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

[dsalamena]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 can’t really agree with that. Except for action photography (which I never shoot) the CL camera is still more than adequate. IQ and colours are superb, TL lenses are absolutely great (especially the 11-23, 35 and 55-145) and you have everything you need for a travel camera in a small and light package. IBiS and noise management can be improved. 

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

36 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

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. 

Yes, most consumers value a camera according to its spec, as they do not know better. I would think that Leica owners are different.

I believe that CL sales have thanked because there were no updates. The same thing would happen with SL and M lines if they stop updating the bodies.

Luckily, Sigma continues to launch interesting APS-C lenses.

[geronimosan]

I would not make the move. I do like shooting M lenses on the SL3 because of the EVF, but I also like the SL lenses and AF. To me, the SL3 is the optimal solution that allows for both.

[Simone_DF]

11 hours ago, SrMi said:

I believe that CL sales have thanked because there were no updates.

Yes, of course, but as I said it’s a mix of things. In my opinion, people didn’t buy the CL because they felt that as a camera it was not adequate —> this pushed Leica to disinvest and drop the line —> which in turn triggered even less sales. 
 

What is weird to me, is that Leica didn’t propose a CL2 with improved AF, IBIS etc. that would have revitalized the line, they just killed it after a gen 1 iteration, no second chances. Probably there’s more behind the scenes that just low sales. 

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

they just killed it after a gen 1 iteration

The T (2014) was the first generation, then the TL, TL2, and CL (not sure about the sequence of those last two). They gave the line four chances, or maybe 3 because the T and TL are similar. Concurrently, the SL, Q, and Q2 were massive hits by Leica standards. The M-240 and M10 also sold in record amounts. You might not agree with Leica's decision, but they don't have unlimited resources.

[Simone_DF]

2 minutes ago, BernardC said:

The T (2014) was the first generation, then the TL, TL2, and CL (not sure about the sequence of those last two). They gave the line four chances, or maybe 3 because the T and TL are similar. Concurrently, the SL, Q, and Q2 were massive hits by Leica standards. The M-240 and M10 also sold in record amounts. You might not agree with Leica's decision, but they don't have unlimited resources.

The TL is a completely different beast. The only thing it has in common with the CL is the lens mount. 
The SL sold in record numbers? On which planet? Perhaps you meant “low record numbers”. 
The reason why the SL is still alive is because with the death of the Digilux and the CL, Leica cannot afford to have only the M and the Q in their roster, and the full frame ILCE market is huge and brings prestige to the brand. Thankfully the continuous rebates, discounts, freebies etc ensured a reasonable user base, and the SL3 will expand on that, but to call that a “record” is a far far stretch

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

to original question: No it would replace my SL-S. I own the SL body to use SL lenses with AF, Zoom, IBIS...And for M lenses I prefer a rangefinder body.

[tom0511]

regarding the cl...I think dx sensors are really underrated and its sad Leica stepped out of this compact system with great lenses.

After R, we experience now that Leica signs off a system like the CL, and same seems to be the case for S-lenses service (in some regards)...

sad. 

[Le Chef]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

The T (2014) was the first generation, then the TL, TL2, and CL

Arguably you need to add in the X1, X2 and X-Vario to get a clearer picture of Leica’s plan. They then went T, TL and TL2. All had a mix of hybrid and soft controls and no built-in EVF. The T line was different as it used a milled from solid block of aluminum for the body. At that point Leica launched the CL with a complete set of soft controls and a traditional body/chassis that abandoned the milled from solid approach used by the T line.

What might have been interesting would have been if Leica had simply continued to develop the X-line by updating sensors, processors, adding a built in EVF, and maybe IBIS, rather than going down the path of milled from solid block of aluminum and developing the T line. At that point they might have had a fixed lens APSC camera X3 as a junior Q, an X-Vario 2, and a CL. Since you would build off the same platform and likely use the same sensors, processors, EVF etc. Leica would have had possibly greater volume and greater flexibility for forward product planning.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Le Chef

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

The SL sold in record numbers? On which planet? Perhaps you meant “low record numbers”.

You must have misread. What I wrote was:

Quote

the SL, Q, and Q2 were massive hits by Leica standards. The M-240 and M10 also sold in record amounts.

 

It wouldn't have made sense to say that the SL sold in record amounts. Unlike the M, there was no history/record to compare it to.

The SL was a hit, like it or not. It created a new market category, later copied by all of the big brands. The only full-frame mirrorless at the time was the A7, which occupied a discount niche similar to the Canon 6D. The A7 had poor performance, 8-bit video, soaked-up water like a sponge, had an unusable EVF, was built of the flimsiest materials, and the native lenses were so bad that people would rather use EOS lenses. Leica took a real gamble by launching a true professional-grade mirrorless camera at more than twice the price of the A7. Unlike the TL and CL (and X before them), it paid-off big.

Remember when the SL came-out. Professional photographers were as excited, and curious, about it as any camera since the 5D Mark 2. It was a whole new paradigm. Sure, it didn't sell at Best Buy, but it was the first non-M Leica to be widely adopted in the professional community. Ever. Leica went from having no professional presence, to being quite common among high-end professionals, within a year. Canon, Nikon, and Sony immediately started working on their own professional mirrorless bodies, which were released around the same time as the SL2.

By Leica's standards, that's a hit. Maybe it only achieved 5-figure sales, not 6-figure like the mainstream brands, but that's a great success compared to where the brand was at the time.

