago, BernardC said:

Customers have shown a clear preference for full frame over APS-C, especially at the premium end of the market. I'm sure Leica saw that in their sales numbers, and in feedback from dealers. Customers who want a small camera are willing to spend twice as much on a Q.

I don't blame them, the Q is a great camera.

I think it’s also a mix of various things. I was looking at the CL when it came out, but it was overpriced, with a primitive AF that seemed to be straight from 1999, no ibis, mediocre noise sensitivity. Anything from Fuji or the Sony A6000 line was MILES away in terms of quality for a more reasonable price. No surprise it didn’t sell. At least the Q and the M are unique in their own way, and have no competitors in their respective market.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

If you attach the Visoflex to the M11, you can’t use a flash (or a thumb support, but that’s a minor thing)

Flash yes but you can use a Thumbie without filling the shoe.

Gordon

[Dr. G]

39 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I think it’s also a mix of various things. I was looking at the CL when it came out, but it was overpriced, with a primitive AF that seemed to be straight from 1999, no ibis, mediocre noise sensitivity. Anything from Fuji or the Sony A6000 line was MILES away in terms of quality for a more reasonable price. No surprise it didn’t sell. At least the Q and the M are unique in their own way, and have no competitors in their respective market.

Slightly off topic, but interesting - Panasonic is apparently going to be announcing a full frame fixed lens camera within the next few weeks.  Rumor is it will be 24 Mp, and no word on the focal length yet - but it makes me wonder if this is an indication that the camera @kaspart referenced might be related.  

Edited May 1, 2024 by Dr. G

[FlashGordonPhotography]

33 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I think it’s also a mix of various things. I was looking at the CL when it came out, but it was overpriced, with a primitive AF that seemed to be straight from 1999, no ibis, mediocre noise sensitivity. Anything from Fuji or the Sony A6000 line was MILES away in terms of quality for a more reasonable price. No surprise it didn’t sell. At least the Q and the M are unique in their own way, and have no competitors in their respective market.

Oh no. Can't agree on this. IBIS absolutely. But the TL2 and CL absolutely smoked every other APSC system in IQ when it was released, Even now no one makes lenses like the TL lenses from Leica. The 35mm is simply the. best APSC lens ever made, The CL evf was bright and clear. AFS is accurate. The sensor is excellent and still competitive against any 24MP apsc sensor made. It's the main reason my Fujingear sits mostly unused. I can't help but compare it to my CL and TL2.

People who use one know. Look how upset they are. 

What happened is Leica made a camera with no IS and *slow* lenses. They forgot to tell anyone that those slow zooms were spectacular, optically. People thought they were paying 2K for a kit zoom like a Fuji when they were getting optics close to the 24-90 SL.And Leica were worried that the M10 sales would suffer because the CL got close enough in IQ that customers would choose it over the M. And I think it goyt innthe way of their luxury branding.

Now would be a great time for a TL3. EVF, IBIS and no video. Even in APSC they'd be backordered for a year.

Gordon

[Simone_DF]

15 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

AFS is accurate.

Sure, it is if you’re shooting static subjects like a landscape. For anything that moves faster than a snail, it’s a no go. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

I think it’s also a mix of various things. I was looking at the CL when it came out, but it was overpriced, with a primitive AF that seemed to be straight from 1999, no ibis, mediocre noise sensitivity. Anything from Fuji or the Sony A6000 line was MILES away in terms of quality for a more reasonable price. No surprise it didn’t sell. At least the Q and the M are unique in their own way, and have no competitors in their respective market.

I have the latest Fuji and Sony APS-C, and while they are technologically way ahead, the CL is a much more enjoyable photography tool.

[Simone_DF]

Just now, SrMi said:

I have the latest Fuji and Sony APS-C, and while they are technologically way ahead, the CL is a much more enjoyable photography tool.

Yeah, as a SL user, I do understand what you mean, but the vast majority of people don’t care about a camera being enjoyable, they look for something more tangible. That’s what doomed the CL. Perhaps a CL2 with body fixes like IBIS, faster AF etc would have been a hit, but Leica has killed the line before giving it a second chance, which is kind of weird to me, but it is what it is. 

[Simone_DF]

29 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

People who use one know. Look how upset they are. 

 

You can add me to the list. While I skipped the CL, I was looking forward getting a CL2 with the expected goodies

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Sure, it is if you’re shooting static subjects like a landscape. For anything that moves faster than a snail, it’s a no go. 

True. But not every camera needs to be able to shoot BiF. I don't subscribe to that at all. Not every camera needs to be a do it all. And most people simply don't need it. They need to get better and stop blaming the gear. I used the CL as a B cam shooting weddings. Hit rate was nearly 100%. Shot it alongside my SL's M(240) and M10's. 

The TL2 and CL were IQ monsters. If you wanted speed you had options elsewhere with some loss of IQ. A 3.5 to 5.6 standard zoom kind of gives that away. 

Damn. Sounds like I'm on an SL3 thread.

Gordon