Why did Leica abandon APS-C ?

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why did Leica abandon APS-C? Have they ever given a reason? 

I've read lots of opinions and speculation but and that's fine but really wonder what is/was the real reason?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Nobody knows and nobody can understand the decision - there must be some corporate reason.

[PwoS]

I'm pretty sure they couldn't sell enough units to make it profitabel.

[jaapv]

Sales numbers? Projection at launch?

[Stuart Richardson]

I seem to recall Stefan Daniel indicating that it did not sell well enough to dedicate the resources to it. I got the sense that the Q cameras in particular ate its lunch.

yes...found it:

Here is the article. https://www.macfilos.com/2022/10/18/leicas-stefan-daniel-on-the-retirement-of-the-leica-cl-and-some-hints-for-the-future/

 

[FrozenInTime]

As much as I liked the system, and owned all the lenses bar the 60mm, it was starting to need an overhaul to keep up with Fuji : IBIS, better video codecs, next generation sensors with good PDAF tracking, lenses with faster AF motors - silent or linear, focal-length/speed/IQ gaps filled  etc..... but these aspirational needs did not stop it being a great stills photography package.

Probably also taking a cut of already flagging SL sales numbers.

It seems today there is a huge gap in the market when it comes to small high performance cameras and small lenses.

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

It seems today there is a huge gap in the market when it comes to small high performance cameras and small lenses.

I think Fuji and Nikon would disagree in APSC, as would OM Systems in MFT.

[FrozenInTime]

19 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I think Fuji and Nikon would disagree in APSC, as would OM Systems in MFT.

The Lumix GX80, GX9 and Pen-F are without replacements, the X-E4 and X-Pro3 discontinued ( often selling used for more than new ).

Most current cameras are larger with a SLR hump !

Edited June 19, 2024 by FrozenInTime

[Le Chef]

I think you call that streamlining your product lines. Supply chain issues during COVID stalled momentum for a number of models, and also lengthened product development times. At some point you trim to maintain support for the strongest sellers.

[lct]

Why did Leica abandon APS-C? Leica answered themselves 2 years ago: « not enough buyers for the CL system to warrant continuing development » (link). Free translation: There is no future for crop cameras at Leica prices. Modern cameras can be both full frame and compact nowadays and they can fit TL lenses in crop mode thanks to high res sensors. The Sigma FPL does it already. A 60mp variant of the Panasonic S9 could follow together with a Leica version but it is just a guess on my part.

[Stuart Richardson]

4 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

As much as I liked the system, and owned all the lenses bar the 60mm, it was starting to need an overhaul to keep up with Fuji : IBIS, better video codecs, next generation sensors with good PDAF tracking, lenses with faster AF motors - silent or linear, focal-length/speed/IQ gaps filled  etc..... but these aspirational needs did not stop it being a great stills photography package.

Probably also taking a cut of already flagging SL sales numbers.

It seems today there is a huge gap in the market when it comes to small high performance cameras and small lenses.

Agreed. But the issue was that the small TL lenses were not particularly high performance, and the high performance ones were not particularly small. That was always the barrier for me. I tried the T and 23mm and the 23mm just was not a very good lens. Perhaps I had a bum copy, but it was visibly soft compared to my M lenses, even though it had a decent rendering overall. I think ultimately a CL and most of the lenses might be smaller than the SL lenses, but they were by no means small. If they had more lenses that were like the 23mm and 18mm, I think it could have been a bit more compelling, especially if they could make them better. But in the end for me it was neither here nor there: too big to be compact, lenses that were worse than M, SL and S lenses, too small (in sensor too) to be a true stand in for my full sized gear for my main work. I think the Q, X100 series and Ricohs just all did their niches better than the APS-C Leica's did. Even though I appreciate that it was a less expensive entry point, it seems like that was a mistake. Every time Leica has done that, it seems to have backfired. The low cost summarits were not really embraced and subsequently discontinued. It would have been interesting to see what the CL would have been like if they had treated it as a pro camera: their best EVF and tech, made in Germany in house lenses built to APO Summicron SL or M APO standards...

[Le Chef]

I’m still happy with the TL23, TL11-23, TL18-56, TL 55-135, Sigma 30 f1.4 and Sigma 56 f1.4. And they all live happily with my Q3. They all get their day in the sun, or clouds, regardless. Because they satisfy a purpose.

[dpitt]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Agreed. But the issue was that the small TL lenses were not particularly high performance, and the high performance ones were not particularly small. That was always the barrier for me. I tried the T and 23mm and the 23mm just was not a very good lens. Perhaps I had a bum copy, but it was visibly soft compared to my M lenses, even though it had a decent rendering overall. I think ultimately a CL and most of the lenses might be smaller than the SL lenses, but they were by no means small. If they had more lenses that were like the 23mm and 18mm, I think it could have been a bit more compelling, especially if they could make them better. But in the end for me it was neither here nor there: too big to be compact, lenses that were worse than M, SL and S lenses, too small (in sensor too) to be a true stand in for my full sized gear for my main work. I think the Q, X100 series and Ricohs just all did their niches better than the APS-C Leica's did. Even though I appreciate that it was a less expensive entry point, it seems like that was a mistake. Every time Leica has done that, it seems to have backfired. The low cost summarits were not really embraced and subsequently discontinued. It would have been interesting to see what the CL would have been like if they had treated it as a pro camera: their best EVF and tech, made in Germany in house lenses built to APO Summicron SL or M APO standards...