[tomasis7]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

You must have misread. What I wrote was:

 

It wouldn't have made sense to say that the SL sold in record amounts. Unlike the M, there was no history/record to compare it to.

The SL was a hit, like it or not. It created a new market category, later copied by all of the big brands. The only full-frame mirrorless at the time was the A7, which occupied a discount niche similar to the Canon 6D. The A7 had poor performance, 8-bit video, soaked-up water like a sponge, had an unusable EVF, was built of the flimsiest materials, and the native lenses were so bad that people would rather use EOS lenses. Leica took a real gamble by launching a true professional-grade mirrorless camera at more than twice the price of the A7. Unlike the TL and CL (and X before them), it paid-off big.

Remember when the SL came-out. Professional photographers were as excited, and curious, about it as any camera since the 5D Mark 2. It was a whole new paradigm. Sure, it didn't sell at Best Buy, but it was the first non-M Leica to be widely adopted in the professional community. Ever. Leica went from having no professional presence, to being quite common among high-end professionals, within a year. Canon, Nikon, and Sony immediately started working on their own professional mirrorless bodies, which were released around the same time as the SL2.

By Leica's standards, that's a hit. Maybe it only achieved 5-figure sales, not 6-figure like the mainstream brands, but that's a great success compared to where the brand was at the time.

100%

What Leica needs to do is to release the best stuff no matter what price. 

If Leica produces mediocre rebadged stuff, it is destined to fail. Because someone else will beat it on price. 

SL and M are not mediocre stuff. The mediocre people buy mediocre stuff and take mediocre photos. None will remember them, lol. 

Edited May 2, 2024 by tomasis7

[jaapv]

There was nothing mediocre about the CL. But it debuted in a crowded market. Leica should have competed on price. But Leica does not do that.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

53 minutes ago, jaapv said:

There was nothing mediocre about the CL. But it debuted in a crowded market. Leica should have competed on price. But Leica does not do that.

Leica should have had a lens road map with something longer than 135mm.. But Leica does not do that.

Gordon

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

You must have misread. What I wrote was:

 

It wouldn't have made sense to say that the SL sold in record amounts. Unlike the M, there was no history/record to compare it to.

The SL was a hit, like it or not. It created a new market category, later copied by all of the big brands. The only full-frame mirrorless at the time was the A7, which occupied a discount niche similar to the Canon 6D. The A7 had poor performance, 8-bit video, soaked-up water like a sponge, had an unusable EVF, was built of the flimsiest materials, and the native lenses were so bad that people would rather use EOS lenses. Leica took a real gamble by launching a true professional-grade mirrorless camera at more than twice the price of the A7. Unlike the TL and CL (and X before them), it paid-off big.

Remember when the SL came-out. Professional photographers were as excited, and curious, about it as any camera since the 5D Mark 2. It was a whole new paradigm. Sure, it didn't sell at Best Buy, but it was the first non-M Leica to be widely adopted in the professional community. Ever. Leica went from having no professional presence, to being quite common among high-end professionals, within a year. Canon, Nikon, and Sony immediately started working on their own professional mirrorless bodies, which were released around the same time as the SL2.

By Leica's standards, that's a hit. Maybe it only achieved 5-figure sales, not 6-figure like the mainstream brands, but that's a great success compared to where the brand was at the time.

The SL also set the standard for EVF quality and performance. Leica has superior VFs across pretty much all lines, whether M, S or SL. Same with simplified menus and controls.  Sales may not lead, but certain characteristics consistently do.  Unfortunately, small and light native lenses are not among those characteristics across lines, which has hurt SL sales IMO, despite performance and with moderated price points compared to M lenses.

Jeff

 

[Le Chef]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

There was nothing mediocre about the CL. But it debuted in a crowded market. Leica should have competed on price. But Leica does not do that.

It could probably have made a credible claim that it accepted more lenses* than any other current camera on the market: a veritable Swiss Army Knife with broad capabilities. 

* with the M-L adaptor.

[gotium]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

There was nothing mediocre about the CL. 

Agree. My favorite system ever, loved that thing. 

[tomasis7]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

There was nothing mediocre about the CL. But it debuted in a crowded market. Leica should have competed on price. But Leica does not do that.

TL lenses are great (im looking for one to Super C video in SL body)

The problem is APS-C. It is how people perceive it as a mediocre thing. Look at Nikon and Canon APS-C. It is in a low-budget category. 

CL with a 35mm sensor would sell like hotcakes even if priced at SL prices. 

[jaapv]

The unique thing about the CL is the quality of the sensor which surpasses most FF sensors of its time and approaches the quality of the SL 601 in Barnack-sized high quality body with a more than decent EVF.

Not getting this across to reviewers, potential buyers and even some loyal Leica customers judging by this thread was a major marketing failure. The TL series was different. It was an attempt to create a stable niche which failed in the the end. Both failures combined dragged down the whole APSC experiment as both branches were interdependent for the R&D. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tomasis7]

People want too many things: IBIS, 35mm, good VF in a small package.

I don't know what's so good about Q3, maybe because it is a fixed-lens camera. If Leica releases 35mm CL, people will complain about paying a lot for CL without good VF. It needs new lightweight lenses as well. 

There are too many product lines at the moment. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

 

There are too many product lines at the moment. 

I would agree with this, but my solution won't be popular. Leica should drop the Digilux and the S system. Concentrate on the M, Q and L mounts. Including a CL2, more Q variants (focal lengths) and a SL camera with a top left mount EVF and no video.

Gordon