Anyone still buying into/investing in the S system at this point?

[Stef63]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/12/2025 at 8:36 AM, BernardC said:

Dozens of official reps have, including the chairman of the board. These are people who are aware of what information they can disclose during interviews. 

Obviously, official confirmation and specifications will have to wait for the official release , as with any new camera from any brand. 

And also obviously official reps - including the chairman - can change their mind along the route, put things on hold, scrap the project entirely … or continue it.  All without telling us. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Pieter12]

3 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

And also obviously official reps - including the chairman - can change their mind along the route, put things on hold, scrap the project entirely … or continue it.  All without telling us. 

Leica's history with the S is disconcerting. Rumors, followed by a long period of silence, then an announcement, followed by a long period of silence before the actual product is delivered. By that time, although it is a stellar camera, its technology has been long surpassed in the market and the price is astronomical. Leica is not beyond killing a product line. And can you still buy a new Sinar camera?

[Stef63]

8 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

By that time, although it is a stellar camera, its technology has been long surpassed in the market and the price is astronomical. 

It is indeed a shame that they didn’t give more attention to such a bold product when the S2 was introduced. That camera — and the whole S line — is still a joy to use, but technologically it has become completely outdated. Back then it was the body, the form factor, and the lenses that were the real game-changers, not necessarily the inner technology. Today, with Hasselblad and others pushing so hard in medium format, it will be very difficult for Leica to compete. And given that Leica has never been truly strong in technological innovation, I honestly wonder what angle they can use now to make a real difference — especially with the historically astronomical S-line pricing leaving very little room to position a new model competitively in the relative small market that medium format today became. 

[David Cantor]

2 hours ago, Stef63 said:

It is indeed a shame that they didn’t give more attention to such a bold product when the S2 was introduced. That camera — and the whole S line — is still a joy to use, but technologically it has become completely outdated. Back then it was the body, the form factor, and the lenses that were the real game-changers, not necessarily the inner technology. Today, with Hasselblad and others pushing so hard in medium format, it will be very difficult for Leica to compete. And given that Leica has never been truly strong in technological innovation, I honestly wonder what angle they can use now to make a real difference — especially with the historically astronomical S-line pricing leaving very little room to position a new model competitively in the relative small market that medium format today became. 

Does it really matter? Yesterday I visited the Lee Miller exhibition at Tate Britain, she died in 1977 and some of her most iconic images were taken pre-WW11.  It’s called photography not owning and using the latest technical innovation.

[helged]

4 hours ago, Stef63 said:

It is indeed a shame that they didn’t give more attention to such a bold product when the S2 was introduced. That camera — and the whole S line — is still a joy to use, but technologically it has become completely outdated. Back then it was the body, the form factor, and the lenses that were the real game-changers, not necessarily the inner technology. Today, with Hasselblad and others pushing so hard in medium format, it will be very difficult for Leica to compete. And given that Leica has never been truly strong in technological innovation, I honestly wonder what angle they can use now to make a real difference — especially with the historically astronomical S-line pricing leaving very little room to position a new model competitively in the relative small market that medium format today became. 

That others offer more advanced/innovative digital full frame and medium format systems today can hardly be used against the introduction of S and SL, both of which were truly innovative at the time of introduction. Just wondering...

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, Stef63 said:

And also obviously official reps - including the chairman - can change their mind along the route, put things on hold, scrap the project entirely … or continue it.  All without telling us. 

There's been enough publicity for several years that they would have had to mention a cancellation in their annual report. Tell me if you see it there.

13 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

And can you still buy a new Sinar camera?

According to their website, you can. Some of their retailers show stock.

1 hour ago, David Cantor said:

And given that Leica has never been truly strong in technological innovation, I honestly wonder what angle they can use now to make a real difference — especially with the historically astronomical S-line pricing leaving very little room to position a new model competitively in the relative small market that medium format today became. 

Leica has released very innovative products, including market-defining products. In a way that's a philosophical difference. Fuji and Sony are notorious for releasing incremental product upgrades every few quarters. It's reminiscent of old Detroit where every autumn brought a different front bumper and interior finishes. Is that really innovation?

I'm not sure that Leica will define the S4 relative to Fuji and Hasselblad. They will make their own niche, as usual. Fuji and Hasselblad's current lineups are the logical step-up for photographers who are frustrated with full-frame high-res options (A7R, etc.): mostly nature shooters, with some studio. The S4 will be pitched much like the S2 and SL were: as a faster, more rugged, and more versatile option for professionals and advanced amateurs.