+1
I think that a big part of the problem was the lenses.
The TL and CL are very compact, but the lenses are not. I have the 35 Summilux TL and it is excellent, but it often stays at home because my Summicron 35 M gives me at least equal performance in a package that is smaller than the 23 mm TL. I know of only one TL lens that is smaller and that is the 18mm kit lens. 

So if it its main selling point is not being the smallest high performance Leica camera, then the Q is a better alternative. The Q range does not require an entire range of TL lenses to maintain and develop. So the R&D effort is much smaller and apparently it even sells better. That, and maybe the lack of third party L mount APS-C lenses and camera's must have weighed on this decision.

My hope is that Leica will release a Q sized L mount FF system camera soon to fill the gap in the ultra compact gear...

Edited June 20, 2024 by dpitt

[FrozenInTime]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Agreed. But the issue was that the small TL lenses were not particularly high performance, and the high performance ones were not particularly small. That was always the barrier for me. I tried the T and 23mm and the 23mm just was not a very good lens. Perhaps I had a bum copy, but it was visibly soft compared to my M lenses, even though it had a decent rendering overall. I think ultimately a CL and most of the lenses might be smaller than the SL lenses, but they were by no means small. If they had more lenses that were like the 23mm and 18mm, I think it could have been a bit more compelling, especially if they could make them better. But in the end for me it was neither here nor there: too big to be compact, lenses that were worse than M, SL and S lenses, too small (in sensor too) to be a true stand in for my full sized gear for my main work. I think the Q, X100 series and Ricohs just all did their niches better than the APS-C Leica's did. Even though I appreciate that it was a less expensive entry point, it seems like that was a mistake. Every time Leica has done that, it seems to have backfired. The low cost summarits were not really embraced and subsequently discontinued. It would have been interesting to see what the CL would have been like if they had treated it as a pro camera: their best EVF and tech, made in Germany in house lenses built to APO Summicron SL or M APO standards...

The 23 should have been better. My first copy had shockingly bad chromatic aberration; bought used so easily an instant return. A year later I tried again with a new copy, which was far better, but did not reach M lens performance.

The stars in the line up were the 35 and slow aperture but good 18-56. CAF with the 35 was terrible and just as bad on a SL2-S.

Today I keep just a TL2, 18mm and the TTA 25/2; but don't use them much.

Before the TL2 and CL I was using a m43 GX85 with 15 and 25mm DG Summilux lenses; I enjoyed that experience.

Only the M system has stood the test of time.

[LocalHero1953]

The two outstanding TL lenses IME were the 35 and the 60. I found the 18 performance disappointing, and the 23 unconvincing. As it happens, I was never concerned by the size or weight of any of them. Even the TL2 and 18mm combination was a bit chunky for my pockets, so pocketability was never a requirement for me.

I sold my CL system simply to downsize the quantity of my kit (to a Q2 and SL system); in other circumstances I would have been more than happy to continue with the CL, 35 and 60 (even happier with a 23 to the standard of the 35), but the Q2 does that job now.

Edited June 20, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Stuart Richardson]

I have probably been a bit of a broken record about this, but I can't really figure out why Ricoh has been able to manage two spectacularly sharp, tiny APS-C lenses in 28mm and 40mm equivalent, and Leica had none. They made very good super compact 40mm lenses in the original CL and even autofocus in the Minilux and CM bodies, and even in the X series cameras, but all they have offered for TL lenses was either quite large or mediocre (again, speaking from personal experience, I have heard mixed things about them, but no one seems to be over the moon about the 18mm or 23mm). If it were not for Ricoh I might be convinced that it was not possible or practical with modern resolution requirements, but again, Ricoh has done it with stabilization as well in a much much smaller body and at a much lower price. I would prefer to have a CL with its ergonomics and EVF over the Ricoh, but as a compact camera to slip in your pocket or bag and just have when needed, it does that job way better for me. I wish instead of the D-Lux series they did something like that.

[TL3]

I feel Leica was a bit too ahead for the time.  The TL was quite ambitious for its time, and I think if it were releasing a few years later it would've done much better.  When it was released in 2014, full frame was all the rage for "serious" photography, but now there's a strong, renewed interest again in APS-C.  Given that they still have their existing lens designs, I would hope they'd release an APS-C camera again to test the market, now that times have changed.

Definitely the 23 is not on the level of the 35 or 60, but the size and focal length is so useful that it has quickly become my go-to, most used lens (even though I just bought it last year, whereas I had the other lenses for a lot longer).

[elambo]

On 6/19/2024 at 2:12 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I seem to recall Stefan Daniel indicating that it did not sell well enough to dedicate the resources to it.

 

I would guess that it boils down to that. Very simple business equation. Despite the many ways we may look at it, it's that simple for anyone counting beans.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[andybarton]

14 minutes ago, elambo said:

it's that simple for anyone counting beans.

Leica aren't a charity. They have to make money on every product they sell and if they weren't making any on the APS-C cameras... well, the answer is obvious.

[TL3]

And they keep posting record revenues every year now, so obviously they're doing something right.  Still wish they could make their profits on APS-C too.  At least with the SL3, one can continue to use the TL lenses and have high megapixel images in crop mode, so I'm feeling better about my TL lens investment.