If you remember when the SL came out, the generalist press was confused about who it was for. Nobody else though there was a market for a professional-level mirrorless camera with a solid build and great lenses. The A7 at the time had tiny batteries, 8-bit video, and a below-par lens lineup (to the point where any pro who used it chose adapted EOS lenses instead). It would soak-up water if you left it anywhere damp. Ten years later every full-frame brand has a horse in this "non-existent" segment.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, BernardC said:

If you remember when the SL came out, the generalist press was confused about who it was for. Nobody else though there was a market for a professional-level mirrorless camera with a solid build and great lenses. The A7 at the time had tiny batteries, 8-bit video, and a below-par lens lineup (to the point where any pro who used it chose adapted EOS lenses instead). It would soak-up water if you left it anywhere damp. Ten years later every full-frame brand has a horse in this "non-existent" segment.

The SL also provided a class leading EVF, the first one that impressed me and that prompted purchase. Leica typically nails the viewing experience, one of my top priorities, and generally underrated.  The gorgeous S system OVF and the iconic M “window to the world” are two other clear examples. Along with simple menus and minimalist controls, these are leading attributes that other brands often miss.

[tom0511]

S and SL (and T) were great innovations. But why did they not develop these products any further? Why let Hasselblad and Fuji pass in small MF? Why is there no SL body which is nearly as fast and reliable focusing like Sony/Canon? Why is Canon announcing a R6III with improved sensor/ AF and new functions and Leica a safari (reporter) edition of a 1 year old model where the progress is a green painting?

I still give Leica many credits for user interface and lenses and fun factor to use.

 

Edited November 14 by tom0511

[Pieter12]

22 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The SL also provided a class leading EVF

If that is state-of -the-art in EVFs, I'm sorely disappointed. I tried one at the Leica store and it was terrible. Nothing comes close to an OVF, especially the really big one of the S cameras.

[Jeff S]

26 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

If that is state-of -the-art in EVFs, I'm sorely disappointed. I tried one at the Leica store and it was terrible. Nothing comes close to an OVF, especially the really big one of the S cameras.

You should have tried the typical EVFs available in 2015 when the SL debuted. 😳

[Pieter12]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

You should have tried the typical EVFs available in 2015 when the SL debuted. 😳

Unfortunately that does not make the current ones any good.

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

Unfortunately that does not make the current ones any good.

I enjoy my SL2 viewing (and focusing), so it’s more than good enough for me.  Others can reach their own conclusions.  I owned the S006 before buying the SL2, and while the OVF was generally beautiful, the focus patch occasionally half blacked out at certain apertures with the slowish 30-90.  My SL2 with 24-90 viewing and focusing experience is a dream by comparison. Not to mention benefits from IBIS + OIS, etc. My M bodies serve other needs and circumstances.  
 

Choices for all. 

[PhotoCruiser]

The only subpar EVF on a Leica i had was the one on the Q i bought first.
I don't have any problems with the EVF on my Q2 nor on my SL2, but thats probably as i am used to see thru EVF's for many years and on many cameras i had.

Zitat

Unfortunately that does not make the current ones any good.

I think thats fine for all if you feel that OVF gives you a better view, but many/most here don't have issues with Leicas EVF

Chris

 

Edited November 15 by PhotoCruiser

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, tom0511 said:

S and SL (and T) were great innovations. But why did they not develop these products any further? Why let Hasselblad and Fuji pass in small MF? Why is there no SL body which is nearly as fast and reliable focusing like Sony/Canon? Why is Canon announcing a R6III with improved sensor/ AF and new functions and Leica a safari (reporter) edition of a 1 year old model where the progress is a green painting?

You are combining the "medium format" market into a single entity. It isn't. The S was in the same market as the Hasselblad H, Pentax 645D, Rollei Hy6, Contax 645, and Mamiya (now PhaseOne) 645. It managed to outlive most of these. PhaseOne probably sells a few hundred SLR bodies a year these days, at a multiple of the S3's price. Rollei's SLR may or may not be in production these days, but if it is they only make a handful.

Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X systems were made to compete with high-resolution 35mm systems. They sell to photographers who aren't satisfied with Sony A7Rs and Nikon D850s (according to my delaer). Leica has a competitor in that space: the SL3, and SL2 before that. The SL3 perpetuates Leica's core historical values in this market: build a faster/tougher camera that can compete with bigger formats because of its exceptional build quality and lenses. 

There are only a few Sony/Canon/Nikon bodies that focus faster than the SL3/SL3-S. They are bigger than Leica's bodies and cost at-least as much. High-end sports shooters use Canon or Nikon. That market has been locked-up for 50+ years, and there is no incentive for Leica to try to compete in it. Other brands have tried and have lost their shirts (or gone bankrupt).

The new R6 is a decent improvement over the previous R6, unlike some Sony models that barely differ from the models they replace, but it's still an R6. That brand has its pros and cons, as Leica does. No one will look down at you for buying into that system, or any other system.